rgio wrote: 
A)  The Democratic Party invitees were just supposed to stay in the border states and keep them there and make the border states pay for everyone ?  Without any support from the  federal government. Is that what you are saying ?  What is the point of being a Sanctuary City if they don't take these people that they invited in, in ?  Y'all want it both ways, until it's NIMBY.  Posers.

B)  The Senate Border Bill.  Yeah, no one has seen it yet.  Is that correct ?  Another 1200 page bill that no one gets to read, prepared by Schumer 4 months ago (according to what I have heard).  Then where is this 5,000 daily limit on illegal entry into the US coming from ?  That is the major hang up, for me and a whole bunch of others.  If this instance and number is true, then there is no way in hell any daily permissible illegal entry quota should be put into law.  That is 1.8 million illegal entries per year, if the math is correct. 

So now we have codified legal entry quotas and illegal entry quotas ?  That's what you want ?  And I am wrong for thinking that this makes no sense ?  Please enlighten me.

Oh, and Biden can have the border back in control without Congress doing anything.  All that Biden would have to do is reverse his reversal of Trump's policies that was the first thing he did upon taking office.  They were working.  We did not have a full scale invasion going on.  We do now.  If 8,000,000 people is not enough to call an invasion, how many are ?

So it seems as if the right wing of the GOP has been killing immigration reform and improved border security for MANY years now...

History of Failure on Border Policy Hangs Over Current Push in Congress

Republicans have scuttled efforts to rewrite immigration laws repeatedly over the past two decades, despite powerful bipartisan coalitions behind the efforts.

A bipartisan group of senators holds weeks of closed-door talks to assemble a border and immigration package in response to mounting demands to fix the migrant crisis. The president gets on board despite blowback from the left. The Republican-controlled House is another matter, with hard-right conservatives flexing their muscle and demanding harsh restrictions.

That was the situation in 2014 when a major congressional push to enact far-reaching changes to immigration law appeared tantalizingly close to bearing fruit — only to come to nothing.

...

As they look back, those involved in past negotiations say it is frustrating that they have come so close so many times to enacting major legislation only to see it fly off the rails — not once, but twice in the past two decades. Had the proposals become law, they say, the border would be secure today, and the nation could have moved past the constantly raging immigration fight.

“If we’d have done any of those bills, we wouldn’t have these problems today,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a charter member of numerous “gangs” of lawmakers that have repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to strike border deals, notably in 2007 and 2014.

...

When George W. Bush was re-elected president in 2004 with significant Hispanic support, he saw an opening for an immigration overhaul and a signature second-term achievement. He began pressing for action in 2006 in an Oval Office address.

A bipartisan group of senators led by Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Jon Kyl of Arizona went to work and came up with what they termed a “grand bargain” that traded new border restrictions for a path to citizenship for millions. But conservative Republicans attacked the legislation, making the now familiar arguments that it would reward those who had come to the United States illegally and did not do enough to fortify the border. Months of work fell to a bipartisan Senate filibuster in June 2007.

The next big push came in 2013 and 2014. The re-election of Barack Obama in 2012 had exposed declining Republican appeal to Hispanic voters and persuaded party leaders that they must embrace an immigration overhaul to halt that slide.

While talks quietly got underway in the House, a bipartisan “Gang of Eight” emerged in the Senate. On the Republican side, it included John McCain of Arizona; Marco Rubio of Florida, a rising star with Hispanic and conservative credibility; and Mr. Graham. Democratic participants included Senators Chuck Schumer of What emerged from months of deliberations was the 1,200-page Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. It tied a 13-year pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people to tough benchmarks on border security. It established a new employee verification program to protect jobs from undocumented workers and created new visa programs for workers under an agreement between business and labor.New York, Mr. Durbin and Michael Bennet of Colorado.

What emerged from months of deliberations was the 1,200-page Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. It tied a 13-year pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people to tough benchmarks on border security. It established a new employee verification program to protect jobs from undocumented workers and created new visa programs for workers under an agreement between business and labor.

In contrast to 2007, the bill cleared the Senate with surprising strength, attracting 68 votes, including 14 Republicans and all Democrats. Mr. Schumer said at the time that the level of support would force the House to take up the issue, a dynamic similar to today, when senators hope a solid Senate vote will propel any plan over House Republican resistance.

But a decade ago, as now, the situation in the House was complex. Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, a traditional Republican with powerful ties to the business world, was willing to consider an immigration overhaul. But he was confronting the rising influence in his ranks of far-right Republicans, who made railing against illegal immigration a signature issue, so he moved carefully. A series of smaller bills emerged from the House that excluded a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Hoping to rally House Republicans, Mr. Boehner used a party retreat in January 2014 to unveil a set of immigration “principles” that were heavy on border security. They also omitted a path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants, but instead proposed allowing them to remain in the United States and work if they met certain tests, including paying taxes and admitting they broke the law. But within days, Mr. Boehner was backtracking under pressure from the right, and the effort stalled.

In June, Representative Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican and the majority leader, was defeated in a stunning primary upset by a challenger who had attacked him as a backer of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“That night, I knew it was over,” said Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican and veteran of multiple immigration negotiations who was a leading proponent of the plan. “The folks who had supported what we had done immediately started saying, ‘Look, this is a problem.’ That’s what killed it.”

 kurtster wrote:
2 issues: Dealing with those already here and stopping the flow.

Regarding your virtuous cry for help for high schoolers and disadvantaged kids (you know, the ones you wouldn't fund any other day of the year)...No, rec centers and schools shouldn't be closed to support immigrants, but using them temporarily instead of having people freezing on the street seems like a reasonable decision.  BTW...these folks didn't walk to the cold weather...the Republicans shipped them there, and now complain that the Dems are making necessary decisions. 

What would you do with those in NY?  Is it your advice to keep the school open and let them sleep outside?  Blaming immigration policy is pointless...they're here and need to be dealt with.  Are you deporting them?  What's the plan... or did you stop at just complaining?

On the border issue you refuse to acknowledge... do you or don't you support closing the southern border?  You don't support the bi-partisan agreement that Trump killed?  If not, why?  Enlighten us as to the errors of the gentleman from Oklahoma's argument.

 kurtster wrote:
Gosh, pookie, it sure does seem like you don't have a lot to complain about now. You can cry about what Joe said during the '20 campaign, but he's willing to give Republicans what they want at the border NOW. 

From the video clip interview, it sounds as if the proposed reform would give Republicans all that they were calling for. Why, it's almost Trump was in the White House on this issue! 

So Joe gave the Republicans pretty much what they wanted. Only they're balking now because Drumpf doesn't want to give Biden a "win." So it sure does seem as if Trump cares more about his election chances than securing the border. And Congressional Republicans are caving to Drumpf. 

Maybe border security and immigration reform aren't such a big deal to your Republican leaders, Kurt. 

 rgio wrote: 
Nice dodge. 

This is about what it means about democrats and their Sanctuary status for cities and states and the people already here.  All 8,000,000 of them that we know of.  They opened the border and in they came and naturally gravitated to these Sanctuary locations.  Now that these locations got what they wished for, they cannot deal with it and are shitting on citizens in order to deal with the mess that they created.  And to make things worse they are doing it to the underclasses in their neighborhoods, not in nice places where people like you might live.  Throwing children out of school.  Closing rec centers in the middle of winter to these disadvantaged children to take care of the illegals. 

This is what all of you who voted for Biden actually voted for.  He told us that he was opening the border, it is the party platform after all. Thank Hillary for that one.  Biden kept his promise.  But he ain't done a thing about taking care of the people he let in.  He's letting the locations flounder and take away services from citizens such as schools and recreation facilities, not to mention the budget cuts resulting in fewer police and other services.  But defund the police is also a democrat thing, so this is okay in the democrat party, too.

Biden told us that the border was secure and under control all of his term.  None of these overwhelmed locations are willing to change their Sanctuary status.  They just want Biden to give them money to spend on the illegals.  Biden ain't giving them money and forcing hardships on children and other citizens of this country instead.

One irony might be that these illegals if offered citizenship, might actually pass it up because they would be losing too many freebies and other benefits that they would not get if they became citizens ...

 kurtster wrote:
Trump supports this.  He said so (I pointed that out in a post you conveniently ignored while you posted serially "today in history" facts).  "Please, blame it on me"  DJT - Las Vegas, 1.27.24

Don't take my word for it...Here's a Republican telling you what's going on...

The Democratic Party can no longer legitimately claim anything having to do with protecting children or acting on their behalf.

We have seen them close schools in NYC to shelter illegals and now a rec center in Mass has been closed in order to house illegals.

Putting illegals in front of US citizens and especially children is simply wrong and unforgivable, imo.
.
Democratic Gov. Healey slammed for closing rec center in black neighborhood to house immigrants

Healey told residents at the forum that the facility would be open again to the public by June. In the meantime, she admitted she was unsure of what to do for programs that had been uprooted, saying she would try calling some universities.

In the latest report, the migrant crisis has cost Massachusetts $325 million, and state officials estimated that it could cost the state nearly $1 billion this year, according to WWLP.

Another for the pasture

 rgio wrote:
OTOH you could help ol' Brett Favre get that volleyball stadium built...

 rgio wrote:

Actually, I know people working with school districts and that’s exactly what they were doing. Trying to figure out how to spend the “pandemic” money. 
But u seem to be missing the point. MMF I suppose   

 black321 wrote:
So how much is left? 

Terms like "could" in the "critical estimation" require context and an order of magnitude.  It's hard to believe that states and localities are sitting around saying "Yeah...let the next guy figure out what to do with the money".

It's hard to spend money when you follow the rules.  Getting all of the I's dotted and T's crossed ain't easy.

When the federal government distributed $350 billion to states and localities as part of a 2022 pandemic aid bill, the rules were clear: find ways to spend the money by the end of 2024 or it would recouped by the feds.

But the Biden administration quietly changed those rules in late 2023 to give state and local governments more time to spend their American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. Critics say it's a change that could transform an already wasteful and unnecessary bailout into an open-ended slush fund for those governments.

That change, which was announced in the Federal Register (which documents the doings of executive branch agencies) in November but otherwise given little fanfare, will give state and local governments until the end of 2026 to decide how to spend their remaining ARPA bailout funds. Under the terms Congress set out in ARPA, those governments had to "obligate" those funds—in other words, attach them to a specific project—by the end of this year, even though they were given until 2026 to actually spend the money.

 black321 wrote:
Even before Trump and MAGA, there were prominent conservatives who advocated for a stronger Executive. They believe some of the Executive’s power has been usurped by the other branches. Barr was/is one of those. Some believe that is why he signed on with Trump to be AG, to pursue and act upon that belief. Of course, that was before Barr realized Trump was/is a lunatic.

🎉🍾

 westslope wrote:
I think the US puts way too much actual and perceived power into the presidency. 
At this point, best we can hope for is better leaderships at the top (executive, legislative and judicial), which hopefully flows down to the constituents. 

 black321 wrote:
Yeah.  The lack of good choices can occur in all kinds of democracies but appears to be particularly acute in the USA heading to November 2024 with two violent conflicts boiling away in the background, one which has the serious potential for horizontal escalation and other other which has serious potential for vertical escalation.

Time to ditch the presidential system and move to a system where the head of state and the head of government are separate individuals?   One where multiple political parties have more potential for significant influence on the policy process?

 islander wrote:
Isn't this why we want viable candidates, from both parties? 
A reasonable, charismatic individual who can lead.
Not one in his ninth decade, and another facing 90 years to life (lifted that from somewhere).

 islander wrote:

Extremely hard not to be.