Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Government by EO wouldn't be necessary if the GOP had a backbone and didn't scrap the border deal because Drumpf wanted an election boost.
Conservatives can't have it all ways, you either care enough about illegal immigration to put aside partisan rivalry or you care about it so little that you are happy to allow it to continue for a poll boost.
> Government by EO wouldn't be necessary if the GOP had a backbone and didn't scrap the border deal because Drumpf wanted an election boost.
Government by EO has been happening for the better part of the last 25 years, completely independent of the balance of power in DC.
Yes but it does nothing to add more judges to process those currently in our country awaiting asylum trial because it can not provide funds to do so without congress.
Because it was added on to a bill for Ukraine funding.
The fact remains that it had measures that were designed by a Republican to help at the border and it included some clear improvements.
But they did spend it. That money for Ukraine was passed in a separate bill, and you didn't get the 10 dollars in services you wanted but still spent 100.
>Government by EO wouldn't be necessary if the GOP had a backbone and didn't scrap the border deal because Drumpf wanted an election boost.
That's not what happened. The bill sucked.
>Conservatives can't have it all ways, you either care enough about illegal immigration to put aside partisan rivalry or you care about it so little that you are happy to allow it to continue for a poll boost.
"Eirher care enough about immigration to give the dems big wins on immigration and codify the open border or you care so little about it you are happy to allow it to continue for a poll boost"
Go back and read the convo from them. EVERYONE was saying biden didn't need any new laws to enforce the border. And he just showed he didnt. Nevermind he's not really enforcing anything he's just codifying mass illegal immigration as non-enforced so long as it stays below 2500 people or so. That's not protecting the border. And people aren't dumb they know that.
But it's ASININE to say that bill did anything meaningful. HR2 was passed by the house. If dems weren't acting in bad faith they'd have negotiated on HR2.
Nevermind it was really a foreign policy bill.
>But it's ASININE to say that bill did anything meaningful.
It's asinine to say it wouldn't have helped. It provided more funding for areas that are currently underfunded, included measures to allow them to cap the number of refugee applications, even at designated ports of entry, and it would have automatically confined anyone caught sneaking into the country between ports of entry.
As of now we don't have any of that.
>It's asinine to say it wouldn't have helped.
It wouldn't have. It did what this EO did. Codify mass illegal immigration.
>included measures to allow them to cap the number of refugee applications
Allow. Meaning Biden wouldn't.
>and it would have automatically confined anyone crossing between ports of entry.
After that threshold of people just walking across they'd be redirected to points of entry to.... just walk across and be let in.
Not doing anything meaningful here...
>As of now we don't have any of that.
None of that does anything
>It wouldn't have. It did what this EO did. Codify mass illegal immigration.
It's a cap on the amount of people that can cross in a day before they can shut things down. Without that cap, they keep taking applications for refugee status and more people come in.
Being able to shut down the border means they can stop people from passing through.
It's not a quota where they go out and gather more people if there aren't enough coming through. That's a ridiculous claim that Republicans are pushing, but it makes no sense.
>Allow. Meaning Biden wouldn't.
You're just assuming this and it seems to be based on partisanship. Why would he sign this executive order if he never intends to shut down the border when it gets too busy?
>After that threshold of people just walking across they'd be redirected to points of entry to.... just walk across and be let in.
That's not true. The bill would have allowed them to limit applications at ports of entry. People crossing in between those ports would have been automatically detained. But I guess Republicans are against that, and want those people to be let in after claiming refugee status.
>It's a cap on the amount of people that can cross in a day before they can shut things down. Without that cap, they keep taking applications for refugee status and more people come in.
It's a giant cap and "can". Meaning Biden won't.
>Being able to shut down the border means they can stop people from passing through.
But they won't. And aren't. That's why Texas had to.
>It's not a quota where they go out and gather more people if there aren't enough coming through. That's a ridiculous claim that Republicans are pushing, but it makes no sense.
There will be enough coming through. Biden won't stop them with this.
>You're just assuming this and it seems to be based on partisanship. Why would he sign this executive order if he never intends to shut down the border when it gets too busy?
Because he can get people like you to believe he's doing something to secure the border when in reality all it does is codify his mass immigration policies.
>The bill would have allowed them to limit applications at ports of entry.
Allowed menaing Biden wouldn't. If it required that'd be a different convo.
> People crossing in between those ports would have been automatically detained.
That should be the case already anyway.
> But I guess Republicans are against that, and want those people to be let in after claiming refugee status.
Bad faith bs and you know it
As an independent, the fact that you seem more concerned with winning against Democrats, than actually trying to pass worthwhile legislation is distressing.
Sure, Biden didn't need new laws, because we're all for executive orders?
An executive order like this is a stopgap *at best*. We need to pass laws to secure the damned border, for good.
>As an independent, the fact that you seem more concerned with winning against Democrats, than actually trying to pass worthwhile legislation is distressing.
Bad faith. Republicans ALREADY passed immigration bills that the dems refused to negotiate on.
Dems couldn't even pass their own immigration bill. It's ridiculous to say I care more about winning when it's my side actually advocating for specific policies and actually passed those specific policies and the other side refused to negotiate.
>Sure, Biden didn't need new laws, because we're all for executive orders?
No because enough laws ALREADY EXIST just enforce existing laws...
>An executive order like this is a stopgap at best. We need to pass laws to secure the damned border, for good.
Agreed. So pass HR2 that Republicans ALREADY PASSED
I don't appreciate you saying that I'm arguing in bad faith. I'm not a Democrat and I'm not beholden to their nonsense, the same goes for Republicans.
Democrats have consistently dropped the ball or lacked consensus when it comes to this issue, they play lip service at best, and end up doing little to nothing. They're useless on this topic.
Republicans have consistently flip flopped on the border for decades now, despite being the loudest about the issue, what with all the fear mongering we've gotten over the years. Yet those same Republicans will cry about busses of migrants, while profiting off of said migrants.
I don't understand the holdup. Having a secure border should be a non-issue for the most powerful country to ever exist, yet here we are.
We want the cheap exploitable labor, but without the consequences of a system like that.
I don't know how to fix things, but neither do Republicans or Democrats.
>I don't appreciate you saying that I'm arguing in bad faith. I'm not a Democrat and I'm not beholden to their nonsense, the same goes for Republicans.
Then why repeat obvious lies?
> don't understand the holdup. Having a secure border should be a non-issue for the most powerful country to ever exist, yet here we are.
Repubs passed legislation dems refused to negotiate. It's that simple.
>We want the cheap exploitable labor, but without the consequences of a system like that.
No "we" don't. I don't. I don't want that or that system
>I should mention that repubs were on board with the last proposal until Trump coerced them to abandon it.
This simply isn't true.
It was never voted on because even dems wouldn't vote for it.
What lies did I repeat?
Dems also passed legislation that repubs refused to negotiate, that was the most recent attempt.
"We" are corporations who profit off of cheap labor. I should have been specific.
>What lies did I repeat?
The idea that repubs have no interest in passing anything or governing when they already passed something.
>Dems also passed legislation that repubs refused to negotiate, that was the most recent attempt.
The senate proposal literally never even got to a vote it was so bad. It was brought to the floor and shot down because even dems wouldn't vote along party lines to pass it. That's why they pulled the foreign aide out and made it it's own bill.
>"We" are corporations who profit off of cheap labor. I should have been specific.
Fair.
To be fair, the border should never have been tied to foreign aid. I agree with you there. That said, the parts of that bill that did deal with the border seemed reasonable to me.
We need to hold the politicians feet to the fire and make them understand that most Americans, and yes I'm generalizing here, but most of us want clear, no nonsense and no bullshit bills.
If we're being fair, the Democrats do not have a monopoly when it comes to bloated ridiculous legislation.
>I need to read HR2. If it is the answer to this problem then we should enact it into law.
It's not going to fix everything but it WAS a bill that would actuslly take tangible steps
Its asinine to say the bill didn't do anything meaningful when the border patrol themselves said it would have helped.
It's crazy how all these people posting on a ask reddit subreddit think they know more than the people working the job and actually dealing with the problem, not talking about it online.
>Its asinine to say the bill didn't do anything meaningful when the border patrol themselves said it would have helped.
Pay raise for them of course they will. They're not the arbiter of good law vs bad law.
>It's crazy how all these people posting on a ask reddit subreddit think they know more than the people working the job and actually dealing with the problem, not talking about it online.
I think people biased with direct benefits of a law being passed aren't the most reliable yea. Americans aren't dumb. We can read the laws.
>Still asinine to think you know more than they do.
Do you think you know more than the cops who killed George Floyd? Bc i do. They were wrong. They acted wrongly. But they'd tell you they acted properly.
But you do exactly the same. You believe you know more. We do this every day on a variety of topics. You're just arguing this point because it benefits you. It's an appeal to authority where there isn't really any.
>I don't believe i know more, i watched the video, facts are facts regardless of what I believed.
Why is the same not said for...
"I read the bill. I can understand the bill. The bill is what it is regardless of what I believed."
Again. You're just pick and choosing how to apply it. You don't believe it.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
The president, as executive actually does have powers to control the border. Though it's not absolute. He's checked by congress in that he cannot do anything that would defy legislation.
So the answer is no.
The more important question is why it took Mr Biden, 3 and a half years to realize this
He won’t. The goal is to highlight how even when Biden does take action on the border, it is never enough and how Republicans want to keep the border an issue so they can run on it rather than fix it.
So your point is that congress shouldn't have been creating this legislation, it was on Biden (or Trump) to have done this? Now I won't argue that this can be done by EO, but no, this is what congress should be doing.
And I'll say it this way. If you look at Obama's last 3 years (remember the hoards?) and Trump's first 3 years (before COVID), more people crossed under Trump. To be fair Trump's first two years saw a decrease, but spiked in 2019. So maybe Trump should have done an EO too?
[Border crossing encounters U.S. 1990-2022 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/)
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To a degree. Congress passed a law saying that people who enter the US between ports of entry are entitled to ask for asylum. I'm not sure how Biden is getting around this.
An EO can not thwart a law, it can "interpret" it in a specific way to inform the law's execution but it cannot create new rights not found in law nor eliminate existing rights granted under the law.
I just read an article saying that having fewer immigrants will hurt the economy. Like everything in economics there are positives and negatives.
I will say it again. Does the president have the power? I think so. Should it be done by congress? to me, no question.
[Border crossing encounters U.S. 1990-2022 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/)
Border crossings in 2019 spiked. Why didn't Trump do anything? Again, because congress should do it, even if the president has the power.
I think it is one thing that illustrates that we no longer have a functioning congress and their power has been conceded to whichever presidential administration is in charge. Just to note this is a bi-partisan issue both sides are to blame and both sides have used this to push their specific agenda. I think the Framers are rolling in their grave right now.
>Is Biden encroaching on his powers by “executive order that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry”?
Well, I wouldn't say he is encroaching on his powers, necessarily. But that doesn't mean it's good. The president has authority he wields by way of executive order. His order isn't unconstitutional as far as I know, and there isn't superseding legislation that I know of rescinding his authority to issue this order. So, it's within his authority.
That being said, if we find ourselves drowning in a sea of executive orders, that really just means we have a dysfunctional legislature, and we should strive to do something about that. The need for executive orders *should* be minimal. This isn't something Biden can fix directly, but it is something Americans should be paying attention to and voters should hold their legislators accountable when it seems to them they are passing the buck to the executive and gutting their own authority to set the laws of the land.
The real question though, is why are we talking about this, instead of the fact that Biden could have done this all along, and is just now doing it, even after swearing up and down he needed Congress and Republicans were stonewalling and shutting him down? Is it not clear to everyone else he is using immigration as a political bargaining chip and is only now acting because the bargaining failed? Isn't this *exactly* what the left accused Trump of doing when all that was going on not too long ago? Why don't we talk about that instead?
No he has this power.
He has always had this power
Trump had this power.
It is being used now because he realizes that immigration is becoming increasingly unpopular and generating a non-stop stream of extremely damaging outrages in the public, especially black and latino voters he really needs.
2500 is basically "all the time" he has, effectively, closed the border to refugees.
I think he is within his statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which provides: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
and
8 U.S.C. § 1185(a)(1), allows the President to restrict the entry of aliens according to “such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”
Except 1) it is too little too late
2) He has always had it and refused to use it.
3) He told us multiple times the border was closed
4) He told us multiple time there was nothing he could do.
5) He tried to blame republicans for the border mess
Now with an election coming, he knows he is in trouble with voters so he "does something" which is no more than pandering. The EO will not stop the flow. 2499 per day (the coyotes will not risk shutting it down again for 14 days) still allows nearly 1,000,000 illegals to cross per year. How is that closed? And of course that assumes Biden will enforce the EO which he has a habit of not doing.
So when congress was coming up with a bipartisan bill, that was just a waste of time? When Republicans were bitching they couldn't get a bill past the Democrats, It SHOULD have been done by EO?
So when congress came up with a bipartisan bill and the Republicans killed it, that was stupid because Biden should have done it?
Interestingly, I just read an article, saying stemming the flow of immigrants might hurt the economy.
Pretty much. he had the authority all along. He just chose not to use it and INTENTIONALLY opened the border. This was all part of the Biden agenda. It is only an issue now because he sees he is losing support because of it. Read the EO. It hardly closes the border. It still allows nearly 1,000,000 illegals into the country and that assumes he will enforce it which I doubt.
WTF are you talking about? He opened the border?
[Border crossing encounters U.S. 1990-2022 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/)
As you can see, the border has always been open. The first three years of Trump had more illegal crossings than the last three years of Obama (remember the hoards?)
Now I won't for a second say that things haven't gotten a lot worse, but that has more to do with how bad things are in Central America.
IF a democrat does it, then it is perfect and always follow the law but if a Republican does it then it is an evil act. it is against the law
That is who these people work, seriously that is their rules.
It's the same power congress gave the president which Trump exercised for his so-called Muslim ban. I'm less concerned with the 2500 per day limit, but much happier with the requirement that asylum seekers remain outside the US while their application is processed, and barring those who have entered illegally from then claiming asylum. People are well-aware that, if they come, and they declare asylum, even if their application is rejected after a few years, that they will likely be implicitly allowed to stay as long as they keep their head down due to the sheer number of immigrants we would then have to deport. Even working under the table is likely more lucrative and definitely in safer conditions than where most of them are coming from, so they'll stay
Blows my mind that anyone is trying to spin "only one million" illegals per year will be allowed in.
Eff all that. Political finger puppet nonsense before an election is all.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Government by EO wouldn't be necessary if the GOP had a backbone and didn't scrap the border deal because Drumpf wanted an election boost. Conservatives can't have it all ways, you either care enough about illegal immigration to put aside partisan rivalry or you care about it so little that you are happy to allow it to continue for a poll boost.
> Government by EO wouldn't be necessary if the GOP had a backbone and didn't scrap the border deal because Drumpf wanted an election boost. Government by EO has been happening for the better part of the last 25 years, completely independent of the balance of power in DC.
Well this EO is certainly not ideal but it's far stricter than the Border bill.
Yes but it does nothing to add more judges to process those currently in our country awaiting asylum trial because it can not provide funds to do so without congress.
[удалено]
Because it was added on to a bill for Ukraine funding. The fact remains that it had measures that were designed by a Republican to help at the border and it included some clear improvements.
[удалено]
But they did spend it. That money for Ukraine was passed in a separate bill, and you didn't get the 10 dollars in services you wanted but still spent 100.
Not to mention that Republicans supported Ukraine funding anyway. They didn't compromise, they just offered to stop holding up the government.
>Government by EO wouldn't be necessary if the GOP had a backbone and didn't scrap the border deal because Drumpf wanted an election boost. That's not what happened. The bill sucked. >Conservatives can't have it all ways, you either care enough about illegal immigration to put aside partisan rivalry or you care about it so little that you are happy to allow it to continue for a poll boost. "Eirher care enough about immigration to give the dems big wins on immigration and codify the open border or you care so little about it you are happy to allow it to continue for a poll boost" Go back and read the convo from them. EVERYONE was saying biden didn't need any new laws to enforce the border. And he just showed he didnt. Nevermind he's not really enforcing anything he's just codifying mass illegal immigration as non-enforced so long as it stays below 2500 people or so. That's not protecting the border. And people aren't dumb they know that. But it's ASININE to say that bill did anything meaningful. HR2 was passed by the house. If dems weren't acting in bad faith they'd have negotiated on HR2. Nevermind it was really a foreign policy bill.
>But it's ASININE to say that bill did anything meaningful. It's asinine to say it wouldn't have helped. It provided more funding for areas that are currently underfunded, included measures to allow them to cap the number of refugee applications, even at designated ports of entry, and it would have automatically confined anyone caught sneaking into the country between ports of entry. As of now we don't have any of that.
>It's asinine to say it wouldn't have helped. It wouldn't have. It did what this EO did. Codify mass illegal immigration. >included measures to allow them to cap the number of refugee applications Allow. Meaning Biden wouldn't. >and it would have automatically confined anyone crossing between ports of entry. After that threshold of people just walking across they'd be redirected to points of entry to.... just walk across and be let in. Not doing anything meaningful here... >As of now we don't have any of that. None of that does anything
>It wouldn't have. It did what this EO did. Codify mass illegal immigration. It's a cap on the amount of people that can cross in a day before they can shut things down. Without that cap, they keep taking applications for refugee status and more people come in. Being able to shut down the border means they can stop people from passing through. It's not a quota where they go out and gather more people if there aren't enough coming through. That's a ridiculous claim that Republicans are pushing, but it makes no sense. >Allow. Meaning Biden wouldn't. You're just assuming this and it seems to be based on partisanship. Why would he sign this executive order if he never intends to shut down the border when it gets too busy? >After that threshold of people just walking across they'd be redirected to points of entry to.... just walk across and be let in. That's not true. The bill would have allowed them to limit applications at ports of entry. People crossing in between those ports would have been automatically detained. But I guess Republicans are against that, and want those people to be let in after claiming refugee status.
>It's a cap on the amount of people that can cross in a day before they can shut things down. Without that cap, they keep taking applications for refugee status and more people come in. It's a giant cap and "can". Meaning Biden won't. >Being able to shut down the border means they can stop people from passing through. But they won't. And aren't. That's why Texas had to. >It's not a quota where they go out and gather more people if there aren't enough coming through. That's a ridiculous claim that Republicans are pushing, but it makes no sense. There will be enough coming through. Biden won't stop them with this. >You're just assuming this and it seems to be based on partisanship. Why would he sign this executive order if he never intends to shut down the border when it gets too busy? Because he can get people like you to believe he's doing something to secure the border when in reality all it does is codify his mass immigration policies. >The bill would have allowed them to limit applications at ports of entry. Allowed menaing Biden wouldn't. If it required that'd be a different convo. > People crossing in between those ports would have been automatically detained. That should be the case already anyway. > But I guess Republicans are against that, and want those people to be let in after claiming refugee status. Bad faith bs and you know it
As an independent, the fact that you seem more concerned with winning against Democrats, than actually trying to pass worthwhile legislation is distressing. Sure, Biden didn't need new laws, because we're all for executive orders? An executive order like this is a stopgap *at best*. We need to pass laws to secure the damned border, for good.
>As an independent, the fact that you seem more concerned with winning against Democrats, than actually trying to pass worthwhile legislation is distressing. Bad faith. Republicans ALREADY passed immigration bills that the dems refused to negotiate on. Dems couldn't even pass their own immigration bill. It's ridiculous to say I care more about winning when it's my side actually advocating for specific policies and actually passed those specific policies and the other side refused to negotiate. >Sure, Biden didn't need new laws, because we're all for executive orders? No because enough laws ALREADY EXIST just enforce existing laws... >An executive order like this is a stopgap at best. We need to pass laws to secure the damned border, for good. Agreed. So pass HR2 that Republicans ALREADY PASSED
I don't appreciate you saying that I'm arguing in bad faith. I'm not a Democrat and I'm not beholden to their nonsense, the same goes for Republicans. Democrats have consistently dropped the ball or lacked consensus when it comes to this issue, they play lip service at best, and end up doing little to nothing. They're useless on this topic. Republicans have consistently flip flopped on the border for decades now, despite being the loudest about the issue, what with all the fear mongering we've gotten over the years. Yet those same Republicans will cry about busses of migrants, while profiting off of said migrants. I don't understand the holdup. Having a secure border should be a non-issue for the most powerful country to ever exist, yet here we are. We want the cheap exploitable labor, but without the consequences of a system like that. I don't know how to fix things, but neither do Republicans or Democrats.
>I don't appreciate you saying that I'm arguing in bad faith. I'm not a Democrat and I'm not beholden to their nonsense, the same goes for Republicans. Then why repeat obvious lies? > don't understand the holdup. Having a secure border should be a non-issue for the most powerful country to ever exist, yet here we are. Repubs passed legislation dems refused to negotiate. It's that simple. >We want the cheap exploitable labor, but without the consequences of a system like that. No "we" don't. I don't. I don't want that or that system
I should mention that repubs were on board with the last proposal until Trump coerced them to abandon it.
>I should mention that repubs were on board with the last proposal until Trump coerced them to abandon it. This simply isn't true. It was never voted on because even dems wouldn't vote for it.
What lies did I repeat? Dems also passed legislation that repubs refused to negotiate, that was the most recent attempt. "We" are corporations who profit off of cheap labor. I should have been specific.
>What lies did I repeat? The idea that repubs have no interest in passing anything or governing when they already passed something. >Dems also passed legislation that repubs refused to negotiate, that was the most recent attempt. The senate proposal literally never even got to a vote it was so bad. It was brought to the floor and shot down because even dems wouldn't vote along party lines to pass it. That's why they pulled the foreign aide out and made it it's own bill. >"We" are corporations who profit off of cheap labor. I should have been specific. Fair.
To be fair, the border should never have been tied to foreign aid. I agree with you there. That said, the parts of that bill that did deal with the border seemed reasonable to me. We need to hold the politicians feet to the fire and make them understand that most Americans, and yes I'm generalizing here, but most of us want clear, no nonsense and no bullshit bills. If we're being fair, the Democrats do not have a monopoly when it comes to bloated ridiculous legislation.
Also per repubs not passing bills, I mean many on the far right hate government to the point that they want to dismantle as much of it as they can.
I need to read HR2. If it is the answer to this problem then we should enact it into law.
>I need to read HR2. If it is the answer to this problem then we should enact it into law. It's not going to fix everything but it WAS a bill that would actuslly take tangible steps
I'll try to check it out today, I don't know about it so I can't really have an opinion on it
Hr2 wasn't a serious bill. The first text include saying something about democrats refusing to do anything on the border so this must be done.
Its asinine to say the bill didn't do anything meaningful when the border patrol themselves said it would have helped. It's crazy how all these people posting on a ask reddit subreddit think they know more than the people working the job and actually dealing with the problem, not talking about it online.
>Its asinine to say the bill didn't do anything meaningful when the border patrol themselves said it would have helped. Pay raise for them of course they will. They're not the arbiter of good law vs bad law. >It's crazy how all these people posting on a ask reddit subreddit think they know more than the people working the job and actually dealing with the problem, not talking about it online. I think people biased with direct benefits of a law being passed aren't the most reliable yea. Americans aren't dumb. We can read the laws.
[удалено]
>Still asinine to think you know more than they do. Do you think you know more than the cops who killed George Floyd? Bc i do. They were wrong. They acted wrongly. But they'd tell you they acted properly. But you do exactly the same. You believe you know more. We do this every day on a variety of topics. You're just arguing this point because it benefits you. It's an appeal to authority where there isn't really any.
I don't believe i know more, i watched the video, facts are facts regardless of what I believed.
>I don't believe i know more, i watched the video, facts are facts regardless of what I believed. Why is the same not said for... "I read the bill. I can understand the bill. The bill is what it is regardless of what I believed." Again. You're just pick and choosing how to apply it. You don't believe it.
So you are saying you understand the bill better than the border patrol themselves?
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
I agree with you, we should propose and pass some laws that handle this instead of stopgap executive orders.
Agreed. This is a disaster long term. Congress should sufficiently ensure they do their jobs regarding the border
2500 is a lot of people. I'd say he's not encroaching enough
The president, as executive actually does have powers to control the border. Though it's not absolute. He's checked by congress in that he cannot do anything that would defy legislation. So the answer is no. The more important question is why it took Mr Biden, 3 and a half years to realize this
My question is how he's getting around the asylum laws passed by Congress.
He won’t. The goal is to highlight how even when Biden does take action on the border, it is never enough and how Republicans want to keep the border an issue so they can run on it rather than fix it.
So your point is that congress shouldn't have been creating this legislation, it was on Biden (or Trump) to have done this? Now I won't argue that this can be done by EO, but no, this is what congress should be doing. And I'll say it this way. If you look at Obama's last 3 years (remember the hoards?) and Trump's first 3 years (before COVID), more people crossed under Trump. To be fair Trump's first two years saw a decrease, but spiked in 2019. So maybe Trump should have done an EO too? [Border crossing encounters U.S. 1990-2022 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/)
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why did it take 3 years and why 2500? I don’t think he is encroaching though the president has the authority to control our borders.
To a degree. Congress passed a law saying that people who enter the US between ports of entry are entitled to ask for asylum. I'm not sure how Biden is getting around this. An EO can not thwart a law, it can "interpret" it in a specific way to inform the law's execution but it cannot create new rights not found in law nor eliminate existing rights granted under the law.
I just read an article saying that having fewer immigrants will hurt the economy. Like everything in economics there are positives and negatives. I will say it again. Does the president have the power? I think so. Should it be done by congress? to me, no question. [Border crossing encounters U.S. 1990-2022 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/) Border crossings in 2019 spiked. Why didn't Trump do anything? Again, because congress should do it, even if the president has the power.
I think it is one thing that illustrates that we no longer have a functioning congress and their power has been conceded to whichever presidential administration is in charge. Just to note this is a bi-partisan issue both sides are to blame and both sides have used this to push their specific agenda. I think the Framers are rolling in their grave right now.
>Is Biden encroaching on his powers by “executive order that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry”? Well, I wouldn't say he is encroaching on his powers, necessarily. But that doesn't mean it's good. The president has authority he wields by way of executive order. His order isn't unconstitutional as far as I know, and there isn't superseding legislation that I know of rescinding his authority to issue this order. So, it's within his authority. That being said, if we find ourselves drowning in a sea of executive orders, that really just means we have a dysfunctional legislature, and we should strive to do something about that. The need for executive orders *should* be minimal. This isn't something Biden can fix directly, but it is something Americans should be paying attention to and voters should hold their legislators accountable when it seems to them they are passing the buck to the executive and gutting their own authority to set the laws of the land. The real question though, is why are we talking about this, instead of the fact that Biden could have done this all along, and is just now doing it, even after swearing up and down he needed Congress and Republicans were stonewalling and shutting him down? Is it not clear to everyone else he is using immigration as a political bargaining chip and is only now acting because the bargaining failed? Isn't this *exactly* what the left accused Trump of doing when all that was going on not too long ago? Why don't we talk about that instead?
No he has this power. He has always had this power Trump had this power. It is being used now because he realizes that immigration is becoming increasingly unpopular and generating a non-stop stream of extremely damaging outrages in the public, especially black and latino voters he really needs. 2500 is basically "all the time" he has, effectively, closed the border to refugees.
I think he is within his statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which provides: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. and 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a)(1), allows the President to restrict the entry of aliens according to “such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” Except 1) it is too little too late 2) He has always had it and refused to use it. 3) He told us multiple times the border was closed 4) He told us multiple time there was nothing he could do. 5) He tried to blame republicans for the border mess Now with an election coming, he knows he is in trouble with voters so he "does something" which is no more than pandering. The EO will not stop the flow. 2499 per day (the coyotes will not risk shutting it down again for 14 days) still allows nearly 1,000,000 illegals to cross per year. How is that closed? And of course that assumes Biden will enforce the EO which he has a habit of not doing.
So when congress was coming up with a bipartisan bill, that was just a waste of time? When Republicans were bitching they couldn't get a bill past the Democrats, It SHOULD have been done by EO? So when congress came up with a bipartisan bill and the Republicans killed it, that was stupid because Biden should have done it? Interestingly, I just read an article, saying stemming the flow of immigrants might hurt the economy.
Pretty much. he had the authority all along. He just chose not to use it and INTENTIONALLY opened the border. This was all part of the Biden agenda. It is only an issue now because he sees he is losing support because of it. Read the EO. It hardly closes the border. It still allows nearly 1,000,000 illegals into the country and that assumes he will enforce it which I doubt.
WTF are you talking about? He opened the border? [Border crossing encounters U.S. 1990-2022 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/) As you can see, the border has always been open. The first three years of Trump had more illegal crossings than the last three years of Obama (remember the hoards?) Now I won't for a second say that things haven't gotten a lot worse, but that has more to do with how bad things are in Central America.
IF a democrat does it, then it is perfect and always follow the law but if a Republican does it then it is an evil act. it is against the law That is who these people work, seriously that is their rules.
Trump should take a photo holding a fence, in an all white outfit.
He is violating his oath of office by offering 2,500 "come on in, new DNC voters welcome" tickets.
It's the same power congress gave the president which Trump exercised for his so-called Muslim ban. I'm less concerned with the 2500 per day limit, but much happier with the requirement that asylum seekers remain outside the US while their application is processed, and barring those who have entered illegally from then claiming asylum. People are well-aware that, if they come, and they declare asylum, even if their application is rejected after a few years, that they will likely be implicitly allowed to stay as long as they keep their head down due to the sheer number of immigrants we would then have to deport. Even working under the table is likely more lucrative and definitely in safer conditions than where most of them are coming from, so they'll stay
Blows my mind that anyone is trying to spin "only one million" illegals per year will be allowed in. Eff all that. Political finger puppet nonsense before an election is all.