The bipartisan Senate bill on border security would take U.S. border policy in entirely the wrong direction, for reasons I pointed to here. The ACLU doesn’t like it at all. But I have to admit it’s probably smart politics, and there’s little chance the thing will pass. And yes, the new bill includes money for Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza.
House Republicans are now clearly refusing to support provisions they’ve been demanding for years. Now they claim that they are refusing to support or even allow a vote on the deal because it doesn’t go far enough. But it’s a bit late for that since they were already pretty open already about simply refusing to vote for anything until Trump becomes President again.
They certainly aren’t the only political party to opt for the politics in an election year over the policies they purportedly want. But if they’re going to do that, it’s elementary that the other party will and should hit them over the head with that. Trump told them to kill the bill and the House leadership is doing everything it can to accomplish that. Trump owns them. They follow his commands.
If they can stick by their effort, they can kill the bill. But that at a minimum gives Democrats an affirmative answer every time House Republicans plan one of their safaris down to the Rio Grande River. The same goes for every time Fox News spies a new ‘caravan’ heading toward the southern border.
Josh Marshall goes on to say that just about every House Republican has put out a statement about how this bill is DOA and not good enough and blah blah blah. But they clearly want it to die in the Senate so they won’t have to vote against it. If it passes in the Senate and gets killed by Republicans in the House, they will have just handed Democrats their border security talking point for the rest of the year.
Speaker Mike Johnson trotted out his own stand-alone aid package for Israel alone, but the wingnuts are crabbing about that bill also.
I’m having wifi issues today and will publish this while I have a chance. More later, maybe.
maha,
Maybe the main intertube coming into your house from outside is plugged-up – like with a sock or something.
Or worse, a dead rodent – which could have died from a computer virus (shudders) – is stuck in there, preventing the bits from byting (or is it the bytes from biting?).
Whatever…
Well, that's it!
You’re on your own from here, maha.
That's about all I understand about what make computers tick (or is it tock?).
I think she should try turning it off and back on.
I have to admit that (if the ACLU claims are accurate) the bill goes too far. I also understand the high priority Biden places on defeating the Russian invasion. The bill will likely go down in flames. I care about the major provisions and the Republicans in Congress do not. It's all about power for the GOP, not policy.
I'd like to know if Biden knew that the bad deal he struck was never going to pass. If he did, it's brilliant politics. If he didn't know, he got saved by TFG. Maybe I'm not looking but is ANYONE in government laying down a written marker about what comprehensive immigration reform should look like? Then DARE the other side to put in writing what their plan looks like. And hold both plans up for the public to decide.
The other thing that's missing is hard statistics about the crime(s) you can attribute to asylum seekers. As Maha pointed out earlier, draconian border policies under Trump drove illegal entries through the roof. So of the people who turn themselves in because they want asylum, how many commit crimes? If crimes by asylum seekers are rare, the issue splits into the asylum people and the crowd who is entering with no intention of compliance. For asylum seekers the issue is only the cost of building and maintaining a humane system (assuming the crime stats bear me out.) The folks who never even tried to enter legally can be bounced back home ASAP, in my opinion. MAGA wants to lump them all together and make them all victims in a cruel system of "deterrence."
The short-term issue is political. Trump must be defeated. Biden should start talking about how he's looking forward to debating Trump on their visions for the border and the long-overdue comprehensive bipartisan border reform. Let Biden claim he wants a solution and it can be "safe" for Americans without being the Berlin wall. (Unfortunately, too many people don't realize the Berlin Wall wasn't just a barrier of concrete. It was a death trap for those who tried to cross. This is what Trump has in mind, I think.)
I think its brilliant politics, they're obstructing/rejecting/trashing anything coming from Biden and Dems reflexively, he knew how they would react and he is flipping the script.
Speaking of crime; crime stats are going to get very interesting in about 20 years when the unwanted non-aborted's (I'm sorry to sound so crass) are adults roaming around with all the guns they want looking to take other things they want.
Dylan said it:
"Yonder stands your orphan with his gun. Crying like a fire in the sun [Chorus] Look out, the saints are coming through. And it's all over now, Baby Blue …"
One thing I'm not seeing in coverage about the 14th Amendment review that the USSC will hear this week is a review of what the Constitution says and WHY! The prevailing chatter is about expedience. It won't be convenient for the USSC to disqualify Trump just because he did what the Constitution defines as an act that makes Trump as ineligible for POTUS as if Trump was born in Moscow.
MAGA will be pissed. SO what?! They tried an insurrection to reverse an election and they failed. Many went to prison, One got shot dead. All in all, you got away pretty cheap but the next time will be more expensive. The US Capitol Police were not amused and (I suspect) aren't supportive of a do-over. The rules of engagement may have changed. A lot of you could go out in boxes next time you attack a federal facility.
The USSC is supposed to interpret and uphold the Constitution. Congress is going to be political. Governors are going to be political. The president is a politician. The USSC is NOT supposed to be political. If the Constitution says you can't commit insurrection AND then come back to federal office, the question is whether disrupting an official government proceeding to prevent the peaceful transfer of power is insurrection. I think so. Colorado thinks so. If the USSC says it's not, they need to define WTF qualifies as an insurrection. OR, the USSC could go to the default – Trump continues to aid and abet the insurrectionists after the fact and that ALSO disqualifies Trump.
Will some legal scholar explain to the talking heads – you don't just ignore the Constitution because it will piss off millions of Trump supporters. The 14th was passed with the objective of preventing a popular Confederate leader from the South from ever taking federal office IF (and it's an important distinction) that popular Confederate had sworn and broken an oath to the Constitution.
Because the US Constitution proposed a unique idea for its time. The words that created the federal government (the Constitution) overruled any personal opinion about what the country would do, especially when that was the opinion of the US president. The US decided to place LIMITS on the president and they rigged it with two other co-equal branches of government to keep an ambitious leader in check. After the Civil War, they amended the Constitution to block a person who had been a traitor to the Constitution one time from getting a second chance.
I don't expect but I do hope the Supremes pull Trump nationally from being eligible. They'd be doing the GOP a favor by doing it now. The Republicans would have time to regroup and find a different candidate. (And reject the Trumpian philosophy of American fascism.)
OT but OMG, latest in "What has he said now?"; tRump blabbering about "supply change" (supposedly meaning supply 'chain') as a disastrous problem caused by the Biden admin that was unheard of during his beautiful flawless term as Pres. Reactions are harsh and will hopefully get harsher. Do tell us more Grandpa CAPS-LOCK!