To Give You a Size of the Immense and Growing Size of Illegal Immigration

[RVonse]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?
It's not you know.
Which makes your premise here kinda hilarious.
Tom

The scam has nothing to do with how they individually vote. This has to do with census numbers and the amount of proportional congressional seats and electoral votes the state gets. So the sanctuary states (which are always blue) taking in all these people get more seats and electoral votes regardless whether or not these illegals even make it to vote. So regardless how the illegals vote, them merely being reported part of the census helps a blue state appear larger than it is.

Amigo. You keep bashing dems on this issue. How do you defend Maga killing the bipartisan bill that would fix some of the border issues??

Considering RVonse has been asked this several times in this thread, it's fair to assume he's going to ignore that uncomfortable piece of reality that completely shatters his fantasies.

The republican's say they did not like the bipartisan bill because it did absolutely nothing of value to fix open borders that Biden can not already fix instantly by simply exercising his executive power. Was that really why the republican's did not vote for the bill?......I do not honestly know. Maybe they did not support the bill because of the democrat conspiracy theory that Trump did not want them to support it. Or maybe not.

But who gives a shit anyway since it is a strawman argument relevant to whether the democrats want open borders!

Its almost irrelevant that congress can not fix our open borders when we already know the POTUS has the executive powers to do so. Would I prefer that congress could get along to fix this......of course I would! But in the final analysis, your golden cow bill has nothing to do with why the democrats prefer our open borders in the first place.

Which is why I considered the post not worth answering.

 

[TSwizzle]

Hundreds of migrants broke through razor wire today at the wall in El Paso, Texas, overpowering Texas soldiers who had tried to push them away. 'Hundreds of migrants were pushed south of the concertina wire in the middle of the night by Texas National Guard,' the border snapper explained. 'Hours later they again breached the concertina and made a rush for the border wall in El Paso, Texas.'

Daily Mail

Heading to a sanctuary city where they will receive aid and support as promised

 

[TomC]

But who gives a shit anyway since it is a strawman argument why the democrats want open borders.

Why do you think it's the Democrats who want open borders?
I think it's pretty much everybody in Washington DC. Immigrants are very profitable for the investing/donor class. So nobody wants to upset those people's apple cart.
Illegal immigrants are more profitable than legal immigrants, but the main thing is that making workers legal by giving them papers would require a big conversation that won't benefit the rich and powerful. So it doesn't happen. Everyone just uses it as a political weapon.
But mainly the Republicans.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?
It's not you know.
Which makes your premise here kinda hilarious.
Tom

The scam has nothing to do with how they individually vote. This has to do with census numbers and the amount of proportional congressional seats and electoral votes the state gets. So the sanctuary states (which are always blue) taking in all these people get more seats and electoral votes regardless whether or not these illegals even make it to vote. So regardless how the illegals vote, them merely being reported part of the census helps a blue state appear larger than it is.

Amigo. You keep bashing dems on this issue. How do you defend Maga killing the bipartisan bill that would fix some of the border issues??

Considering RVonse has been asked this several times in this thread, it's fair to assume he's going to ignore that uncomfortable piece of reality that completely shatters his fantasies.

The republican's say they did not like the bipartisan bill because it did absolutely nothing of value to fix open borders that Biden can not already fix instantly by simply exercising his executive power. Was that really why the republican's did not vote for the bill?......I do not honestly know. Maybe they did not support the bill because of the democrat conspiracy theory that Trump did not want them to support it. Or maybe not.

But who gives a shit anyway since it is a strawman argument relevant to whether the democrats want open borders!

Its almost irrelevant that congress can not fix our open borders when we already know the POTUS has the executive powers to do so. Would I prefer that congress could get along to fix this......of course I would! But in the final analysis, your golden cow bill has nothing to do with why the democrats prefer our open borders in the first place.

Which is why I considered the post not worth answering.

What specific POTUS action do you think can be taken that the Republicans would hail as an effective means to fixing the border crisis and would rejoice in Biden taking such action?

Even if he could simply “fix” it with executive action that is no excuse to not work on it through legislation like the bill written by a conservative Republican and hailed by other Republican senators as the best border deal they could expect to ever get.

 

[RVonse]

Do you think the reason they come here is to vote illegally?

Do I think they come here to vote? No. Do I think there is a direct incentive for the democrats to prefer open borders for helping the democrat voting rolls? I think a very good possibility, yes.

 

[RVonse]

What specific POTUS action do you think can be taken that the Republicans would hail as an effective means to fixing the border crisis and would rejoice in Biden taking such action?

I think if he closed the border with our military the Republicans would hail that an effective means. I'm pretty sure the constitution allows him to this.

The republicans might secretly not like the fact that he would do this. But they would not be able to publicly say they didn't.

 

[RVonse]

Even if he could simply “fix” it with executive action that is no excuse to not work on it through legislation like the bill written by a conservative Republican and hailed by other Republican senators as the best border deal they could expect to ever get.

I agree with you that congress needs to get along for the overall good of our country.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why has Biden sent over a million back over the border again?

 

[ZiprHead]

The republican's say they did not like the bipartisan bill because it did absolutely nothing of value to fix open borders that Biden can not already fix instantly by simply exercising his executive power. Was that really why the republican's did not vote for the bill?......I do not honestly know. Maybe they did not support the bill because of the democrat conspiracy theory that Trump did not want them to support it. Or maybe not.

Horse crap. This was the most comprehensive border bill since Reagan. The Republicans got almost everything they wanted. Trump didn't want to lose the talking point for the election.

Senators unveil bipartisan bill to impose tougher asylum and border laws

The $118 billion package is the result of months of negotiations between Senate Republicans and Democrats, as well as the Biden administration. It's not clear it will pass Congress.

www.nbcnews.com

WASHINGTON — Senators released the long-awaited text of a bipartisan agreement to impose tougher immigration and asylum laws Sunday, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer eyes votes on the package this week.

The $118 billion package includes a series of provisions aimed at reducing record high crossings at the southern border and tightening an asylum system that has been overwhelmed by migrants fleeing their homes to seek refuge. It also includes critical aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, which Republicans have said they’ll only support if it is paired with significant new U.S. immigration restrictions.


The agreement — reached by Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz. — would be the most aggressive border security and migration overhaul bill in decades if it passes Congress. It would raise the standard to get asylum, send away those who don't qualify and expedite cases for those who do.

“The Senate’s bipartisan agreement is a monumental step towards strengthening America’s national security abroad and along our borders,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement. “This is one of the most necessary and important pieces of legislation Congress has put forward in years to ensure America’s future prosperity and security.”

But the deal is mired in election-year politics, and it’s unclear whether it has the support to pass the Senate, where it will need at least 60 votes to defeat a guaranteed filibuster. Conservative senators have been mobilizing against the deal, egged on by former President Donald Trump, who has told Republicans to reject it if it isn’t “perfect.” He has also falsely suggested that the bill would allow 5,000 illegal border crossings per day as he seeks to wield border chaos as a political weapon in a likely 2024 rematch against President Joe Biden, who quickly endorsed the bill.

The collapse of bipartisan immigration reform: A guide for the perplexed | Brookings

Brookings Senior Fellow William Galston explains why Republicans failed to support the bipartisan immigration bill.

www.brookings.edu

Last October, Senate Republicans made it clear that they would not back additional aid for Ukraine without a bill that would help secure the southern border of the United States. With the blessing of both Senator Chuck Schumer, the Majority Leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader, a bipartisan team of senators began negotiations to produce a bill that enough members of both parties could accept to overwhelm objections from progressive Democrats and America First Republicans.

The team negotiated for four months to produce this bill. It took less than four days for its support among Republicans to collapse. Why?

The easiest explanation is that Republicans in both the House and Senate yielded to objections from their all-but-certain presidential nominee, former president Donald Trump. Once the House Speaker stated publicly that he would not allow the Senate bill to reach the House floor for a vote, Republican senators were unwilling to run the political risk of supporting a measure that would not become law.

 

[ZiprHead]

The republican's say they did not like the bipartisan bill because it did absolutely nothing of value to fix open borders that Biden can not already fix instantly by simply exercising his executive power.

Citation, please.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What specific POTUS action do you think can be taken that the Republicans would hail as an effective means to fixing the border crisis and would rejoice in Biden taking such action?

I think if he closed the border with our military the Republicans would hail that an effective means. I'm pretty sure the constitution allows him to this.

The republicans might secretly not like the fact that he would do this. But they would not be able to publicly say they didn't.

Since you didn't give much specificity or define what "closed" means, I propose the following scenario:

Biden sends thousands to tens of thousands of active duty troops (or federalized national guard troops) to the border. Some will man each port of entry and search every vehicle crossing the border. Others will turn back at gunpoint anyone crossing the border without authorization. All asylum attempts denied. Other troops will patrol the nearly 2000 miles of border day and night and detain and deport anyone crossing outside of a valid port of entry.

Is this the kind of thing you are thinking? If Biden did this the Republicans would be happy? Or would they try to impeach him for acting like a dictator and overstepping Congressional authority?

 

[Ford]

Do you think the reason they come here is to vote illegally?

Do I think they come here to vote? No. Do I think there is a direct incentive for the democrats to prefer open borders for helping the democrat voting rolls? I think a very good possibility, yes.

How are they "helping the Democrat voting rolls" if they're not voting, not registering, and not participating in the census? Is it magic?

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you think the reason they come here is to vote illegally? Because that's the conspiracy theory. They come here to illegally vote in our elections, and "sanctuary cities/states" enable this to turn the country more blue. Having jobs and making money to send back to their families? That's secondary according to the conspiracy theory. Ask a young couple from Venezuela who carried their child across thousands of miles of Central America and Mexico, they'll tell you - according to the right wing - their primary reason for traveling to America was to vote for Democrats.

Really?

JFC on a pogo stick. Nothing I've said suggests the silly narrative that you're trying to foist on me.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think if he closed the border with our military the Republicans would hail that an effective means.

What? Do you you expect the military to shoot them?

By law we allow asylum seekers to come and apply for asylum. The immigration bill would have greatly tightened that system and sped up deportations.

The origins of our asylum laws date back to soon after WWII.

U.S. asylum law is derived from international agreements written after World War II which provide protection to people fearing or fleeing from persecution. The first agreement, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, was drafted by the United Nations in response to the large migrations of people in the aftermath of the Second World War. The United Nations attempted to set forth an internationally agreed upon standard for who will be considered a refugee. The 1951 Convention, however, only applied to people who were refugees on the basis of events occurring before January 1, 1951. The United Nations incorporated the definition of refugee set forth in the 1951 Convention but expanded it to include future refugees in the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 1 The United States acceded to the 1967 Protocol in 1968. In order to bring U.S. law into compliance with its obligations under the Protocol, the United States enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, adopting essentially the same definition of refugee as set forth by the Convention.

 

[Ford]

Do you think the reason they come here is to vote illegally? Because that's the conspiracy theory. They come here to illegally vote in our elections, and "sanctuary cities/states" enable this to turn the country more blue. Having jobs and making money to send back to their families? That's secondary according to the conspiracy theory. Ask a young couple from Venezuela who carried their child across thousands of miles of Central America and Mexico, they'll tell you - according to the right wing - their primary reason for traveling to America was to vote for Democrats.

Really?

JFC on a pogo stick. Nothing I've said suggests the silly narrative that you're trying to foist on me.

Note that I said "right wing" and "conspiracy." RVonse thinks that somehow illegal immigrants are being allowed in to skew the voting rolls in favor of Democrats, so he buys into at least some of the aspects of said conspiracy. Do you?

 

[TV and credit cards]

The republican's say they did not like the bipartisan bill because it did absolutely nothing of value to fix open borders that Biden can not already fix instantly by simply exercising his executive power.

Citation, please.

And why act through executive action that can be undone at term's end what can be written into law permanently?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now. Even dutiful liberal flag bearers should consider their ultimate fate in the long run if they get their single party monopoly rule. We need MORE parties to vote for, not less. Just saying.

Musk said it. The first assumption should therefore be that it's false.

And note that illegals do not get to vote. It has no effect on the ballot box.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?

Because Texas actively deports illegal immigrants, whereas California has declared itself a sanctuary state and does not deport them.

The Census bureau already admitted that it overcounted several blue states and undercounted several red states by a statistically significant amount. Those inappropriate counts result in blue states having more house seats than they should, and red states having fewer. The electoral votes that affect the presidency are the direct result of that. So as a result of the Census having miscounted in a material fashion, Democrats have an undue advantage in this year's presidential election.

The really annoying thing is that Census acknowledged this miscount, which results in IIRC something on the order of a 6 seat shift (6 fewer for Democrats, 6 more for Republicans, net change of 12), no reapportionment will occur until 2023 - the next time the census is done. So essentially, the Dems have an undue advantage that will affect THREE presidential elections, and there's nothing to be done about it despite the miscount having been acknowledged.

1) Note that the states with the biggest undercounts are areas with a lot of anti-federal sentiment stirred up by the Republicans. FAFO, you don't cooperate with the census, you lose out on what's allocated by the census.

2) I question the threshold they're using here. 114,000 samples across the country--that would average a little over 2,000 per state. That gives a pretty wide error margin, especially for the smaller states. Some of the reported differences look awfully small to reach significance given the number of samples. I see no mention of what they count as "significant", but given the numbers we see it sure seems like it's not higher than .9. Oops--if that's your threshold this looks like normal statistical variation--that it's the sampling that's wrong, not the census. When you're running a whole bunch of tests (and in this case we are doing 50) you need to set your threshold pretty high to avoid seeing data in noise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Every time I see this thread title, my brain wants to replace “illegal immigration” with “my penis”.

I know, get help.

It actually would be a curse.

An immense penis won't fit. You would never get to have decent sex. And remember, the penis is inflated by blood. You have the same inflation pressure available regardless of size--the bigger the penis the softer the erection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This fell apart when those people with the grasp of reality pointed out that illegal immigrants can't vote.

Meh. Some yes, some no. Illegal immigrants can't legally vote. But that's impossible to enforce when identification and citizenship status aren't verified for voting.

Look, when I go to the local doctor's office, there's a sign prominently posted that says it is illegal to bring firearms, knives, or pepper spray into the office. But there's also no checking involved to see if anyone is complying with that law. The reality is that anyone could bring a concealed weapon into the office with them at any time. Nobody would know, because nobody is verifying at all.

Is it legal? No, not at all. Does it happen? In this state I absofuckinglutely guarantee it does.

At the end of the day "is illegal to do x" is not at all the same thing as "is prevented from doing x".

Pepper spray is illegal in doctor's offices?! I'm sure that one gets violated pretty frequently.

However, that's a very different situation. As you say, nobody's searching. Voter stuff is another matter, it can be cross-checked. And given the Republican obsession with trying to deregister people (with an extremely high error rate, they aren't looking for accuracy) I'm sure they have if the state didn't.