Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, attempting to put political pressure on Republicans, announced Sunday that the chamber will vote this week on a long-negotiated bipartisan border bill that Republicans blocked earlier this year.
Just because Republicans keep saying something doesn’t make it “evidence”…
Maybe this does:
A Sober Assessment of the Growing U.S. Asylum Backlog
At the end of FY 2012, over 100,000 asylum cases were pending in the Immigration Court’s backlog. A decade later, the backlog had grown over 7-fold to over 750,000 cases in September at the end of FY 2022. Since then, in just the first two months of FY 2023 (October-November 2022), the asylum backlog jumped by over 30,000 new cases and now totals 787,882. See Figure 1.
TRAC has been praised by fellows at the anti-immigration think tank Center for Immigration Studies for the quality of the data it provides on immigration as well as the Federal Courts and federal law enforcement organizations.
You think the existence of a large backlog of asylum seekers… Means we should deny all asylum seekers?
I don’t understand any of that logic…
Wouldn’t the fix be to process all those applications?
You don’t think people waiting years for asylum are going to try and cross illegally out of desperation?
I appreciate you linking that to show an actual problem with the border, but I have zero idea how you think this makes it better instead of worse.
Like, at all, unless I’m confused and you’ve been agreeing with me this whole time, I don’t understand why you would link something so harmful to your own argument
Quite a bit. Have you read the bill? Section I is doing a lot of hiring and training changes for border personnel. Section II is entirely centered on enhancements to the asylum review process. It’s mostly minutiae like streamlining certain bars for entry and such. There is also the contentious 5k/day (likely to be 4k under an R admin since it’s discretionary) threshold in Section III that triggers a full stop to entry until some of the backlog is cleared. Not sure I fully agree with that one but it will indisputably have an impact on the backlog.
There is also the contentious 5k/day (likely to be 4k under an R admin since it’s discretionary) threshold in Section III that triggers a full stop to entry until some of the backlog is cleared.
So…
The limit is discretionary if they can change it…
So they could do it at any point, just like I was saying?
And I still don’t know why/how not accepting more applications or not allowing anyone else to cross the border actually fixes the backlog.
Like, them saying they’ll hire more people could help. But if you had experience with a government agency, you’d know they’re always saying they’re going to increase staffing, and rarely random to do more than keep up with people leaving.
But thanks for letting me know what was in there is what I’ve been saying is in there.
No, it’s discretionary down to a limit of 4k, which is also in the text of the bill. I really think you should stop commenting strongly on things you haven’t even read. It’s not a great look. You can find the section by section and full text on Lankford’s site. He led the bipartisan team that introduced the bill, but I’m sure you can find it elsewhere.
None of what you’re saying makes sense, it’s just “your team” so you defend it.
And your opinion that this is fine doesn’t change the fact that Biden is already unpopular with Dem voters, that pushing this hurts the whole party’s popularity, and if it actually passes it’s all but guaranteeing republicans not only win the presidency but capture the Senate and maintain the House…
I don’t think you’re the original account that claimed this was somehow just to get votes…
So why do you think this is a good idea? Do you genuinely think this needs done or do you also think this will somehow help him?
I’m not going to answer any more questions you can answer by reading the bill.
None of what you’re saying makes sense, it’s just “your team” so you defend it.
Not sure what “team” you’re even implying I’m on? I haven’t given a single political opinion other than saying “not sure I agree with that” in response to the asylum claim threshold. I’ve only corrected factual information in regards to the text of the bill. In fact, I have less than zero desire to get into any sort of political argument with someone who won’t even put in the 10 minutes it would take to read the section by section.
Maybe this does:
A Sober Assessment of the Growing U.S. Asylum Backlog
https://trac.syr.edu/reports/705/
Do you happen to have any other sources?
What?
You think the existence of a large backlog of asylum seekers… Means we should deny all asylum seekers?
I don’t understand any of that logic…
Wouldn’t the fix be to process all those applications?
You don’t think people waiting years for asylum are going to try and cross illegally out of desperation?
I appreciate you linking that to show an actual problem with the border, but I have zero idea how you think this makes it better instead of worse.
Like, at all, unless I’m confused and you’ve been agreeing with me this whole time, I don’t understand why you would link something so harmful to your own argument
I never said that, and that’s not what this bill does. If you are going to lie about stuff, then there is no point to argue with you.
So what does the bill that’s a “compromise” with republicans do to clear the backlog of asylum seekers?
Quite a bit. Have you read the bill? Section I is doing a lot of hiring and training changes for border personnel. Section II is entirely centered on enhancements to the asylum review process. It’s mostly minutiae like streamlining certain bars for entry and such. There is also the contentious 5k/day (likely to be 4k under an R admin since it’s discretionary) threshold in Section III that triggers a full stop to entry until some of the backlog is cleared. Not sure I fully agree with that one but it will indisputably have an impact on the backlog.
So…
The limit is discretionary if they can change it…
So they could do it at any point, just like I was saying?
And I still don’t know why/how not accepting more applications or not allowing anyone else to cross the border actually fixes the backlog.
Like, them saying they’ll hire more people could help. But if you had experience with a government agency, you’d know they’re always saying they’re going to increase staffing, and rarely random to do more than keep up with people leaving.
But thanks for letting me know what was in there is what I’ve been saying is in there.
No, it’s discretionary down to a limit of 4k, which is also in the text of the bill. I really think you should stop commenting strongly on things you haven’t even read. It’s not a great look. You can find the section by section and full text on Lankford’s site. He led the bipartisan team that introduced the bill, but I’m sure you can find it elsewhere.
So why are you talking about a 5k limit?
None of what you’re saying makes sense, it’s just “your team” so you defend it.
And your opinion that this is fine doesn’t change the fact that Biden is already unpopular with Dem voters, that pushing this hurts the whole party’s popularity, and if it actually passes it’s all but guaranteeing republicans not only win the presidency but capture the Senate and maintain the House…
I don’t think you’re the original account that claimed this was somehow just to get votes…
So why do you think this is a good idea? Do you genuinely think this needs done or do you also think this will somehow help him?
I’m not going to answer any more questions you can answer by reading the bill.
Not sure what “team” you’re even implying I’m on? I haven’t given a single political opinion other than saying “not sure I agree with that” in response to the asylum claim threshold. I’ve only corrected factual information in regards to the text of the bill. In fact, I have less than zero desire to get into any sort of political argument with someone who won’t even put in the 10 minutes it would take to read the section by section.