Joe Biden is spending YOUR TAX DOLLARS on luxury apartments for criminals sneaking into the country.
Well, not before entering the USA unlawfully.
Maybe because they’re not entering the country through our huge porous land borders?
Because that would effectively amount to open borders?
You didn’t say what was wrong with it.
There’s no prison sentence for that, it not even technically a 'crime".
Not really.
We would still have border patrol for drug trafficking etc.
Right, so what is wrong with getting a bunch of hard working people in who want to do the jobs Americans wont do?
They’ll poison our blood, duh!
I’d like to add the HMS_Irruncible is not responsible for providing cites for other poster’s claims.
There’s also a brief overview of the House proposal that seems to be teed up and ready to go:
The House’s immigration bill, which passed in May, would require the Department of Homeland Security to renew construction of the border wall. It also would bolster punishment for immigrants who overstayed visas in the US, raise the bar on who is eligible for asylum and give DHS far more authority to turn away migrants at the border.
Sounds fairly tame to me, and even largely up to the discretion of the Director of the DHS.
Between the House immigration bill or a return of Donald Trump to office, I’d be slapping the seal of approval on that, pronto.
Weren’t you the one who said: Paraphrase, dump their asses at a national park? I very well could be wrong about who said that. I don’t want to go back 'cause my chrome book has issues and I’d have trouble getting back here.
Are we really debating abolishing immigration controls? Because that’s a far broader discussion than I thought this thread was addressing.
The wall is idiotic, a waste of $$, and a danger to the environment. It is also more than 18B. And there is no need for it.
It also would bolster punishment for immigrants who overstayed visas in the US- why? Just give them a work permit and let them stay.
Why?
All three are “solutions” in search of a problem.
Asylum seekers coming here and wanting to work are not a problem, thus it is unnecessary to spend $18B on it.
Again, why do we want to turn away hard working people who want to come here and do the sort of work Americans don’t want to do?
Before you come up with more “solutions” explain why these people are a problem? True, right now they are a problem as we - due to GOP resistance- are not giving them work permits. The GOp has created the problem. Give them work permits, they will work, and we dont have to support them.
And the rest of us benefit by clean toilets in hotels and cheaper strawberries.
And tax revenue. These people pay taxes, unlike many US citizens who have the resources to hide their earnings. I wonder who the criminals are here?
The ones who want to defund the IRS.
Not only do they pay taxes, they pay into SocSec and cant take anything out.
Yes, this too.
Your link correctly quotes the question, but it is not exactly as you summarize, and this is an area where the details are crucial.
So, the question was:
“Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense, rather than a crime, to cross the border without documentation”
Well, um, it is now both a criminal and a civil matter, with the offense generally rising to the criminal level when there is an aggravating factor, such as misrepresenting your name. See:
So when asked the raise your hand question – and here Byron York got it wrong – Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised a finger. As a centrist, I find that a totally reasonable response to a gotcha question which should not be answered in a yes-no fashion.
The immigration laws that the Biden administration labors under have complex problems defying summary in a reasonable length internet post. Biden knows that big parts of his base are unrealistic on the issue (my own dear wife favors open borders) – and Joe wants bipartisan compromise. As seen in the post by Sage_Rat above, the GOP House is blocking it.
Trump
Trump
Trump
Long term, the US helps more people by being a reasonable place that does reasonable things. If we’re collapse, turn into a dictatorship, are taken over by cranks, etc. then you start getting solutions like caging kids and arresting people for legally applying for asylum.
The solution to stupid is to cure it. Improve the education system, get American kids to tour the world, meet more people from more ideologies, etc. But that’s going to take decades and it requires hiring people who are intelligent, strategic, and long term thinkers to run the country.
Short term, dumb people outnumber you. If you don’t humor them, Trump.
I found it. More sleep helps a lot. So what if Yellow Stone was the closest national park? We’re talking NYC here, in winter. What is the nearest national park to NYC. I Imagine it isn’t a lot warmer than Yellow Stone. And the term,“Dump their asses” bothers me a lot. These are human beings, who haven’t done anything intrinsically wrong. They want to be safe; they want safety for their children, who would be some of the “asses” dumped in the nearest national park. This isn’t just a problem for the cities. This is a humanitarian crisis.
It seems this thread can be summed up as:
Biden has no plan to support the migrants and immigration continues to be a clusterfuck.
Abbott qua Governor of Texas is unilaterally bussing migrants to other states. Biden is unable to stop him from doing this because reasons.
Congress refuses to pay to support the migrants. Lot’s of finger-pointing but bottom line is these cities that are taking in the migrants are hit hard financial so fuck you for trying to help out the migrants … but we still expect you to help the migrants so figure it out.
Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Then what is his plan and why is it not implemented?
This plan is dated January 5, 2024:
Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Border Enforcement Actions
As for implementation, it has only been a week, and I do see mayors and governors complaining in the past few days. Whether that is because the administration plan hasn’t been implemented at all, or is just starting to be implemented, is hard to say. This two-days-ago statement is from the governor of Illinois:
“We haven’t seen those dollars yet – not nearly what we should,”
A Denver news article published yesterday:
So to answer the thread title question: The feds are paying some costs, just not most. I presume the why has to do with Congress having only appropriated a certain amount of funds.