There were 3 senators who put together comprehensive bipartisan border plan and Trump and told the Congress not to vote on it because he didn't want Biden to get credit for it. So Biden basically implemented that plan as executive order. And now he is being criticized for that. Even the two conservative authors of the original bill are criticizing the action. The guy can't win for losing. The hell with all of you.
Apparently the WSJ did a hit piece on Biden. I get that Trump's hard corp MAGA followers don't care if a felon becomes President, but you would think the Wall Street Journal would be hesitant to help a felon become President. I guess their editors and writers are just as bamboozled as the MAGA idiots.
Look, somebody needs to tell Carville to tell someone in the Biden camp that we need a fitness video featuring the president and a few celebrities doing things that Donald Trump cannot do, like touching his toes. A display of physical fitness will accentuate Biden’s mental superiority, and Trump would look patently ridiculous trying to replicate what Biden can do. Sure he could put it together with AI, but that’s discoverable and provable, especially if Biden challenges him at a debate.
I don’t have any way to get this idea out there other than to post it here and at like-minded websites. This could be an important ingredient in changing people’s perceptions and minds. Alternatively, tell me why it’s a bad idea. C’mon, Bulwark heavy hitters, let’s stop complaining and do something positive.
Well, maybe not calisthenics, but having him standing talking forcefully would be good, as he did on the SOTU. However. the best thing would be in the debates is that along with being empathetic about kitchen table issues, if he were to be smart about a lot of issues, which he's good at. Also, when he laughs when his opponent is being combative (I'm thinking Marge Greene at the SOTU,) he finds their attemp at insulting funny and he welcomes it. Shows he's not afraid of confrontation or criticism. I'm wary of foreign AI manipulation which I heard an expert in AI say that the Russians and Chinese hackers can manipulate the feed to make Biden's voice sound weak or garbled. It can also slow his walk slightly to make him appear unable to walk. I assume the Biden campaign knows this (hell, I know it) and will counteract it.
Biden's executive order permitting border officials to immediately deport ASYLUM SEEKERS without a hearing is a legal, moral, and political travesty.
1) U.S. law & treaty obligations guarantee asylum seekers the right to due process in evaluating asylum claims. And contrary to popular belief, when asylum seekers are released to the community pending their hearing, 11 years of data indicates that 83% show up to their asylum hearings. Many of the rest either didn't receive the notice, or had hardship travelling to the hearing.
Executive actions can't override legislation. Obviously Biden tried that route, but simply flouting the law is not the solution.
What is most troubling to me is that the Biden Administration knows full-well that this is illegal. So it appears that they're hoping a Federal court will stop the practice. That's pretty gross.
2) Morality: These are asylum seekers. Statistically 55% are successful in their claims. While this doesn't seem like the best success rate, that's still significant when you consider the definition of an asylum seeker. These are people who face credible threats to their lives or their freedom due to: war, forced relocation, LGBT persecution, racial persecution, or any slew of other factors.
This means that by instantly deporting asylum seekers without due process (and yes I know it's based on the number of illegal crossings a day, but the threshold set is already being exceeded on a daily basis so the measure would come into effect immediately), the U.S. government would essentially be knowingly deporting asylum seekers arbitrarily knowing full well that 55% would likely have a valid claim. That's horrendously immoral on its own.
However, the ethical morass is even worse when you consider that the Biden administration is likely hoping that a Federal Court will intervene. But in the interim, the Biden Administration will be sending hundreds of not thousands of asylum seekers to their deaths.
3) This is obviously a political problem as well in several ways:
i) Given #1 & #2 Biden is going to lose a chunk of his base based on the cruelty & illegality alone. I'm thinking in particular about young educated voters in the moderate AOC camp. They're unlikely to vote for Trump obviously, but it's going to result in a voter lower-turnout for Biden in this group.
ii) Biden ran for Presidency with a platform that could be summarized into three words: return to normalcy.
Part of that normalcy involved not only electing a President who doesn't spew a stream of diarrhetic lies on a daily basis.
But the most significant facet was a promise to return to a normal Administration that adheres to the rule of law.
This move stinks of desperation and people do stupid shit when they think they're in a bind.
It also frankly stinks 🦨 of political laziness or incompetence. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the most effective strategy would have been to keep spending money on ads and sending out their surrogates to hammer out the message that Republicans torpedoed their own immigration reform proposal.
--------------
Frankly, fuck politics. Even fuck the law.
But the moral failing makes me incredibly sad and disappointed in Biden.
I disagree with you strongly. Asylum seekers certainly have the right to seek Asylum if they are coming from a war torn area and experiencing danger, but just because they experience economic hardship living in a poor country is not a reason for Asylum. And the backlog of Asylum seekers is years before they can get a hearing, which means they stay and work illegally. I know the US depends on cheap foreign labor but this is an issue that is being used to hurt Biden. If Trump gets elected, the border will be closed to Asylum seekers and as before, Trump will ban Muslims into the country. So in this a case of the best of two evils, compassion needs to be tempered with reason.
Well thank you for "disagreeing strongly" with me. But my argument covered three facets: legal, moral, and political.
I guess you missed the part where I cited statistically proven FACTS proving that 55% of asylum claims are successful.
Did I ever say that every single asylum seeker should be able to successfully attain refugee status? Nope.
Genius: please explain to me how you sort out the 45% of claims that will be rejected vs. the 55% that are established as verified, WITHOUT a hearing?
So you're telling me that you're comfortable deporting 55% of applicants to their deaths, because the rest don't qualify, at random, with no due process?
You're also ignoring a little tiny detail called THE LAW. This is brazenly illegal whether Trump or Biden does it.
And I never said I wasn't in agreement with the conclusion that Biden would be more temperate with his border policies illegalities, than Trump would. But that's not the point for either my legal or moral argument.
The point is that the issue of so many people coming over border is being used by Trump and associates to claim Biden is criminally responsible for so many people crossing the border. I personally believe they complain but are happy for the cheap labor. However, if Biden doesn't do something significant to stem the tide, Trump will be president. And it will be worse for Asylum seekers. Trump said illegal immigrants will be put in camps. The people he will hire to do that will not be so careful about making sure that they are not rounding up some who are in the country legally.
So in your view because some people are "gaming the system" the U.S. should just ignore their own laws and international treaty obligations and deny EVERYONE the opportunity to make an asylum claim?
I'd love to hear an ACTUAL response to my legal, moral, and political comments.
If Carville suggests, listen!!! Most of it seems to make some sense, Dems/Biden!!
Why let Trump drive the border agenda? Biden had to do something. Now he can say MAGA/GOP had their opportunity via a bipartisan bill written with a conservative GOP Senator that was a no go, because Trump wanted the issue! Ok, give it to him. He has ZERO solutions, as usual.
"Laws are threats, made by the dominant socio-economic ethnic group in any given nation. They are just the promise of violence, and the police are basically an occupying army... you guys wanna make some bacon??!!" BLM
My radical leftist bombthrower comes out every single time Dems move to 'the center' which is an absolute bullshit position in 2024, because the (self-proclaimed!) Reich is now fully fucking fascist. Moving towards them in any way is moving towards fascism. PERIOD.
When the fucking ACLU sues your administration with the same suit they brought against 'your predecessor' how TF are we supposed to convince voters that there is a difference between you??!
I cross the border regularly. Laredo is only 3.5 hours from Austin and 5.5 hours from Houston. The Texas state government is just as malicious as any cartel. Fuck your arrogant 1993 mentality, President Biden. Gets harder to defend you every fucking day. /rant
As to Biden' invocation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) authority: In Trump v Hawaii (S. Ct. 2018), the Supremes interpreted the executive's authority under this provision broadly. As one commentator summarized: "The majority stated that, “[b]y its terms,” Section 1182(f) “exudes deference to the President” [holy fucking shit!] and grants the President broad authority to impose entry restrictions. The Court reasoned that Section 1182(f) is a “comprehensive delegation” that gives the President discretion over every detail of the entry restrictions he sets under it, including “when to suspend entry,” “whose entry to suspend,” “for how long,” and “on what conditions.”" See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10458
On the other hand, the Supremes in Hawaii also said that 1182(f) cannot be used inconsistently with other provisions of the immigration act. With regard to asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) provides: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
Post-Trump v Hawaii lower courts have inconsistently applied these provisions. Some lower courts have held that 1158 has precedence (see East Bay Sanctuary litigation; others have limited the broad scope of Hawaii to situations where immigration has foreign policy and national security ramifications rather than domestic considerations; others have interpreted it as broadly as Hawaii. In light of this judicial ambiguity and lack of direct resolution by the Supremes, while Biden's invocation of 1182(f) is not a slam dunk either way in the courts, its promulgation is a far cry from fascism.
On the merits, Biden's rule would have some of the effect of the proposed border bill, in the sense that it would limit asylum proposals. Are you against that legislation as well. If so, what is your plan?
Also, politically, immigration is a weak spot for Biden vis-a-vis DJT. Notwithstanding this proposal, there is a *huge* difference both in tone and policy between Biden and DJT on immigration (e.g., Biden isn't proposing separating kids from parents as a deterrent or rounding up and deporting immigrants already within the country) . . . it's not even close. This strikes me as a reasonable effort to try to regain control over our immigration and asylum process while undercutting some of DJT's momentum on the issue.
Finally, as a more macro matter, if you are concerned about fascism, DJT ought to give you far worse nightmares than Biden.
I agree. A temporary restriction to where people can live who are seeking Asylum is not a ban. You can apply for Asylum at the US embassy in your native country.
I do not agree with you. We have to understand he has to do something there., if only to keep from losing the election. Almost everything in this country and its politics is a compromise. It is a strategic choice. He cannot do nothing. If that makes you or others not vote or vote for trump, then you gotta do what you gotta do. You're only going to get way worse if Biden loses. Maybe we should make sure the dems keep the senate and reclaim the house.
Great distillation of the Carville interview; Carville's points are more cohesive and understandable in your summary. The only thing I don't agree with is the pitch that hiding the porn star stuff de-frauded the voting public. It did, and back in 2016 it might have made a difference, but that's rear view. Today, some people doubt that a felony conviction will make a difference. I think it's better to emphasize that if anyone else did what Trump did, they would have been convicted. And that when Trump and his supporters complain and express outrage over Trump's conviction, they are saying that the laws should apply to everyone else but not to Trump. That's not just very annoying -- it demonstrates to voters that Trump is dangerous.
I would add to Carville's comments about Biden and the economy. While I agree that one watchword should be "recovery", the other theme that Biden needs to press repeatedly is, "So what's YOUR plan?"
First, Biden should acknowledge the inflation issue,* show empathy for its effects, and, as Carville observes, point out that inflation has been coming down, noting that some of the decrease came from the Fed and other from Administration initiatives such as easing COVID supply chain issues. Also, he should point out that, despite the bearish naysayers, while inflation has been coming down, the economy has been roaring ahead with record low unemployment - while we still have work to do on inflation, our economy is the envy of the world. He also should point out that a lot of the food inflation (e.g., butter, coaca, coffee, sugar, olive oil) is due to commodity shortages caused by climate change induced crop failures (https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2024/04/30/The-rising-price-of-olive-oil-What-s-causing-it-and-how-long-will-it-last ). Suppose that he could go with corporate greed but (i) that always seemed a bit hokey to me and (ii) it's not clear how Biden could address that either.
However, then, it is critical to turn the table on DJT by asking, "So what's YOUR plan?", pointing out that it's easy to take pot shots and that the only economic proposal that DJT has come up with - across the board tariffs -- would INCREASE prices for consumers, not reduce them (and also may result in an economic slowdown - see, e.g., Smoot Hawley). As specificity is DJT's kryptonite, Biden should push back on vague answers. If DJT says that he will "reduce regulations," Biden should observe that that is a slogan, not a policy - exactly which regulations will you reduce and how will they reduce prices? How will DJT, a climate change denier, address climate induced commodity price increases? "What's YOUR plan?!? How will you reduce inflation while preserving our robust economy!?!"
With immigration, Biden's other soft spot, it wouldn't hurt for Biden to defuse some of the fear mongering surrounding the immigration issue (e.g., immigrants commit crime at a much lower rate than the native born, drug dealers aren't giving fentanyl to people crossing the border who are trying to get caught to make their asylum claim, and frankly, given our sagging birth rate and need for economic growth, immigration is one of the factors that has permitted our economy to outperform our industrial peers). He also could make the point that the fact that people literally are dying to get into America undercuts the Right's dystopian narrative - we remain the beacon of freedom and opportunity to the world. Heck, even increasing numbers of people from China, supposedly our most formidable economic competitor, are trying to sneak in for the American Dream.
In that connection, however, he also should admit that we need better control over who gets into the country. In that connection, he needs to point out that the "open border" meme, such as it is,* is a creation of our broken immigration law. More specifically, (i) the law provides that anyone who touches American soil is entitled to an asylum hearing if they are claiming asylum and (ii) our asylum hearing system is so backed-up, it takes years to get a hearing. Accordingly, many immigrants are crossing the border with the intention of getting caught so that they can assert asylum, knowing that they won't get a hearing for years. Both the DJT and Biden administrations tried to limit asylum claims to those crossing at points of entry, and both got spanked by federal courts on the grounds that the law granting the right to asylum specifically does not distinguish between legal and illegal entry. Frankly, it's unclear whether Biden's recent assertion of section 1182(f) authority will pass judicial muster either. The proposed border bill would have fixed this "open borders" issue by permitting the executive to limit asylum claims to those crossing at points of entry, effectively ending the asylum loophole for those who cross illegally. However, DJT and his myrmidons scuttled that fix so that DJT would still have something about which to whine in the election . . . Is this America First or Trump First?
---
*I think that Newsom got his clock cleaned in the debate with DeSantis because Newsom constantly evaded issues, leaving them as scabs to be repeatedly picked both by DeSantis and Hannity. E.g., when the moderator busted on Newsom because of the net loss of CA population, Newsom could have acknowledged that CA is an expensive state because it is a victim of its own success - housing costs are through the roof. Perhaps one day, if FL's economy were as advanced as CA's it will have to deal with expensive housing as well.
**The "open borders" meme is a concept, not a real thing. It's not the case that our policy is to permit people to waltz into our country. For example, the INS web site paints a pretty foreboding picture for would-be border crossers. People caught crossing the border will be detained, undergo a health security check, and dealt with in accordance with the law. Frankly, the right's incessant repetition of their "open borders" meme is messaging to would-be crossers that they can just walk-in and stay - as such, it is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Highlighting the key portions of the James Carville interview is a super idea. Please do this more often! Much of the Bulwark's excellent work is in podcast format, which is time-consuming and not everyone's preferred medium. In my case, I'm a happier reader than a listener. A precis of podcast takeaways like Bill's post today is great.
“The authorities to restrict immigration granted to the president by the act are sweeping and open-ended.”
Not asylum. though. Trump lost that in the Courts, I suspect Biden will, too.
Having said that — please do everyone a favor and separate asylum from immigration in your reporting. Other than being covered by the same piece of legislation, they have nothing in common with each other.
Maybe, Andrew, POTUS had to wait “so late in his term” because the Democrats’ earlier agreement with Republicans was aborted by Republicans, and because EO’s are a red-headed stepchild when compared to legislation.
Joe Perticone asked Democrats and Republicans for their opinions. You’d never know that from this. Honestly, I don’t care what the Republicans think about anything.
You're not wrong but still, it should have happened a year ago; two years ago would have been even more than twice as good. Regardless, better late than never. I just hope that it isn't TOO late.
When Republicans insisted back in 2016 that Trump should get a special exemption from the normal standards of moral judgment, they put themselves on a long slide into nihilism, where nothing must ever stand in judgment of Trump, and anyone who opposes him is corrupt by definition.
Re Cheap Shots: "Ben, 42, Texas, white, college advisor" thinks it's a strike against Trump that Stormy Daniels was "not a particularly attractive" porn star and "there are so many wonderful porn stars out there."
Note to Biden staff: Definitely do *not* enlist "Ben" in your campaign if you plan to talk about women's reproductive rights.
Btw, would you want "Ben" advising your daughter on college choices?
I disagree, I think Ben's points would be the most likely message to resonate to working class former Trump voters. A fraction of a percent would actually listen to that and maybe sit out the election. After a chuckle, they would actually think about what Ben said.
There were 3 senators who put together comprehensive bipartisan border plan and Trump and told the Congress not to vote on it because he didn't want Biden to get credit for it. So Biden basically implemented that plan as executive order. And now he is being criticized for that. Even the two conservative authors of the original bill are criticizing the action. The guy can't win for losing. The hell with all of you.
Apparently the WSJ did a hit piece on Biden. I get that Trump's hard corp MAGA followers don't care if a felon becomes President, but you would think the Wall Street Journal would be hesitant to help a felon become President. I guess their editors and writers are just as bamboozled as the MAGA idiots.
Look, somebody needs to tell Carville to tell someone in the Biden camp that we need a fitness video featuring the president and a few celebrities doing things that Donald Trump cannot do, like touching his toes. A display of physical fitness will accentuate Biden’s mental superiority, and Trump would look patently ridiculous trying to replicate what Biden can do. Sure he could put it together with AI, but that’s discoverable and provable, especially if Biden challenges him at a debate.
I don’t have any way to get this idea out there other than to post it here and at like-minded websites. This could be an important ingredient in changing people’s perceptions and minds. Alternatively, tell me why it’s a bad idea. C’mon, Bulwark heavy hitters, let’s stop complaining and do something positive.
Well, maybe not calisthenics, but having him standing talking forcefully would be good, as he did on the SOTU. However. the best thing would be in the debates is that along with being empathetic about kitchen table issues, if he were to be smart about a lot of issues, which he's good at. Also, when he laughs when his opponent is being combative (I'm thinking Marge Greene at the SOTU,) he finds their attemp at insulting funny and he welcomes it. Shows he's not afraid of confrontation or criticism. I'm wary of foreign AI manipulation which I heard an expert in AI say that the Russians and Chinese hackers can manipulate the feed to make Biden's voice sound weak or garbled. It can also slow his walk slightly to make him appear unable to walk. I assume the Biden campaign knows this (hell, I know it) and will counteract it.
Biden's executive order permitting border officials to immediately deport ASYLUM SEEKERS without a hearing is a legal, moral, and political travesty.
1) U.S. law & treaty obligations guarantee asylum seekers the right to due process in evaluating asylum claims. And contrary to popular belief, when asylum seekers are released to the community pending their hearing, 11 years of data indicates that 83% show up to their asylum hearings. Many of the rest either didn't receive the notice, or had hardship travelling to the hearing.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/11-years-government-data-reveal-immigrants-do-show-court
Executive actions can't override legislation. Obviously Biden tried that route, but simply flouting the law is not the solution.
What is most troubling to me is that the Biden Administration knows full-well that this is illegal. So it appears that they're hoping a Federal court will stop the practice. That's pretty gross.
2) Morality: These are asylum seekers. Statistically 55% are successful in their claims. While this doesn't seem like the best success rate, that's still significant when you consider the definition of an asylum seeker. These are people who face credible threats to their lives or their freedom due to: war, forced relocation, LGBT persecution, racial persecution, or any slew of other factors.
This means that by instantly deporting asylum seekers without due process (and yes I know it's based on the number of illegal crossings a day, but the threshold set is already being exceeded on a daily basis so the measure would come into effect immediately), the U.S. government would essentially be knowingly deporting asylum seekers arbitrarily knowing full well that 55% would likely have a valid claim. That's horrendously immoral on its own.
However, the ethical morass is even worse when you consider that the Biden administration is likely hoping that a Federal Court will intervene. But in the interim, the Biden Administration will be sending hundreds of not thousands of asylum seekers to their deaths.
3) This is obviously a political problem as well in several ways:
i) Given #1 & #2 Biden is going to lose a chunk of his base based on the cruelty & illegality alone. I'm thinking in particular about young educated voters in the moderate AOC camp. They're unlikely to vote for Trump obviously, but it's going to result in a voter lower-turnout for Biden in this group.
ii) Biden ran for Presidency with a platform that could be summarized into three words: return to normalcy.
Part of that normalcy involved not only electing a President who doesn't spew a stream of diarrhetic lies on a daily basis.
But the most significant facet was a promise to return to a normal Administration that adheres to the rule of law.
This move stinks of desperation and people do stupid shit when they think they're in a bind.
It also frankly stinks 🦨 of political laziness or incompetence. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the most effective strategy would have been to keep spending money on ads and sending out their surrogates to hammer out the message that Republicans torpedoed their own immigration reform proposal.
--------------
Frankly, fuck politics. Even fuck the law.
But the moral failing makes me incredibly sad and disappointed in Biden.
I disagree with you strongly. Asylum seekers certainly have the right to seek Asylum if they are coming from a war torn area and experiencing danger, but just because they experience economic hardship living in a poor country is not a reason for Asylum. And the backlog of Asylum seekers is years before they can get a hearing, which means they stay and work illegally. I know the US depends on cheap foreign labor but this is an issue that is being used to hurt Biden. If Trump gets elected, the border will be closed to Asylum seekers and as before, Trump will ban Muslims into the country. So in this a case of the best of two evils, compassion needs to be tempered with reason.
Well thank you for "disagreeing strongly" with me. But my argument covered three facets: legal, moral, and political.
I guess you missed the part where I cited statistically proven FACTS proving that 55% of asylum claims are successful.
Did I ever say that every single asylum seeker should be able to successfully attain refugee status? Nope.
Genius: please explain to me how you sort out the 45% of claims that will be rejected vs. the 55% that are established as verified, WITHOUT a hearing?
So you're telling me that you're comfortable deporting 55% of applicants to their deaths, because the rest don't qualify, at random, with no due process?
You're also ignoring a little tiny detail called THE LAW. This is brazenly illegal whether Trump or Biden does it.
And I never said I wasn't in agreement with the conclusion that Biden would be more temperate with his border policies illegalities, than Trump would. But that's not the point for either my legal or moral argument.
The point is that the issue of so many people coming over border is being used by Trump and associates to claim Biden is criminally responsible for so many people crossing the border. I personally believe they complain but are happy for the cheap labor. However, if Biden doesn't do something significant to stem the tide, Trump will be president. And it will be worse for Asylum seekers. Trump said illegal immigrants will be put in camps. The people he will hire to do that will not be so careful about making sure that they are not rounding up some who are in the country legally.
Millions are gaming the asylum system - it has to end.
Thank you for your considered argument.
So in your view because some people are "gaming the system" the U.S. should just ignore their own laws and international treaty obligations and deny EVERYONE the opportunity to make an asylum claim?
I'd love to hear an ACTUAL response to my legal, moral, and political comments.
If Carville suggests, listen!!! Most of it seems to make some sense, Dems/Biden!!
Why let Trump drive the border agenda? Biden had to do something. Now he can say MAGA/GOP had their opportunity via a bipartisan bill written with a conservative GOP Senator that was a no go, because Trump wanted the issue! Ok, give it to him. He has ZERO solutions, as usual.
"Laws are threats, made by the dominant socio-economic ethnic group in any given nation. They are just the promise of violence, and the police are basically an occupying army... you guys wanna make some bacon??!!" BLM
My radical leftist bombthrower comes out every single time Dems move to 'the center' which is an absolute bullshit position in 2024, because the (self-proclaimed!) Reich is now fully fucking fascist. Moving towards them in any way is moving towards fascism. PERIOD.
When the fucking ACLU sues your administration with the same suit they brought against 'your predecessor' how TF are we supposed to convince voters that there is a difference between you??!
I cross the border regularly. Laredo is only 3.5 hours from Austin and 5.5 hours from Houston. The Texas state government is just as malicious as any cartel. Fuck your arrogant 1993 mentality, President Biden. Gets harder to defend you every fucking day. /rant
Sorry, Joe.
So, what's your plan?
I certainly don't agree with DJT's demonization of immigrants, legal or otherwise. However, as a practical matter, the large influx of immigrants across our border has overwhelmed our ability to process asylum requests in a meaningfully timely manner. Moreover, among other problems, it has overwhelmed our ability to see to the safe treatment of the numerous unaccompanied children crossing the border. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/25/us/unaccompanied-migrant-child-workers-exploitation.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
As to Biden' invocation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) authority: In Trump v Hawaii (S. Ct. 2018), the Supremes interpreted the executive's authority under this provision broadly. As one commentator summarized: "The majority stated that, “[b]y its terms,” Section 1182(f) “exudes deference to the President” [holy fucking shit!] and grants the President broad authority to impose entry restrictions. The Court reasoned that Section 1182(f) is a “comprehensive delegation” that gives the President discretion over every detail of the entry restrictions he sets under it, including “when to suspend entry,” “whose entry to suspend,” “for how long,” and “on what conditions.”" See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10458
On the other hand, the Supremes in Hawaii also said that 1182(f) cannot be used inconsistently with other provisions of the immigration act. With regard to asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) provides: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
Post-Trump v Hawaii lower courts have inconsistently applied these provisions. Some lower courts have held that 1158 has precedence (see East Bay Sanctuary litigation; others have limited the broad scope of Hawaii to situations where immigration has foreign policy and national security ramifications rather than domestic considerations; others have interpreted it as broadly as Hawaii. In light of this judicial ambiguity and lack of direct resolution by the Supremes, while Biden's invocation of 1182(f) is not a slam dunk either way in the courts, its promulgation is a far cry from fascism.
On the merits, Biden's rule would have some of the effect of the proposed border bill, in the sense that it would limit asylum proposals. Are you against that legislation as well. If so, what is your plan?
Also, politically, immigration is a weak spot for Biden vis-a-vis DJT. Notwithstanding this proposal, there is a *huge* difference both in tone and policy between Biden and DJT on immigration (e.g., Biden isn't proposing separating kids from parents as a deterrent or rounding up and deporting immigrants already within the country) . . . it's not even close. This strikes me as a reasonable effort to try to regain control over our immigration and asylum process while undercutting some of DJT's momentum on the issue.
Finally, as a more macro matter, if you are concerned about fascism, DJT ought to give you far worse nightmares than Biden.
I agree. A temporary restriction to where people can live who are seeking Asylum is not a ban. You can apply for Asylum at the US embassy in your native country.
I do not agree with you. We have to understand he has to do something there., if only to keep from losing the election. Almost everything in this country and its politics is a compromise. It is a strategic choice. He cannot do nothing. If that makes you or others not vote or vote for trump, then you gotta do what you gotta do. You're only going to get way worse if Biden loses. Maybe we should make sure the dems keep the senate and reclaim the house.
Larry Summers says Trump will increase inflation. If the D's want a message to jump on, I'd say it should be that.
Great distillation of the Carville interview; Carville's points are more cohesive and understandable in your summary. The only thing I don't agree with is the pitch that hiding the porn star stuff de-frauded the voting public. It did, and back in 2016 it might have made a difference, but that's rear view. Today, some people doubt that a felony conviction will make a difference. I think it's better to emphasize that if anyone else did what Trump did, they would have been convicted. And that when Trump and his supporters complain and express outrage over Trump's conviction, they are saying that the laws should apply to everyone else but not to Trump. That's not just very annoying -- it demonstrates to voters that Trump is dangerous.
I would add to Carville's comments about Biden and the economy. While I agree that one watchword should be "recovery", the other theme that Biden needs to press repeatedly is, "So what's YOUR plan?"
First, Biden should acknowledge the inflation issue,* show empathy for its effects, and, as Carville observes, point out that inflation has been coming down, noting that some of the decrease came from the Fed and other from Administration initiatives such as easing COVID supply chain issues. Also, he should point out that, despite the bearish naysayers, while inflation has been coming down, the economy has been roaring ahead with record low unemployment - while we still have work to do on inflation, our economy is the envy of the world. He also should point out that a lot of the food inflation (e.g., butter, coaca, coffee, sugar, olive oil) is due to commodity shortages caused by climate change induced crop failures (https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2024/04/30/The-rising-price-of-olive-oil-What-s-causing-it-and-how-long-will-it-last ). Suppose that he could go with corporate greed but (i) that always seemed a bit hokey to me and (ii) it's not clear how Biden could address that either.
However, then, it is critical to turn the table on DJT by asking, "So what's YOUR plan?", pointing out that it's easy to take pot shots and that the only economic proposal that DJT has come up with - across the board tariffs -- would INCREASE prices for consumers, not reduce them (and also may result in an economic slowdown - see, e.g., Smoot Hawley). As specificity is DJT's kryptonite, Biden should push back on vague answers. If DJT says that he will "reduce regulations," Biden should observe that that is a slogan, not a policy - exactly which regulations will you reduce and how will they reduce prices? How will DJT, a climate change denier, address climate induced commodity price increases? "What's YOUR plan?!? How will you reduce inflation while preserving our robust economy!?!"
With immigration, Biden's other soft spot, it wouldn't hurt for Biden to defuse some of the fear mongering surrounding the immigration issue (e.g., immigrants commit crime at a much lower rate than the native born, drug dealers aren't giving fentanyl to people crossing the border who are trying to get caught to make their asylum claim, and frankly, given our sagging birth rate and need for economic growth, immigration is one of the factors that has permitted our economy to outperform our industrial peers). He also could make the point that the fact that people literally are dying to get into America undercuts the Right's dystopian narrative - we remain the beacon of freedom and opportunity to the world. Heck, even increasing numbers of people from China, supposedly our most formidable economic competitor, are trying to sneak in for the American Dream.
In that connection, however, he also should admit that we need better control over who gets into the country. In that connection, he needs to point out that the "open border" meme, such as it is,* is a creation of our broken immigration law. More specifically, (i) the law provides that anyone who touches American soil is entitled to an asylum hearing if they are claiming asylum and (ii) our asylum hearing system is so backed-up, it takes years to get a hearing. Accordingly, many immigrants are crossing the border with the intention of getting caught so that they can assert asylum, knowing that they won't get a hearing for years. Both the DJT and Biden administrations tried to limit asylum claims to those crossing at points of entry, and both got spanked by federal courts on the grounds that the law granting the right to asylum specifically does not distinguish between legal and illegal entry. Frankly, it's unclear whether Biden's recent assertion of section 1182(f) authority will pass judicial muster either. The proposed border bill would have fixed this "open borders" issue by permitting the executive to limit asylum claims to those crossing at points of entry, effectively ending the asylum loophole for those who cross illegally. However, DJT and his myrmidons scuttled that fix so that DJT would still have something about which to whine in the election . . . Is this America First or Trump First?
---
*I think that Newsom got his clock cleaned in the debate with DeSantis because Newsom constantly evaded issues, leaving them as scabs to be repeatedly picked both by DeSantis and Hannity. E.g., when the moderator busted on Newsom because of the net loss of CA population, Newsom could have acknowledged that CA is an expensive state because it is a victim of its own success - housing costs are through the roof. Perhaps one day, if FL's economy were as advanced as CA's it will have to deal with expensive housing as well.
**The "open borders" meme is a concept, not a real thing. It's not the case that our policy is to permit people to waltz into our country. For example, the INS web site paints a pretty foreboding picture for would-be border crossers. People caught crossing the border will be detained, undergo a health security check, and dealt with in accordance with the law. Frankly, the right's incessant repetition of their "open borders" meme is messaging to would-be crossers that they can just walk-in and stay - as such, it is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Highlighting the key portions of the James Carville interview is a super idea. Please do this more often! Much of the Bulwark's excellent work is in podcast format, which is time-consuming and not everyone's preferred medium. In my case, I'm a happier reader than a listener. A precis of podcast takeaways like Bill's post today is great.
“The authorities to restrict immigration granted to the president by the act are sweeping and open-ended.”
Not asylum. though. Trump lost that in the Courts, I suspect Biden will, too.
Having said that — please do everyone a favor and separate asylum from immigration in your reporting. Other than being covered by the same piece of legislation, they have nothing in common with each other.
The people in the Luntz focus group were so ill-informed, but Jonathan was a special kind of dumb.
I’m not a big fan of Frank but he pushed back on these people a bit. I wish Sarah’s moderators would try that every once in a while.
Maybe, Andrew, POTUS had to wait “so late in his term” because the Democrats’ earlier agreement with Republicans was aborted by Republicans, and because EO’s are a red-headed stepchild when compared to legislation.
Joe Perticone asked Democrats and Republicans for their opinions. You’d never know that from this. Honestly, I don’t care what the Republicans think about anything.
You're not wrong but still, it should have happened a year ago; two years ago would have been even more than twice as good. Regardless, better late than never. I just hope that it isn't TOO late.
I need to go listen to your conversation with the Ragin’ Cajun, he’s a smart, practical man who still has a moral compass. Thanks for the highlights.
He is the Democrats version of Harry "give em hell" Truman. Democrats need more like him.
Uh, Harry Truman was a Democrat. And a particularly liberal one at that.
Will's piece is a must read. He brilliantly lays out the depravity of today's MAGA GOP. I would advise reading it after your breakfast has settled.
When Republicans insisted back in 2016 that Trump should get a special exemption from the normal standards of moral judgment, they put themselves on a long slide into nihilism, where nothing must ever stand in judgment of Trump, and anyone who opposes him is corrupt by definition.
Re Cheap Shots: "Ben, 42, Texas, white, college advisor" thinks it's a strike against Trump that Stormy Daniels was "not a particularly attractive" porn star and "there are so many wonderful porn stars out there."
Note to Biden staff: Definitely do *not* enlist "Ben" in your campaign if you plan to talk about women's reproductive rights.
Btw, would you want "Ben" advising your daughter on college choices?
Ms. Daniels is the same age as Ben. Ben should think about how he looks in the mirror, as well as why he is misogynistic.
I disagree, I think Ben's points would be the most likely message to resonate to working class former Trump voters. A fraction of a percent would actually listen to that and maybe sit out the election. After a chuckle, they would actually think about what Ben said.