Looks like Democrats can use reconciliation at least two more times.
Got to be BS, for public perception, now that migration numbers actually spiked by quite a bit. No?
(From the WP article linked.)
same articleMr. Trump left office with about 460 miles of border wall completed, funded by a mixture of money Congress specifically approved and money Mr. Trump siphoned from Pentagon accounts after declaring a national emergency.
Most of that construction came where a barrier already existed, replacing outdated designs or vehicle barriers that did nothing to stop people on foot.
The new wall is more than just the steel slats. Officials describe it as a system, one that includes technology to allow agents to detect incursions and high-speed roads to allow them to reach trouble spots faster so that agents can interdict anyone who does make it over.
Cant explain to public, that its still a bat sh*t crazy idea, once a president told them its not. (The 'entire border walled' thingy. (Which 'filling gaps' applies is still a goal. Its not.))But with Mr. Trump out of office, the public is swinging back toward the wall, with a recent poll conducted for the Senate Opportunity Fund showing 53% now favor construction.
(In a region, where the road (to react faster) got finished, but the wall didnt. Those are the parts, that are probably getting plugged still...“We just built roads for the cartels,” Sheriff Mark Dannels said.
Funds already allocated for this year. Meaning money available to spend.Mr. Biden, when he announced his wall pause, gave Homeland Security the task of figuring out how to proceed, within legal limits.
Those legal questions may force Mr. Mayorkas to build more wall. The Washington Times reported in January that experts on congressional and presidential powers said Mr. Biden’s halt likely violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act.
Under that law, when Congress flexes its power of the purse to allocate money for a purpose, the administration must carry it out. The only exceptions are when there are questions of efficiency, or when the president officially submits a revocation request. Policy disagreements are not sufficient reason.
Congress over the last four years has allocated $1.375 billion each year for the wall, including in this current fiscal year.
Its still somewhat likely that public opinion shifted under the current news.I looked up the "The Senate Opportunity Fund" out of curiosity. Apparently it is a nonprofit from Wyoming.
Biden voters explaining how him continuing the build the wall and caging children is actually good when he does it pic.twitter.com/cte1e6j9JB
— 🦑🏳️🌈Smugly🏳️🌈🦑 (@smugry) April 7, 2021
.@PressSec on border wall construction: "There is some limited construction that has been funded and allocated for." pic.twitter.com/grUlcrPD3q
— The Hill (@thehill) April 6, 2021
Not according to the DHS. According to Homeland Security's own report, the wall allowed for reduced manpower at the border and its effectiveness measures between 70% and 87% depending on sector as far as illegal entries are concerned. The difference between policing a gap and policing the entire border is the scope - walled off sections only need surveilance (drones, CCTV) and the occasional patrol, an open and unsecured section needs boots and tires on the ground. All the nonsense about "cutting giant truck-sized holes" in thick steel slats or digging holes under the structure is complete poppycock - the area is monitored for any seismic activity and smuggling tunnels are found and intercepted routinely. As for the cutting, I've only ever heard of or seen small openings that a single person can fit through at a time because such a procedure needs to be quick and dirty. Border Patrol is rather quick to show up in the event of any disturbance, and wherever the full system is working, the wall's structural integrity is monitored. They have a very limited amount of time to take advantage of the breached barrier, and it takes a significant amount of time to breach it in the first place. It's 6mm thick steel slats - if you think you can cut it quick, grab a battery-operated angle grinder and give it a spin yourself, might take you a hot minute, and a few discs. No doubt the effectiveness will increase further as the construction is completed and the remaining infrastructure goes online.So now we're back to pretending Democrats are and always have been against any form of border security? Their counter-proposal to Trump's 7th century wall* was using 21st century technology to monitor the border instead. Which makes sense, because people are going to climb over regardless of whether it's a two-foot fence or a fifteen-foot wall*. Like Foxi said though, the money is already allocated, aka wasted, and there's no way to get it back.
* Anything with giant gaps in it isn't really a wall, now is it? It's just a taller fence, and it's not slowing immigration down in the least.
Sounds like someone is fudging the numbers, because only 47 miles of new fence has been built since Trump's election. There's no way it's making that much difference on a 2000 mile-long border. It's also very easy to find video of immigrants going over, under, or straight through the new fencing. Whether border patrol shows up after the fact or not is irrelevant.Not according to the DHS. According to Homeland Security's own report, the wall allowed for reduced manpower at the border and its effectiveness measures between 70% and 87% depending on sector as far as illegal entries are concerned. The difference between policing a gap and policing the entire border is the scope - walled off sections only need surveilance (drones, CCTV) and the occasional patrol, an open and unsecured section needs boots and tires on the ground. All the nonsense about "cutting giant truck-sized holes" in thick steel slats or digging holes under the structure is complete poppycock - the area is monitored for any seismic activity and smuggling tunnels are found and intercepted routinely.
Partially. Criminalizing the process of seeking asylum, telling immigrants to wait just on the other side of the border in Mexico, and cutting off all humanitarian aid to the continent of South America while many of its countries were in crisis certainly didn't help the situation.For the record, the recent influx at the border is *clearly* attributed to the change of both the policies and the language surrounding the illegal immigration debate.
Well it's a good thing he plans to implement a path to citizenship then, because that's the only way we're gonna solve this problem long-term. Aside from handing down meaningful punishments (jail time) to corporations and business owners when they're caught employing undocumented immigrants, anyway, but neither party seems to have an appetite for that.Now the "cages" are overflowing with unaccompanied human-burritos and Biden's administration bears sole responsibility for it. It's his crisis, whether he wants to admit it or not (are we still denying that there is a crisis at the border? I'm not sure).
I'm absolutely going to count sections where the wall replaced dilapidated fencing and waist-high (often wooden) barriers because those are ineffective. Within those parameters, 452 miles of wall (there or thereabouts) have been built up until the end of his presidency with around a hundred currently under construction and then some in pre-construction phase. Presumably the sections still under construction will be completed since they were funded. I'm sure that you can find such videos, however statistics have a slightly larger scope than a handful of Liveleak videos you may have come across - we'll put those in the +/- 20% that are determined enough to slip through, no matter how they're deterred. At present, the result of Biden's "humane" policies are a humanitarian crisis, complete with smugglers tossing (sic!) children over the border wall because they know that even if they're apprehended or injured, they will be taken care of by the state. That's a 14-foot drop, dare I say mildly dangerous. Orange man was bad, but at the very least he didn't *incentivise* illegal migration by effectively giving them a promise of citizenship as long as they were willing to break immigration law first. I think it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to offer an easy path to citizenship for legal migrants and I'm all for lowering the barrier of entry, but at the same time, if Biden and his administration are not willing to enforce immigration law (the enforcement of law being part of his responsibilities as chief executive) then you have no border at all and the whole debate is moot.Sounds like someone is fudging the numbers, because only 47 miles of new fence has been built since Trump's election. There's no way it's making that much difference on a 2000 mile-long border. It's also very easy to find video of immigrants going over, under, or straight through the new fencing. Whether border patrol shows up after the fact or not is irrelevant.
Partially. Criminalizing the process of seeking asylum, telling immigrants to wait just on the other side of the border in Mexico, and cutting off all humanitarian aid to the continent of South America while many of its countries were in crisis certainly didn't help the situation.
Well it's a good thing he plans to implement a path to citizenship then, because that's the only way we're gonna solve this problem long-term. Aside from handing down meaningful punishments (jail time) to corporations and business owners when they're caught employing undocumented immigrants, anyway, but neither party seems to have an appetite for that.
Once they've been paid, the vast majority of smugglers and coyotes don't give a damn about the well-being of others, children or otherwise.At present, the result of Biden's "humane" policies are a humanitarian crisis, complete with smugglers tossing (sic!) children over the border wall because they know that even if they're apprehended or injured, they will be taken care of by the state. That's a 14-foot drop, dare I say mildly dangerous.
He did incentivize illegal migration, by making it the only option. Why would anybody bother going through the process of seeking asylum if they're just going to be treated like the people who were caught trying to cross illegally anyway?Orange man was bad, but at the very least he didn't *incentivise* illegal migration by effectively giving them a promise of citizenship as long as they were willing to break immigration law first.
I don't disagree that the previous fencing was useless, but I do contend that the new fencing is equally as useless AND more expensive. Even in the worst shape I've ever been in, I guarantee you I could scale it and get back down without issue. It's money that should've been spent on infrastructure, pandemic relief, or a million other things that might've actually have a positive impact for the average American.The second one is particularly valuable since it shows exactly what problem was being addressed and how, a contrast between the old and the new. I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure I can lift my leg that high - the old barrier was useless
When the wall construction started there was no pandemic, so it's disingenuous to suggest that this spending was frivolous and in a time of desperate need. I'm glad that we agree that the border was in a sorry state before Trump took to modernising it, as both of his predecessors did. I'll have to disagree in regards of effectiveness since I trust numbers more than I trust your anecdotes - you cannot drive a vehicle through that thing unless you intend to ram into it and topple a section over (which has happened at least once and led to some 13 casualties, so clearly it's not a very bright idea). The numbers show that the measure worked, I see no evidence of "fudging" since similar results were observed in other countries where border walls were erected. Of course *no* barrier is completely impenetrable, some portion of illegal migrants will always manage to find a way to cross the border, however the wall is definitely a large obstacle that makes it significantly more difficult, particularly for larger groups. It's also worth noting that the style of wall that was erected was a direct result of negotiations with the opposition party. It wasn't originally intended to be steel slats at all, however this solution seemed to tick all the boxes and it fit the requirements of border agents themselves.Once they've been paid, the vast majority of smugglers and coyotes don't give a damn about the well-being of others, children or otherwise.
He did incentivize illegal migration, by making it the only option. Why would anybody bother going through the process of seeking asylum if they're just going to be treated like the people who were caught trying to cross illegally anyway?
I don't disagree that the previous fencing was useless, but I do contend that the new fencing is equally as useless AND more expensive. Even in the worst shape I've ever been in, I guarantee you I could scale it and get back down without issue. It's money that should've been spent on infrastructure, pandemic relief, or a million other things that might've actually have a positive impact for the average American.
I wasn't suggesting that, but there will always be unexpected events (natural disasters, pandemics, infrastructure emergencies, etc) for governments to contend with. Putting that money away for a rainy day obviously would've been a better use for it, hindsight or not.When the wall construction started there was no pandemic, so it's disingenuous to suggest that this spending was frivolous and in a time of desperate need.
Indeed we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Border patrol obviously doesn't report on the number of immigrants that manage to make it over the fence and then evade authorities, because they don't know. I'd wager a guess that the ten extra minutes it takes to scale the taller fence results in a 15% higher capture rate at most.I'll have to disagree in regards of effectiveness
The number is derived from the apprehension rate, not the evasion rate. If Border Patrol apperhends X people in one period of time and Y in another then they've recorded a Z% increase/decrease. They're not basing their numbers on guesses, they're basing their numbers by comparing them to, for instance, the same time last year. Your wager is based on pure speculation, but you cop to that, so I have no reason to give you a hard time over it. I understand this is a contentious issue - it was a contentious issue for the last couple of years, so I get where you're coming from. With that being said, relaxing border policy perhaps wasn't the best of ideas in the middle of a global pandemic when public resources are already stretched thin enough. Can't be helped now, I suppose - here's for hoping the problem gets resolved soon.I wasn't suggesting that, but there will always be unexpected events (natural disasters, pandemics, infrastructure emergencies, etc) for governments to contend with. Putting that money away for a rainy day obviously would've been a better use for it, hindsight or not.
Indeed we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Border patrol obviously doesn't report on the number of immigrants that manage to make it over the fence and then evade authorities, because they don't know. I'd wager a guess that the ten extra minutes it takes to scale the taller fence results in a 15% higher capture rate at most.
Well that certainly brings the accuracy of their statistics into question then, as they have no idea whether fewer people are attempting to cross during a given day/month, or more managed to evade them during that same period. It's not a blind guess, but there is guesswork involved.The number is derived from apprehension rate, not the evasion rate. If Border Patrol apperhends X people in one period of time and Y in another then they've recorded a Z% decrease. They're not basing their numbers on guesses, they're basing their numbers by comparing them to, for instance, the same time in a previous calendar year.
Cruelty as a blanket immigration policy simply wasn't sustainable. And for his part, Biden did tell immigrants to hold off for a while, but what we're seeing is an influx of mostly children who wouldn't have survived on their own in Mexico or central America. I do expect a resolution, but given the scale of the problem, not for a few years at least.With that being said, relaxing border policy perhaps wasn't the best of ideas in the middle of a global pandemic when public resources are already stretched thin enough. Can't be helped now, I suppose - here's for hoping the problem gets resolved soon.
The numbers are as accurate as can be, which is to say "pretty damn accurate" considering the area is monitored 24/7 and patrolled every day. You're getting better results with reduced manpower required, not much to complain about. You're comparing like to like, the methodology hasn't changed, so whatever result you see is an accurate representation of percentage change.Well that certainly brings the accuracy of their statistics into question then, as they have no idea whether fewer people are attempting to cross during a given day/month, or more managed to evade them during that same period. It's not a blind guess, but there is guesswork involved.
Cruelty as a blanket immigration policy simply wasn't sustainable. And for his part, Biden did tell immigrants to hold off for a while, but what we're seeing is an influx of mostly children who wouldn't have survived on their own in Mexico or central America. I do expect a resolution, but given the scale of the problem, not for a few years at least.
IIRC Democrats were pushing to fund drone monitoring precisely because the entire 2000-mile border isn't being monitored, and certainly not all at once. Monitoring via aircraft is a big waste of fuel and can only capture so much square mileage at a time.The numbers are as accurate as can be, which is to say "pretty damn accurate" considering the area is monitored 24/7 and patrolled every day.
So now we're pretending everything is hunky-dory down in Central and South America? That's a bit too cynical even for you. A lot of their parents are dead due to cartel/gang activity, and some of them were knowingly sent to their deaths via deportation from the Trump administration. Not all of the children have family in America either, and finding new homes for them is going to take a long time.I find it interesting that you actually believe this level of migration is caused by "asylum seekers" and not seekers of economic opportunity who are sneaking their children in to use as anchors in anticipation of some kind of "family reunification", which is plausible once the whole "pathway to citizenship" malarkey (ha!) rolls out. You might have more faith in humanity than I do - all I see is a new spin on the old cuckoo scam.