540

Republicans Agonize Over Supporting Bipartisan Border Bill They Insisted On (www.huffpost.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A bipartisan bill to address the surge of migrants at the southern border is sowing discord within the Senate GOP as Trump urges them to kill it.

Senate Republicans are in deep distress over whether to support a plan to fix the migrant crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border that includes key concessions they had demanded from Democrats months ago in exchange for approving new U.S. aid to Ukraine.

The bipartisan legislation is expected to be unveiled as early as Friday, giving senators time to review the text before a planned procedural vote next week. But with former President Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and much of the right whipping opposition to the bill before it has even been unveiled, its future in the Senate appears to be in serious jeopardy.

...

Republicans have for years called on President Joe Biden to address the crisis on the border, insisting that the elevated flow of migrants is an urgent national security threat and calling for legislation to address it. But with an agreement in sight after four months of negotiations, many in the GOP now say that Congress doesn’t need to pass new legislation and that Biden ought to simply take executive action to fix it. Some have openly admitted they don’t want to give Biden a victory ahead of the November presidential election by letting him take off the table an issue on which he rates poorly among the electorate.

all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 141 points 9 months ago

Just disgusting. Completely, utterly and horribly disgusting. Even worse is the fact that if the bill doesn't pass all the rightwing talking heads and every single politician will use it as a stumping point. Especially if Biden takes executive action at the border they'll say it's because he couldn't make a deal, even though he did.

May bees and wasps find their genitals in need of stinging.

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 32 points 9 months ago

Just wasps, no need for bees to be harmed in the process.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Can we douse them in pheromones to make the murder hornets decide to go after them (and not bees?)

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

May bees constantly land on their genitals and wander around in super itchy ways

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 9 months ago

Fret not, only some bee species will die after stinging; it just depends on their stinger shape. Bumblebees have smooth stingers, so they could happily pierce nutsack all day without any harm coming to them.

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 22 points 9 months ago

They lose that exchange of wits.

Bidens just got to show open hands and say, we gave you the concessions you asked for, i said id close the border that day, i was ready to close the border and you said no, choosing politicking over security.

And then spit a fat wad of chew spit in Ted Cruz's face.

He'd win reelection right there.

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago

But the people voting against him don't care about what makes sense

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah. Biden and the Democrats were literally proposing to close the border to asylum seekers completely until requests go down to get Ukraine aid, which is extreme to me but it was pretty much what Repubs were harping for for months.

To go and kiss Trump's feet now is clear evidence they're not even trying to solve the problem they were drumming up a storm for, and Biden is more serious about the border than Trump.

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Now you discover why they’re back pedaling: It makes Biden look bad.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't get it. They don't really care about any kind of factual reality, so why not pass the deal and declare it as a big win where they forced the dems to heel? That it was their deal and the feckless progressives couldn't stop it from happening? Their cultists will believe whatever nonsense Newsmax feeds them, won't they?

It's not JUST that they wanted the political win. It's that they wanted the win AND to hurt people.

[-] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 9 months ago

Because Biden will have signed it and it shows how he's willing to do whatever it takes to get shit done.

[-] BReel@lemmy.one 2 points 9 months ago

IMO, they don’t want to take it off the table. They use drama to stir up their voters. If “they” solve the crisis on the border, now they can’t use the “boarder crisis” as a tool anymore.

Just my guess.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I think the “even worse” part is that people will believe whatever the right wing talking heads say, regardless of the facts.

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Everyone needs to call them out for their inaction

[-] blazera@kbin.social 65 points 9 months ago

to address the surge of migrants at the southern border

I've yet to see this claim substantiated. As far as I can tell the border "crisis" is entirely fabricated by republicans...and I guess embraced by democrats now.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 43 points 9 months ago

Crisis is a pretty flimsy term to begin with. I think it meets "crisis" definition just based on the pictures of the camps on the other side of the checkpoints. Based on the ridiculous appointment/app system. The backlog.

I think it's a crisis. The ridiculous idea is that this is a crisis caused by immigration. It's not. It's a crisis caused by cruelty and incompetence on OUR part. The immigrants have, by and large, done nothing wrong.

Our own unwillingness to invest in the bureaucracy of legal immigration (which includes nearly all southern border immigration -- refugee is a legitimate immigration status and refugees are not "illegals" even if you care about that kind of thing) has caused it. We just can't manage the number of people coming in. And that unwillingness and inability to process the immigrants has CAUSED the crisis.

We could handle it. We could send reservists and national guard to get down there and process paperwork. Organize the logistics of bussing and all that. And longer-term, we could also invest in that bureaucracy. We know -- and should fucking pray -- that immigration will not stop any time soon. We know this is a service the government is going to need to provide for the long haul. We can't keep pretending the border is a thing we can shut down -- not to even mention how ridiculously good for the economy population growth through immigration is. How massive the ROI is for these kinds of services.

We could also set up single payer healthcare, sweepingly reform housing policy, pass a new and updated NLRA, and so many things that would ultimately make this a stronger, better country and improve things for everyone. But the right-wingers prefer suffering and cruelty to progress, and the progressives we have are too busy fighting among themselves and trying to compromise with uncompromising psychopaths to get anything done.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I agree with almost every word you said, but I think you're wildly underestimating the problems.

We're looking at an additional 3,141,000 souls coming in 2024 (my extrapolation based on current numbers), and that's only from the Southern border. That's more people than live in our 3rd largest city (Chicago)! That's a stunning number, and significantly up from previous years.

Let's pretend we let every human in from the Southern border, everyone, no exceptions. And let's pretend we had our shit perfectly together in 2021, everything running smooth. Could we have ramped up to an additional 1,407,000 immigrants from 2021 to 2024?

Adding another "Chicago+" worth of souls, in a single year, is not a simple matter of political will and throwing money at the problem.

tl;dr: Whether we stop or encourage immigration, we got a humanitarian crisis on our hands.

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago

Climate change is going to make it much much worse. Once Mexico and Central America experiences a couple wet bulb days then it'll be an actual migration.

We can't stop 200million. We can't stop .0005% of that if it all came at once. For the love of God bullets can NOT be the answer to that.

[-] Nudding@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Bullets are America's answer for everything I'm afraid.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I haven't really spoken to the problems. I agree, they're profound.

It's going to take a massive and meaningful logistical build-out just to process and transport these people in a remotely equitable way (meaning spreading out the burden so it does not all fall on just a few specific cities). We already cannot process the numbers coming -- so of course we cannot handle larger numbers.

But also, there's no choice but to do it. We aren't going to stop people from coming through domestic policy changes other than guards in gun towers shooting everyone who comes near. We do not control the domestic policies of the countries they are fleeing, but clearly things in those countries must be pretty fucking bad because people do not uproot and abandon their entire life and history lightly. We couldn't shut it down even if we wanted to, and every attempt is just another expensive human rights disaster.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago

It's the same crisis from the last election.

Remember the migrant caravans that evaporated on November 3? Same thing.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago

The only thing I've seen is people posting numbers showing how many more arrests the border patrol is making compared to years past. I've yet to see anything saying how more arrests means they're doing a worse job.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

and I guess embraced by democrats now.

Its almost as if they have a complete inability to craft a narrative of their own..

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If they go along with Republicans' narrative, it means they get to throw a group of vulnerable minorities under the bus.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Substantiation, here ya go:

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters

If we extrapolate the numbers from the current year-to-date, we're looking at an additional 666,000+ migrants for 2024 vs. 2023 (3,141K vs. 2,475K). Also, note the Nov.-Dec. spike in the first graph.

Our government, society and infrastructure is not geared to take that many people that fast. It's already a humanitarian crisis and it's getting worse by the minute. We cannot take a major American city worth of people every year, we just can't. Hell are we to do with an extra 3M+ souls?!

And keep in mind, we're only looking at Southern border crossings. Plenty of immigrants coming from other quarters, including my wife, and hopefully soon, her son.

I suspect everyone is hauling ass to American ahead of a possible Trump win. Wouldn't you? I'd sure as hell get my family in as fast as I could.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 11 points 9 months ago

I suspect everyone is hauling ass to American ahead of a possible Trump win. Wouldn’t you?

I strongly suspect, and think any history would confirm, that most immigrants don't think much at all about internal US politics/policies when making the decisions to abandon their entire lives and flee to this country.

Maybe once faced with the brutality at the border they'll start to get interested, but on the whole? No way, I just don't buy it. We do not control the conditions that cause people to want to flee their homes, but they are not making that decision so lightly.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago

You honestly think they're clueless about American politics on a macro level? Maybe they are, but how else would you explain the surge at the border? Perhaps there's new/sudden unrest in our Southern neighbors I'm ignorant of?

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

It doesn't take that much to explain a 20% increase in numbers. I know you tried to frame it like it was some ABSURDLY huge increase, but I don't consider an extra person for every five to be such a mind-blowing spike.

The same economic stagflation/recession happening everywhere else, including here. The states being emigrated from are continuing to decline and populations continue to grow. There's going to be YOY increases. Probably not 20% YOY increases, but there will definitely be increases.

To be clear, I basically agree with you that it is more than we can handle. I've posted as much elsewhere in this thread. And I agree that we already are failing to take care of our own people, and having extra mouths is going to stretch our failing social welfare programs even more taught.

To be clear though, even just regular birthrates in the US are around 12 per capita -- that is 4M new people per year that we can "handle" already. And just as before, I don't consider ~1 extra person for every 5 to be a mind-blowing figure.

None of this is the reason we're failing to get the "crisis" deflated. We're not processing these immigrants because we both hate them and have weaponized our incompetence against them. Basically the same bad faith and weaponized incompetence that have brought us into our own domestic crises -- housing, healthcare, labor rights, and all that.

[-] aniki@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago

Maybe they are, but how else would you explain the surge at the border?

Easy peasy! There isn't. I don't trust the CBP numbers in the slightest.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago

"I don't believe in gOvERnMenT numbers I don't like! I don't believe the CDC! Masks and vaccines are boolshit!"

Take that conservative thinking back to FB. Adults are talking.

[-] jennwiththesea@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Do you have a source with numbers from before the pandemic? This site only includes numbers for the past four years, which have to have been increasing because immigration almost ground to a standstill in 2020-21. We need an accurate starting point in order to have this conversation.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

hmmm, yeah that's pretty substantiated.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago

Well Mitch fillibustered his own bill when the Dems supported it...

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago

If I had a nickel for every time Moscow Mitch fillibustered his own bill, I'd have two nickels. Its not a lot, but its funny it happened twice.

[-] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

How about when he overturned a presidential veto and then complained that Obama didn't do enough to stop him?

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

It's almost like it shows a lack of a backbone to keep going back and forth the whole time. Or a lack of good leadership.

[-] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

"holy shit i wasn't actually serious about that making it into law"

honestly i'd be surprised if he cared

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 48 points 9 months ago

Side note- I love when they use stroke Mitch as the picture. Fills my heart with warm hope.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago

Republicans after just being let outside..

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

This describes their behavior to a tee.

[-] jopepa@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Reminds me of the video of the dog acting aggro through a closed gate at a passing dog and wilting once the gate opens.

Edit: found it!

[-] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Did the Democrats no longer have control of the senate?

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

Barely, 49R, 48D, and 3 "independent Democrats". But, it's a really bad bill that violates international law, so I assume a few Dems will vote against it.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

They are just SO full of shit. I wish the corporate media was even the least bit as liberal as the cons claim it is.

[-] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

head too far up your own ass even to see the shit that's coming

[-] mydude@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Reminds me of this gem..... https://youtu.be/U10p3Tn9V5Y?t=19

this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024

540 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19096 readers

3323 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News