Senate to Vote Again on Border Deal as Democrats Seek Political Edge
web.archive.org
The bipartisan border enforcement compromise, blocked by Republicans in February, is all but certain to be thwarted again. Democrats aim to tag the G.O.P. as the culprit in its failure.

Mr. Biden, whose team helped hammer out the deal, urged support for it on Monday in a statement from Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, that said, “We strongly support this legislation and call on every senator to put partisan politics aside and vote to secure the border.”

Among other changes to immigration law, the measure would make it more difficult to gain asylum in the United States and increase detentions and deportations of those crossing into the country without authorization. It would also effectively close the border altogether if the average number of migrants encountered by immigration officials exceeded a certain threshold — an average of 5,000 over the course of a week or 8,500 on any given day. The bill also would give the president power to close the border unilaterally if migrant encounters reach an average of 4,000 per day over a week.

A cap on asylum is a violation of international law.

  • Infamousblt [any]M
    ·
    7 months ago

    Somehow this is totally different than when Trump did it. The main difference is that this guy isn't Trump doing it. That's actually the only difference but somehow the person that does it changes everything.

    • Wertheimer [any]
      ·
      7 months ago

      Adam Johnson:

      So when the actual policy being discussed is mentioned, gone are the days of “kids in cages,” “separating families,” or any mention of the actual human stakes Democratic partisans once referenced when countering the anti-immigrant rhetoric of Trump. Democrats are now, by their own telling, to the right of Republicans, so, in coverage of the issue, not only are the migrant voices of those impacted by the right-wing pivot silenced, but the actual details of this so-called “border deal” remain as anodyne and vague as possible. After all, this is a clever triangulation wedge issue, not a real-world policy that will negatively impact real humans, and actually describing the human stakes would muddy up this fun horse race framing.

      • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]
        ·
        7 months ago

        I dislike John Oliver a lot now, but he had a very good point; if you want to do something evil undetected, you do it in a boring manner

        • Wertheimer [any]
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think I remember this line. First few episodes of the show, about net neutrality. "Apple could hide the entire text of Mein Kampf in the iTunes terms of service and people would be furiously clicking 'Agree, agree!' "

      • Red_Sunshine_Over_Florida [he/him]
        ·
        7 months ago

        To think I once considered voting for Biden in the hopes of him reducing the suffering inflicted on these people. They just view these folks as props in the Punch and Judy show that they put on for capital. I'm glad I never voted for this monster.