LOL - good choice. You can't name laws that aren't being enforced either. Unlike them you're smart enough to cut bait.
How Has Biden Flubbed So Bad On the Border (and Why Do Dems Keep Lying to Defend His Record)
- Thread starter Scruddy
- Start date
Asked and answered, many times.
You are one of the worst posters on this board.
Effective immediately you are being placed on the banned list for an indeterminate period of time.
No. You haven't. You won't because you're a coward.
I know what you are doing. You think this is a gotcha. Cool.
The Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1952. It’s nearly impossible to track down all of the amendments, judgements, memos and executive orders over 70 years. If you find one, years later, something was passed or EO’d that changed it back.
So yeah, you want a specific law, which does not exist in the form you are asking. It would take hours of internet searching.
There’s your Gotcha moment Riley. You win. You are right. I am wrong.
Biden administration asks Supreme Court to allow Border Patrol to cut or move razor wire at Texas border
The federal government is locked in a dispute with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who installed the wire in an effort to prevent illegal border crossings.
Biden administration asks Supreme Court to allow Border Patrol to cut or move razor wire at Texas border
The federal government is locked in a dispute with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who installed the wire in an effort to prevent illegal border crossings.
the reasoning was in the article
“But the injunction prohibits agents from passing through or moving physical obstacles erected by the State that prevent access to the very border they are charged with patrolling and the individuals they are charged with apprehending and inspecting.”
This is part of their plan. Scare everyone into doing what they want so they can control us.
Interesting listen here that is somewhat prophetic. He discusses the Cloward Pivon strategy.
This video was made in 2013 as it sounds like it could have been made today.
Last edited:
Good luck getting the minions of the current Admin to even come close to admitting what an absolute TRAVISTY it is at the border. Just unrel what we are witnessing.
No chance you’ll read this but here is all the info you are pretending you what to know about.
Biden Isn't Enforcing the Immigration Law Because He Thinks It's Inherently ‘Inequitable’
Why isn't the White House enforcing the immigration laws it’s sworn to uphold.
cis.org
Background on Biden’s Immigration Non-Enforcement at the Interior. Before I begin, however, I should quantify the administration’s non-enforcement efforts. They began the day Biden was sworn in, when Acting DHS Secretary David Pekoske issued a memo captioned “Review of and Interim Revision to Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities” (the Pekoske memo).
It announced a 100-day review of DHS immigration-enforcement policies, as well as a 100-day hold on nearly all removals from the United States (the latter was blocked by a federal judge and then expired).
Under the guise of “limited resources”, the Pekoske memo narrowed immigration enforcement to three specified "priorities": spies, terrorists, and other threats to national security; aliens who entered illegally on or after November 1, 2020; and aliens convicted of aggravated felonies under section 101(a)(43) of the INA released from incarceration on or after the date of that memorandum.
By its terms, the Pekoske memo was a placeholder until other immigration enforcement guidelines were issued by DHS. Those appeared four weeks later, on February 18, 2021, when Acting ICE Director Tae Johnson issued a new memo, captioned “Interim Guidance: Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Priorities” (the Tae Johnson memo).
The Tae Johnson memo expanded slightly on the class of aliens deemed enforcement priorities in the Pekoske memo. Spies, terrorists, and removable aliens who were not here on October 31 still made the list, but the February 18 guidance also included non-detained aggravated felons and certain gang members, if they “pose[] a risk to public safety”.
On August 19, 2021, U.S. district court Judge Drew Tipton enjoined the restrictions the Pekoske and Tae Johnson memos placed on immigration officers in their enforcement of the immigration laws against criminal aliens in Texas v. U.S. — a suit filed by the states of Texas and Louisiana to force DHS to implement the immigration laws as written.
A month later, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit narrowed Judge Tipton’s injunction. While the full Fifth Circuit thereafter vacated that decision and agreed to rehear the case, new superseding guidance was issued on September 30 by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas before a hearing could be held, and the matter was returned to Judge Tipton.
That “Mayorkas memo”, formally captioned “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law”, refined the two preceding ones by again “prioritizing” the three classes of aliens for enforcement action: spies and terrorists (threats to national security); aliens entering illegally on or after November 1, 2020 (threats to border security); and aliens convicted of “serious criminal conduct” (threats to public safety).
While not as restrictive in its scope as the prior two memos, Mayorkas’ required immigration authorities (primarily but not exclusively ICE officers and attorneys) to consider so-called “aggravating” and “mitigating” factors that “militate” in favor of or against (respectively) the taking of “enforcement action” (investigation, arrest, detention, prosecution, and removal) against facially removable aliens.
Judge Tipton vacated the Mayorkas memo in June, prompting the administration to seek a stay of that order, first from the Fifth Circuit (which denied its request), and then the Supreme Court. The justices also denied the government’s stay request, but agreed to hear the merits of the administration’s appeal directly in December.
In the interim, however, interior enforcement has suffered, as my colleague Jessica Vaughan has explained. Total removals were 70 percent lower in FY 2021 than in FY 2020 (not exactly a banner year due to Covid-19 detention restrictions), and although the administration contends that it prefers to prioritize cases involving the most dangerous aliens, criminal alien removals were off sharply as well.
Border Descends into Chaos as Biden Ditches Deterrence. The Southwest border also began descending into chaos almost immediately after Biden took office. Border Patrol agents set a new yearly recordfor migrant apprehensions there in FY 2021 (with a sharp uptick beginning after the inauguration), a record they shattered in just the first 10 months of FY 2022.
While the administration blames external forces for the humanitarian disaster at the border, its own policies are largely to blame.
For example, even though the INA requires DHS to detain illegal entrants — from the moment they’re caught to the point they’re granted immigration status or removed — Biden instead released 1.129 million aliens encountered at the border through the end of June. Aliens enter illegally to live and work here, and those releases allowed them to achieve that goal, encouraging more to come.
Prosecuting foreign nationals for entering illegally (a misdemeanor for a first offense and a felony for serial offenders) is a proven deterrent, but Biden has shown no interest in prosecuting aliens for the offense because, as I have explained many times before, deterring illegal entrants is not an administration objective.
It prefers to manage the chaos at the border by moving illegal migrants into the already overwhelmed immigration court system instead. Once in court (assuming they show up), those aliens can extend their illegal stays in the United States indefinitely, most by filing asylum claims. Some will be successful, but if history’s a guide most will not.
Why Won’t Biden Enforce the Laws and Secure the Border? Understand that the administration has a statutory duty to enforce the INA and to secure the border. The legal basis for the plaintiff states’ claims and Judge Tipton’s orders in Texas is that Congress has ordered DHS in the INA to apprehend and remove certain criminal aliens, and that the administration simply refuses to do so.
Similarly, Congress has required the DHS secretary to maintain “operational control” of the border, defined as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists [and] other unlawful aliens”. Mayorkas claims he’s complying with that mandate, but in at least 1.129 million instances, he hasn’t been.
That brings me to the question of why, in the face of these clear congressional directives, Biden refuses to enforce the immigration laws and secure the border.
Some have argued the administration is trying to “replace” the current U.S. population with one more compliant with its other policies. This “replacement theory” has been termed “racist” and “antisemitic”(among other epithets), but Pedro Gonzalez, associate editor at Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, explained in May that “Democrats and progressive activists, based on their own rhetoric over the years, [have subscribed] to ‘replacement theory’ more than anyone else”.
That said, however, proponents of this theory overlook the following facts: (1) The United States has always been demographically diverse; (2) today’s illegal migrants won’t be voters for a decade, if ever; (3) it’s hard to move the needle in a federal republic with a population of 333 million; and (4) immigrants aren’t reliably monolithic in their voting patterns.
The best proof for this last point is Ruy Teixeira, co-authorof “The Emerging Democratic Majority”, cited by Gonzalez in his op-ed. Teixeira just left the liberal Center for American Progress for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, in part due to “the relentless focus on race, gender, and identity in historically liberal foundations and think tanks”.
More precisely, however, Teixeira has spent months warning Democrats that Hispanic voters are not as wedded to the party’s current policies (including its immigration stance) as the party thinks. Look no further than the recent special election of Republican Mayra Flores, an immigrant from Mexico who won espousing border security in heavily Hispanic south Texas.
The real answer, in my opinion, is much simpler. The Biden administration believes that the immigration laws as written are inequitable and thus require a heavy thumb on the scale to balance out this inherent inequity.
Note that one of the first documents Biden issued as president was Executive Order (EO) 13985, “On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government”.
It sets out a policy of pursuing “a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality”, defining “equity” as:
The legal justification for the restrictions in the Mayorkas memo is that notwithstanding the mandatory enforcement language in the INA, the department and its officials have absolute authority to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” to not enforce the immigration laws.
That is a questionable proposition, certainly in extremis or when it becomes a blanket amnesty (which in this context, it sort of has), but the Considerations memo attempts to justify it, citing to EO 13985:
More importantly, however, this construct elides the crucial distinction between how our laws apply to Americans and to foreign nationals. That distinction is not just one of fact and logic (and equity under the administration’s definition), but it’s in the law itself. For example, the Supreme Court held in 1889:
Similarly, Congress has required the DHS secretary to maintain “operational control” of the border, defined as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists [and] other unlawful aliens”. Mayorkas claims he’s complying with that mandate, but in at least 1.129 million instances, he hasn’t been.
That brings me to the question of why, in the face of these clear congressional directives, Biden refuses to enforce the immigration laws and secure the border.
Some have argued the administration is trying to “replace” the current U.S. population with one more compliant with its other policies. This “replacement theory” has been termed “racist” and “antisemitic”(among other epithets), but Pedro Gonzalez, associate editor at Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, explained in May that “Democrats and progressive activists, based on their own rhetoric over the years, [have subscribed] to ‘replacement theory’ more than anyone else”.
That said, however, proponents of this theory overlook the following facts: (1) The United States has always been demographically diverse; (2) today’s illegal migrants won’t be voters for a decade, if ever; (3) it’s hard to move the needle in a federal republic with a population of 333 million; and (4) immigrants aren’t reliably monolithic in their voting patterns.
The best proof for this last point is Ruy Teixeira, co-authorof “The Emerging Democratic Majority”, cited by Gonzalez in his op-ed. Teixeira just left the liberal Center for American Progress for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, in part due to “the relentless focus on race, gender, and identity in historically liberal foundations and think tanks”.
More precisely, however, Teixeira has spent months warning Democrats that Hispanic voters are not as wedded to the party’s current policies (including its immigration stance) as the party thinks. Look no further than the recent special election of Republican Mayra Flores, an immigrant from Mexico who won espousing border security in heavily Hispanic south Texas.
The real answer, in my opinion, is much simpler. The Biden administration believes that the immigration laws as written are inequitable and thus require a heavy thumb on the scale to balance out this inherent inequity.
Note that one of the first documents Biden issued as president was Executive Order (EO) 13985, “On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government”.
It sets out a policy of pursuing “a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality”, defining “equity” as:
EO 13985 never mentions the words “immigrant”, “alien”, “migrant”, or even Biden’s favored term, “noncitizen”, and it would be reasonable to assume that it’s only meant to apply to “Americans” (that is, citizens and legal immigrants). Reasonable, but wrong, as a “Considerations” memo issued at the same time as and implementing the Mayorkas memo reveals.
The legal justification for the restrictions in the Mayorkas memo is that notwithstanding the mandatory enforcement language in the INA, the department and its officials have absolute authority to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” to not enforce the immigration laws.
That is a questionable proposition, certainly in extremis or when it becomes a blanket amnesty (which in this context, it sort of has), but the Considerations memo attempts to justify it, citing to EO 13985:
Not surprisingly, that memo never lists the “scholars and professors” who have reached this extremely questionable conclusion, but even if it did, that would be a poor reliance on authority. It would be better to rely on the line officers who do the work instead of those reclining cosseted by tenure in academia, but I’m not calling the shots at the White House.
More importantly, however, this construct elides the crucial distinction between how our laws apply to Americans and to foreign nationals. That distinction is not just one of fact and logic (and equity under the administration’s definition), but it’s in the law itself. For example, the Supreme Court held in 1889:
And with respect to Congress’ authority to set the immigration rules, the Court explained in 1954:
Fact, law, and logic notwithstanding, however, the Biden administration has plainly determined that the immigration laws as written are inequitable, and therefore can and must be dispensed with as equity requires.
In the context of the Mayorkas memo, that means requiring ICE officers and lawyers to consider how “enforcement action” will affect the alien and the alien’s family, not just the United States. At the border, it means providing migrants with “safe, orderly, and legal pathways ... to be able to access our legal system” above and beyond what Congress has mandated, even if that means DHS cannot achieve operational control.
The Whether. That brings me to the “whether”, specifically whether the administration will be allowed to continue to ignore Congress’ clear directives.
It’s possible and even likely that the Supreme Court in Texas will dismiss the administration’s appeal in whole or part. The provisions of the INA cited by Judge Tipton don’t give DHS much wiggle room to not detain and remove criminal aliens, regardless of what the executive branch thinks of the law.
Further, in denying the government’s request for a stay in Texas, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the administration’s “replacement” of the INA’s statutory mandates “with concerns of equity and race” in the Considerations memo “is extralegal, considering that such policy concerns are plainly outside the bounds of the power conferred by the INA”.
That said, no court — not even the nation’s highest one — can force DHS to arrest, detain, prosecute, or remove any given alien.
The penultimate decision as to whether Biden will be allowed to ignore the clear mandates in the INA in the name of “equity” will be made by the voters in the November mid-term elections. The next, 118th, Congress can use the “power of the purse” to squeeze more enforcement from the president, assuming it wants to.
The ultimate decision, however, will be made by the voters in November 2024, when Biden is up for reelection (assuming he runs again). Whether they believe as the president does that the immigration laws are inherently inequitable will be on the ballot, whether the electorate knows it or not.
In the context of the Mayorkas memo, that means requiring ICE officers and lawyers to consider how “enforcement action” will affect the alien and the alien’s family, not just the United States. At the border, it means providing migrants with “safe, orderly, and legal pathways ... to be able to access our legal system” above and beyond what Congress has mandated, even if that means DHS cannot achieve operational control.
The Whether. That brings me to the “whether”, specifically whether the administration will be allowed to continue to ignore Congress’ clear directives.
It’s possible and even likely that the Supreme Court in Texas will dismiss the administration’s appeal in whole or part. The provisions of the INA cited by Judge Tipton don’t give DHS much wiggle room to not detain and remove criminal aliens, regardless of what the executive branch thinks of the law.
Further, in denying the government’s request for a stay in Texas, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the administration’s “replacement” of the INA’s statutory mandates “with concerns of equity and race” in the Considerations memo “is extralegal, considering that such policy concerns are plainly outside the bounds of the power conferred by the INA”.
That said, no court — not even the nation’s highest one — can force DHS to arrest, detain, prosecute, or remove any given alien.
The penultimate decision as to whether Biden will be allowed to ignore the clear mandates in the INA in the name of “equity” will be made by the voters in the November mid-term elections. The next, 118th, Congress can use the “power of the purse” to squeeze more enforcement from the president, assuming it wants to.
The ultimate decision, however, will be made by the voters in November 2024, when Biden is up for reelection (assuming he runs again). Whether they believe as the president does that the immigration laws are inherently inequitable will be on the ballot, whether the electorate knows it or not.
This child trafficking is 100% on joe biden and everyone who voted for him. Way to go, dems.
🤣
Alex Jones?! Conveyed through an account called "End Wokeness"?! Seriously?! That's stupid, even for you, Scrubs!
Oh, here are some real articles about migrant children being drugged...in U.S. facilities...under your god and savior, little Donnie Trump.
Immigrant children forcibly injected with drugs at Texas shelter, lawsuit claims
Children held at the Shiloh Treatment Center, a government contractor south of Houston that houses immigrant minors, described being held down and injected, according to federal court filings.
www.texastribune.org
Immigrant Teens Say They're Being Forcibly Drugged in US Custody
"When I get mad they give me shots."
www.vice.com
Migrant children say they've been forcibly drugged, handcuffed, and abused in US government detention
A class-action lawsuit alleges that psychotropic drugs were overprescribed to migrant children who arrived as unaccompanied minors and are now in the care of the US government. The children say they were forcibly drugged and abused in centers around the country.
www.businessinsider.com
You are truly the posterboy for failure, little Scrubs.
😘🤡
Ignored bc you think some women get testicular cancer.🤣
Alex Jones?! Conveyed through an account called "End Wokeness"?! Seriously?! That's stupid, even for you, Scrubs!
Oh, here are some real articles about migrant children being drugged...in U.S. facilities...under your god and savior, little Donnie Trump.
Immigrant children forcibly injected with drugs at Texas shelter, lawsuit claims
Children held at the Shiloh Treatment Center, a government contractor south of Houston that houses immigrant minors, described being held down and injected, according to federal court filings.
Immigrant Teens Say They're Being Forcibly Drugged in US Custody
"When I get mad they give me shots."
Migrant children say they've been forcibly drugged, handcuffed, and abused in US government detention
A class-action lawsuit alleges that psychotropic drugs were overprescribed to migrant children who arrived as unaccompanied minors and are now in the care of the US government. The children say they were forcibly drugged and abused in centers around the country.
You are truly the posterboy for failure, little Scrubs.
😘🤡
🤣
Back to your one trick, I see, a pathetic attempt at a "gotcha" spoon-fed to you by right-wing "news." So original...🙄
There's a difference between gender and sex, little simpleton. Therefore, a biological male (sex) who identifies as a woman (gender) can get testicular cancer (weird bar, for the record).
This is widely accepted. But I suppose you'd ignore the experts on that. You ignore people who remind you how intellectually inferior you are.
😘
Last edited:
Must be exhausting to be pissing ones pants full time here as a hysterical Karen like OP. Wonder why no more hysteria about gas prices? Or the stock market? Or take home pay vs inflation? Back to terrifying us every day with fairy tales about “evil brown people”! 🤪
Lol…didn’t you just post an article spoon fed to you by “Vice”? If you’re going to make your thing, ripping everyone’s sources, you shouldn’t use extremely biased sources in making your point.
Vice Media Bias Rating
Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Vice. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.
www.allsides.com
Lol…didn’t you just post an article spoon fed to you by “Vice”? If you’re going to make your thing, ripping everyone’s sources, you shouldn’t use extremely biased sources in making your point.
Vice Media Bias Rating
Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Vice. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.
🤣
While certainly left-leaning, Vice's reliability is light-years ahead of anything posted by Scrubs.
Vice Media - Bias and Credibility
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording
mediabiasfactcheck.com
Dunces defend dunces.
😘
Unbelievable that anyone would transfer the responsibility for their deaths from those migrants to any other party for political gain.
Disgraceful comments by Rep Cuellar. Deplorable.
No comments on the Texas National Guard prohibiting federal agents from interceding or attempting a rescue themselves?
Weak.
The Supreme Court has found that no law enforcement need risk their life to save a citizen, much less a law breaking migrant.
Why do YOU think any American law enforcement agent should be forced to risk their lives for a parent who drags two children into a major river? Idiotic.
The fault is the migrants and theirs alone.
