A Deeply Fractured US

[CBH99]

Actually, its only been recently that more Mexican came into the US than left to go back to Mexico.

Prior to 2000 there was a massive influx. For the first decade and a half of this century, more Mexicans left the US than came in. Since the turn of the century there has been a rough parity of between those entering and leaving. The US has not been overrun by brown people in the last two decades.

I'm not saying that a country shouldn't do something to stop illegal immigration, it clearly should, but this has become a racial dog whistle issue on the part of certain members of US society well beyond the issue that it is.

It isn't necessarily the colour of their skin that I personally worry about. Its their countries of origin...

How the heck does a dirt poor Somali get himself to South America, then up through Mexico?

Or an Afghan? Most homes had one working light bulb, some not even that...some would trade random things they found as currency.

None of them had the financial means to fill a gas tank, so flying across the world while having enough means to feed themselves and get to the southern US border has me raising an eyebrow...




How are these folks getting enough money to travel like this? Who is paying them, and who's paying for them? And the big question is why?

Like I said, all its going to take is one S-vest at a shopping mall or a busy Wal-Mart, and the US economy is going to be thrown into chaos.

Or one high profile murder where an American is murdered by a migrant receiving the $1000 UBI, and you'll have protests all over again.


I don't want to sound alarmist, but I don't see this ending well...


I see this as a huge security issue, and a quality of life issue. Not a racial issue.

 

[Brad Sallows]

How the heck does a dirt poor Somali get himself to South America, then up through Mexico?

Or an Afghan?

Modern equivalent of indentured service, or worse. A few are probably criminals and would-be terrorists. Most are probably just dangerously in debt to criminals (traffickers).

 

[KevinB]

So I don’t think anyone here seems to follow the ‘catch and release’ aspect.

1) Certain people who cross and are apprehended, they are not released.
2) Even those released have full biometrics taken.

While I don’t want to say that ‘origin profiling’ is conducted, someone who appears to be from Mexico or Latin America isn’t going to get the same attention as someone from Africa, the Middle East or SW Asia…

I don’t like the ‘catch and release’ program, but currently with the resources that CBP has, it really is the best they can do.

 

[FJAG]

Illegal immigration has been a significant problem since Reagan and O'Neill negotiated their deal.

And in all that time there hasn't been one Republican government which could take the matter in hand to solve the problem. Oh! Wait! There actually were several Republican governments . . . and yet . . . here we are.

Like I said. Dog whistle.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And in all that time there hasn't been one Republican government which could take the matter in hand to solve the problem. Oh! Wait! There actually were several Republican governments . . . and yet . . . here we are.

Like I said. Dog whistle.

The Republicans haven't held the presidency and a Congressional majority which includes a Senate super-majority at any point in my lifetime. No practical person ought to believe anything less is going to allow Republicans to solve anything in the immigration file alone.

 

[FJAG]

The Republicans haven't held the presidency and a Congressional majority which includes a Senate super-majority at any point in my lifetime. No practical person ought to believe anything less is going to allow Republicans to solve anything in the immigration file alone.

Why a senate super-majority. They've had majorities.

Americans are adept at balancing out a presidency with opposing house and senate majorities. In theory that should lead to moderate compromise. That was to be a feature of the system. In fact it leads to stasis with extremists of both sides holding sway.

What I see as a problem is the incessant prattling about what the President isn't doing when in fact its the system that fails. I know that there are people on this site who laud the recent immigration bill's failure as a good thing. To me it just shows that those in power, and seeking power, are incapable of making necessary compromises for the good of the country and instead are focusing on setting up political brownie-points for their side.

A pox on both their houses.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why a senate super-majority. They've had majorities.

Americans are adept at balancing out a presidency with opposing house and senate majorities. In theory that should lead to moderate compromise. That was to be a feature of the system. In fact it leads to stasis with extremists of both sides holding sway.

What I see as a problem is the incessant prattling about what the President isn't doing when in fact its the system that fails. I know that there are people on this site who laud the recent immigration bill's failure as a good thing. To me it just shows that those in power, and seeking power, are incapable of making necessary compromises for the good of the country and instead are focusing on setting up political brownie-points for their side.

Reagan negotiated an amnesty now, enforcement later deal with Tip O'Neill (IRCA, 1986). Whatever Reagan thought O'Neill had agreed to deliver, O'Neill did not deliver. That was a compromise, and Democrats poisoned the well. That's entirely on Democrats. At what point does it become possible to trust Democrats again? Absent trust, or a Democratic Senate minority willing to allow Republicans to proceed as the latter chooses or to accept a deal that doesn't deliver something Democrats want up front with a pay-for that they can ignore later, a super-majority is needed.

The recent bill failed because it wasn't a good faith negotiation. When Congress is divided, sometimes one body passes a bill that the other takes up and is willing to pass with, perhaps, a few amendments. More commonly, each body drafts its own version and they sort out a single bill in committee. Whenever a divided Congress is serious about passing a bill, this is how it works. Everyone who matters knows this. Schumer knows it; McConnell knows it. They knew that a bill that doesn't have House buy-in dies; they knew their secret negotiations didn't have House buy-in. They spent four months avoiding disclosing the contentious parts of their bill to the public and not-negotiating with the House. The entire failure is theirs. Nevertheless, the media and internet is abuzz with prattling fools who will insist this is a "Republican" failure, and, if they are particularly stupid, that it's a failure of Republicans who are approximately aligned with Trump. It isn't that those in power can't compromise for "the good of the country"; it's that they can all too easily compromise on things that are mere appearances so that they can scrape up a few billion dollars to support a war here or there.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The super majority is required because of one of the (IMHO) stupidest rules of American politics: the Filibuster rule for the Senate.

There is an old Star Trek episode that comes to mind here: A Taste of Armageddon. In that episode, the crew is confronted by two societies who are fighting their war purely through theoretical attacks made by computers and the affected citizens willfully walk into disintegration chambers. It keeps the horror out of war. Kirk gives them back the horror by disabling the computers and they quickly decide that seeking peace is a better option.

The US Senate adopted a rule (the filibuster rule) that takes out the pain and difficulty of carrying out an actual filibuster and makes it as simple as just telling the chair that you intend to filibuster to automatically trigger the need for 60 senators to vote to override the filibuster. But the people wanting to carry it out don't have to gain the floor and then speak continuously to hold it until they achieve their aim (or pass out) or are outsmarted out of it by another senator, or they find out that their constituents don't want them to take that stand (for a good look at what it should resemble see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington").

So long as that rule exists, the close majorities we have lately seen in the Senate will mean a paralyzed legislative branch for the USA. Removing the rule will both make legislating easier and force those who would oppose new legislation to decide, in each instance, if fighting such legislation is worth an actual filibuster to try and kill it.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The super majority is required because of one of the (IMHO) stupidest rules of American politics: the Filibuster rule for the Senate.

There is an old Star Trek episode that comes to mind here: A Taste of Armageddon. In that episode, the crew is confronted by two societies who are fighting their war purely through theoretical attacks made by computers and the affected citizens willfully walk into disintegration chambers. It keeps the horror out of war. Kirk gives them back the horror by disabling the computers and they quickly decide that seeking peace is a better option.

The US Senate adopted a rule (the filibuster rule) that takes out the pain and difficulty of carrying out an actual filibuster and makes it as simple as just telling the chair that you intend to filibuster to automatically trigger the need for 60 senators to vote to override the filibuster. But the people wanting to carry it out don't have to gain the floor and then speak continuously to hold it until they achieve their aim (or pass out) or are outsmarted out of it by another senator, or they find out that their constituents don't want them to take that stand (for a good look at what it should resemble see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington").

So long as that rule exists, the close majorities we have lately seen in the Senate will mean a paralyzed legislative branch for the USA. Removing the rule will both make legislating easier and force those who would oppose new legislation to decide, in each instance, if fighting such legislation is worth an actual filibuster to try and kill it.

Never did understand the filibuster rule; thank you for making sense of it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Never did understand the filibuster rule; thank you for making sense of it.

It's basically a way of forcing compromise while allowing other work to go on.

Another way of looking at it is that it reduces the rate at which the country can strangle itself with the kind of pointless busybody legislation that can make it past a 50% + 1 threshold. If something can't get to 60, it probably isn't needed.

 

[KevinB]

It's basically a way of forcing compromise while allowing other work to go on.

Yes

Another way of looking at it is that it reduces the rate at which the country can strangle itself with the kind of pointless busybody legislation that can make it past a 50% + 1 threshold. If something can't get to 60, it probably isn't needed.

In a sane society yes…

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

50%+1 was good enough for the founding fathers. It is also the most basic and fundamental concept of democracy.

The idea that you need 60% in one of the two chambers is a purely internal rule of the Senate of the US based on no other foundation than the fact that they not very long ago (in US political term) decided it was easier to do it that way than to force senators who wished to filibuster to actually go through with it. It's not a democratic rule, it's a "let's make this less painful on all of us" rule.

So much for democracy.

 

[quadrapiper]

50%+1 was good enough for the founding fathers. It is also the most basic and fundamental concept of democracy.

The idea that you need 60% in one of the two chambers is a purely internal rule of the Senate of the US based on no other foundation than the fact that they not very long ago (in US political term) decided it was easier to do it that way than to force senators who wished to filibuster to actually go through with it. It's not a democratic rule, it's a "let's make this less painful on all of us" rule.

So much for democracy.

The point of filibusters and similar procedural theatrics is the pain: yes, you have this tool to hand, but it's going to be incredibly unpleasant.

Allowing a virtual filibuster seems like the worst of all possible responses.

 

[Brad Sallows]

50%+1 was good enough for the founding fathers. It is also the most basic and fundamental concept of democracy.

The idea that you need 60% in one of the two chambers is a purely internal rule of the Senate of the US based on no other foundation than the fact that they not very long ago (in US political term) decided it was easier to do it that way than to force senators who wished to filibuster to actually go through with it. It's not a democratic rule, it's a "let's make this less painful on all of us" rule.

So much for democracy.

Democracy isn't necessarily "50% + 1". We have democratic elections, and our governments are usually decided by pluralities less than 50%. There's no first principle that says that "50%+1" is axiomatically good enough for important decisions.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Encore presentation from POTUS45's Greatest Hits ....

White House responds to Trump encouraging Russia to do 'whatever' they want to some NATO members: 'Unhinged'

The White House slammed former President Trump for his "appalling" comments encouraging Russia to do what they want to NATO members that fail to meet defense spending guidelines.

www.foxnews.com

Trump draws backlash after saying he'd let Russia attack NATO countries he deems 'delinquent'

The former president's remarks at a rally in South Carolina drew criticism from the head of the trans-Atlantic alliance, who said they could put the lives of American and European soldiers at risk.

www.nbcnews.com

NATO bits start at 40 minutes in on the speech here from Right Side Broadcasting Network - read it as you will

 

[dapaterson]

The Democratic POTUS speaks up to defend a Republican candidate against another Republican candidate. Because of course.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1756721310489539060

 

[dimsum]

The Democratic POTUS speaks up to defend a Republican candidate against another Republican candidate. Because of course.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1756721310489539060

I am loving the military Republicans perform Olympic-level mental gymnastics to both defend Trump and reconcile with his remarks on Maj Haley’s deployment.

 

[kkwd]

I am loving the military Republicans perform Olympic-level mental gymnastics to both defend Trump and reconcile with his remarks on Maj Haley’s deployment.

Which military republican mental gymnast are you particularly amused by at the moment?

 

[OceanBonfire]

Encore presentation from POTUS45's Greatest Hits ....

White House responds to Trump encouraging Russia to do 'whatever' they want to some NATO members: 'Unhinged'

The White House slammed former President Trump for his "appalling" comments encouraging Russia to do what they want to NATO members that fail to meet defense spending guidelines.

www.foxnews.com

Trump draws backlash after saying he'd let Russia attack NATO countries he deems 'delinquent'

The former president's remarks at a rally in South Carolina drew criticism from the head of the trans-Atlantic alliance, who said they could put the lives of American and European soldiers at risk.

www.nbcnews.com

Absolutely disgusting

 

[brihard]

Encore presentation from POTUS45's Greatest Hits ....

White House responds to Trump encouraging Russia to do 'whatever' they want to some NATO members: 'Unhinged'

The White House slammed former President Trump for his "appalling" comments encouraging Russia to do what they want to NATO members that fail to meet defense spending guidelines.

www.foxnews.com

Trump draws backlash after saying he'd let Russia attack NATO countries he deems 'delinquent'

The former president's remarks at a rally in South Carolina drew criticism from the head of the trans-Atlantic alliance, who said they could put the lives of American and European soldiers at risk.

www.nbcnews.com

NATO bits start at 40 minutes in on the speech here from Right Side Broadcasting Network - read it as you will

Remind me, what was literally the one and only time NATO article 5 was ever invoked, and who did the alliance collectively come to the defence of?