Kamala Harris was not appointed as the "border czar"

[jnug]

Interesting thought process. I wonder if it would be worth the effort to take a look at whether any left-leaning media entities have recently been writing up anything about the merits or demerits of the work VP Harris did (had/have done) in this arena of national issues.

In addition, I am wondering if she is still engaged in work in this arena of national interest. I think there are still state interests involved in this issue.

Wonder all you want. Try coming with a fact instead of a musing.

As I think about this I am wondering how dead that horse might be? (If there are degrees of death.)

Harris was never the "border czar". That one is a dead as a doorknob argument.

Seems I remember a recent post from another community member about there presently being 30,000 humans a month crossing the border into the U.S., but I don't remember if that member was referring to that number of folks being legal or illegal. Kind of looking like that horse isn't so dead. (Back to that degree of dead.)

Less crossing the border illegally than when Donald was in the WH.

 

[jnug]

The reality is that she was never meant to perform that task but rather only appear to be performing that task.

CORRECT.....since she was never provided with content specific staff nor a speech writer attached to staff at the hip even to do the job she was assigned which was not BORDER CZAR.

So you can stop arguing that Harris was ever THE BORDER CZAR.

 

[medi]

You really mean this?

Wonder all you want. Try coming with a fact instead of a musing.

Doesn't "musing" mean you are giving a subject thought?

Certainly you are not one of those humans who does things without thought? Wouldn't that be kind of dangerous? Or are you one of those perfect types who has never made a mistake and can make decisions and perform actions without any thought given at all in confidence that you are ALWAYS right? And you have ALL the facts of life and work already mapped out? Guess you must be very lonely. Very sorry for you and your loneliness.

Wait, you mean you are of the opinion we are not to muse in a public arena, like this community. We are to be like monks and muse in some dark room out of sight of all others. I got it. Sorry for my error.

But then you went into muse mode in your own post. If you do not provide a link to a FACT PROVEN statement you are making, then you are musing.

Less crossing the border illegally than when Donald was in the WH.

I seem to remember that the U.S. government posted information that conflicts with your musing. As you didn't PROVE it, it is musing.

 

[NatMorton]

No. What I’m saying is it didn’t stop them from trying. So you wound up with dead East Berliners. You want blood in US hands, because that’sxwhatvyiyrcway is going to take.

My way gets it done a lot less messy.

I’m not against your way, and I think it’s a good idea. But we don’t need to mow people down with machine guns to have a secure border. Barriers and physical apprehension work, too.

We can do both.

 

[NatMorton]

Would you shoot the unarmed woman and children too? Or just the unarmed men?

I would have them all physically apprehended.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I’m not against your way, and I think it’s a good idea. But we don’t need to mow people down with machine guns to have a secure border. Barriers and physical apprehension work, too.

We can do both.

Ok, but walls dint mean much when folks have ladders. Walls work when they slow people down so guys with guns become the deterrent, and that only works if they actually shoot sometimes. It’s messy and cost a bunch of money.

The other way costs less and it removes the reason they want to come so so they have no reason to want to any longer. Their answers to their problems no longer reside on this side of the border. So…

 

[NatMorton]

CORRECT.....since she was never provided with content specific staff nor a speech writer attached to staff at the hip even to do the job she was assigned which was not BORDER CZAR.

So you can stop arguing that Harris was ever THE BORDER CZAR.

Am I also supposed to stop pretending she was never tasked with stemming the flow of illegal migrants or are you keeping that all to yourself?

 

[craig]

Worth pointing out, but people like soundbites and immigration is the #1 issue for a lot of people, including many independents. This is probably her biggest weakness this election. My suggestion would be to say that the immigration problem has plagued both Dem and GOP administrations. Trump did not solve immigration, and he actively obstructed bipartisan efforts to help solve the problem this year because he thought it would hurt his campaign. It's time to stop the politicization of the issue and for both sides to work together to finally reform the system. Something like that.

I think she should actively campaign supporting the bi-partisan immigration bill. Let MAGA argue against that.

 

[NatMorton]

Ok, but walls dint mean much when folks have ladders. Walls work when they slow people down so guys with guns become the deterrent, and that only works if they actually shoot sometimes. It’s messy and cost a bunch of money.

The other way costs less and it removes the reason they want to come so so they have no reason to want to any longer. Their answers to their problems no longer reside on this side of the border. So…

How do we keep people out of restricted areas without gunning them down?

 

[Nickyjo]

Again, but you have to want to detain asylum seekers until their case is decided. For the most part, the Democrats don’t. The Biden administration certainly had no interest in that. They were too busy throwing up their hands and blaming climate change for the immigration problem.

First, I don’t want to detain asylum seekers. International standards suggest that they should not be detained. Second, the “genius” plan I outlined for detention in cases of mass influx would never come to pass given republican opposition to funding anything like it. (Nor do I believe that they will deport tens of millions.) Third, face it, we are going through a period of anti-immigrant feeling that periodically appears in US history. Demagogues like Tucker “there goes the neighborhood” Carlson and Donald Trump are, well, engaged in demagoguery towards every type of immigrants. For example, Trump admitted the fewest refugees by far in the entire history of the program. In Tucker’s case it was more dangerous: it seems he was part of the inspiration of the El Paso shooter. To paraphrase Clemenza in the source of all wisdom, The Godfather, speaking about periodic gang wars, every so often we need to have a period of xenophobia. This too shall pass… and resurface in a generation or two.

 

[gbg3]

Eh, I'm not so sure about that:

Dropped? When did this "drop occur"? Harris was assigned this task just 2 months after Biden/Harris took office. It was assigned in March of 2021. Here are how the numbers for those 4 countries (only) looked during 3 administrations - all of Obama's 8 years, Trump's 4 years, and Biden's 3.5 years so far. She started her root causes task right away and the number of encounters during the Biden/Harris term have increased 140% from the 4 countries Harris was assigned, compared to Trump's 4-year total. So, what drop are you possibly talking about? That's a massive surge!

The Dems are going to get killed on making any attempts to rewrite border encounter numbers history. The narratives trying to be spun will never work. Her 5B infusion being bragged about resulted in a 140% increase in migrant encounters from her assigned countries. That's not success. That's a freaking disaster!

As far as border crossers from the 4 countries of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (the countries Harris was to focus on regarding root causes) - here are the stats from CBP. Again, only these 4 countries are included.

In Trump's 4 years, there were 1.8 million encountered crossers. In Biden's term until now, there have been 4.31 million (a 140% increase over Trump's 4-year term).

In Obama's 8 years, there were 3.2 million encounters (Biden's 3.5-year numbers are even a 34% increase over Obama's 8-year total).

 

[AZRWinger]

The Senate legislation included many of the Republicans had said they wanted previously. Turns out, they just need a good crisis to exploit. I have no doubt that had the Democrats agreed to HR2, Republicans would have found a reason to chickenshit their way out of that bill, too. I judge Republicans not by their words, not by the legislation they pass ceremoniously in one chamber of Congress, but by their actions. Republicans don't give a god damn about solving the border crisis or any other crisis. They exist to gum up the machinery of governance and then complain that government doesn't work. When enough people wake up and realize this fact, then maybe we can truly Make America Great Again.

Nothing but a tantrum against political opponents. The simple fact is Republicans did the hard work of passing a sweeping immigration bill using regular order with committee work, debate and floor votes, a public process. Nothing "symbolic" about it. The secretive, backroom so-called border security Senate deal was hatched out using the kind of insider wheeling and dealing rightfully condemned as corrupt swamp politics. Yet, Senate Democrats are allowed to ignore the House bill while the Orange Man Bad mob wails about the noble backroom deal being defeated by a bipartisan procedural vote.

 

[jnug]

Nothing but a tantrum against political opponents. The simple fact is Republicans did the hard work of passing a sweeping immigration bill using regular order with committee work, debate and floor votes, a public process. Nothing "symbolic" about it. The secretive, backroom so-called border security Senate deal was hatched out using the kind of insider wheeling and dealing rightfully condemned as corrupt swamp politics. Yet, Senate Democrats are allowed to ignore the House bill while the Orange Man Bad mob wails about the noble backroom deal being defeated by a bipartisan procedural vote.

If you mean HR2, that was nothing more than a messaging bill. There was never any chance of HR2 passing through the Senate. Messaging bills from the House don't get passed through the Senate. The intention is not that they pass but that they SEND A MESSAGE mainly regarding the Sense of the Majority in the House.

If you don't recognize a messaging bill when you see one, that is on you.

 

[multivita-man]

Nothing but a tantrum against political opponents.

That's exactly how I'd describe Republicans shooting down the bill.

The simple fact is Republicans did the hard work of passing a sweeping immigration bill using regular order with committee work, debate and floor votes, a public process. Nothing "symbolic" about it. The secretive, backroom so-called border security Senate deal was hatched out using the kind of insider wheeling and dealing rightfully condemned as corrupt swamp politics. Yet, Senate Democrats are allowed to ignore the House bill while the Orange Man Bad mob wails about the noble backroom deal being defeated by a bipartisan procedural vote.

All of this is total bullshit because they passed their own bill knowing it wouldn't pass. The Democrats worked with Senate Republicans to pass a bill that, based on what Republicans claimed they wanted, thought would pass. There's a difference between the two. Then Republicans in the Senate got the message and backed away from legislation they negotiated. That proves my point: it would not have mattered at all if Democrats had expressed agreement on HR2. MAGA Jesus would have told them getting an immigration bill that solves the problems at the border is bad for Trump's reelection. They would have shot that bill down too. HR2 is just a bogus resolution that was created so that Republicans could tell people they had their own bill.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

How do we keep people out of restricted areas without gunning them down?

If my way works the way I think it will there will be very little to challenge. The data suggests a small percentage of actual political refugees and a much larger percentage of economic refugees. The latter disappears when their answer to their economic woes isn’t ion this side of the border, or it gets legalized when we acknowledge we need it and change the law to account for that.

The best part about it is, if I’m right, the much smaller numbers makes the third percentage; the illegal trafficking of guns, drugs, human, much easier to pick up and we point the law enforcement resources at that.

 

[NatMorton]

If my way works the way I think it will there will be very little to challenge. The data suggests a small percentage of actual political refugees and a much larger percentage of economic refugees. The latter disappears when their answer to their economic woes isn’t ion this side of the border, or it gets legalized when we acknowledge we need it and change the law to account for that.

The best part about it is, if I’m right, the much smaller numbers makes the third percentage; the illegal trafficking of guns, drugs, human, much easier to pick up and we point the law enforcement resources at that.

The problem with only your way is enforcement. It requires resources in almost every urban center in the country to remain practical. Concentrating manpower at the border keeps the problem from speeding to fifty states.

 

[Jay59]

This is already a key campaign issue.

Harris was appointed on 24 March 2021 to, "lead efforts to stem migration across the U.S.-Mexico border."

Biden tasks Harris with 'stemming the migration' on southern border

The vice president is expected to focus on both curbing the current flow of migrants and coordinating with countries in the region to address the root causes of migration.

www.nbcnews.com

Harris chose to ignore this appointment. Her first action was in June 2021 to sign an agreement negotiated by others. She did not visit the border until January 2022.

 

[AZRWinger]

If you mean HR2, that was nothing more than a messaging bill. There was never any chance of HR2 passing through the Senate. Messaging bills from the House don't get passed through the Senate. The intention is not that they pass but that they SEND A MESSAGE mainly regarding the Sense of the Majority in the House.

If you don't recognize a messaging bill when you see one, that is on you.

Let's all deny the House passed immigration reform bill by calling it "messaging" to rationalize Senator Schumer's naked partisan attack on immigration reform as well as regular order. It's Senator Schumer who sent a message by denying immigration reform.

The issue isn't passing HR2 intact through the Senate. Thanks to Democrat sabotage immigration reform was never considered in the Senate. Instead, Schumer engineered a backroom so-called border security bill so corrupt it was rejected on a bipartisan procedural vote. Nonetheless Democrats delivered their same shop worn message of Orange Man Bad.

Sorry, imaginary designations like "messaging bills" to rationalize the kind of hyperpartisan Washington swamp sabotage of the Constitutional process for legislation is drivel.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The problem with only your way is enforcement. It requires resources in almost every urban center in the country to remain practical. Concentrating manpower at the border keeps the problem from speeding to fifty states.

I worked in law enforcement for decades. I’d suggest the local resources dedicated to the initial sweeps, if you make it legal for them to do so, might be a bit intensive. Once the trend is established the maintenance of it would require far fewer LE resources than manning a couple of thousand miles of border with sufficient to stop an activity penetration seeking undocumented numbering several thousand a day.

 

[NatMorton]

I worked in law enforcement for decades. I’d suggest the local resources dedicated to the initial sweeps, if you make it legal for them to do so, might be a bit intensive. Once the trend is established the maintenance of it would require far fewer LE resources than manning a couple of thousand miles of border with sufficient to stop an activity penetration seeking undocumented numbering several thousand a day.

How is that accomplished in the face of municipal governments that fancy themselves as running a "Sanctuary City?"

 

[ModernDiogenes]

How is that accomplished in the face of municipal governments that fancy themselves as running a "Sanctuary City?"

It doesn’t. That would have to change.

 

[diz]

I just wonder who the genius was who came up with this "Kamala was never the Border Czar" taking point.

Was the plan to acknowledge Biden's border policies were a failure to be run from, and get people talking about the border as much as possible?

Or was it to see how much worse they could make the media look by repeating a talking point that was entirely contradictory to their "Kamala is the new Border Czar" reporting at the time?

Maybe both?

 

[NatMorton]

It doesn’t. That would have to change.

And that's what makes a big part of your plan unworkable. You'd either need to convince the nation's progressives that immigration law enforcement is a good thing (which they'll never do because it would mean aligning themselves with the likes of Trump) or somehow flipping the vast majority of city governments Republican.

One might as well aim for peace in the Middle East.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

And that's what makes a big part of your plan unworkable. You'd either need to convince the nation's progressives that immigration law enforcement is a good thing (which they'll never do because it would mean aligning themselves with the likes of Trump) or somehow flipping the vast majority of city governments Republican.

One might as well aim for peace in the Middle East.

Not that hard. All large cities run on much federal money.

You change one policy, that which bars local law enforcement from enforcing federal law in regard to this problem. Then you threaten to withdraw federal funding unless they obey the federal law. The problem goes away immediately once the Fed shows it’s willing to back up its talk with action.

 

[NatMorton]

Not that hard. All large cities run on much federal money.

If memory serves, there's been a recent ruling that effectively bans that sort of blackmail from Washington when there is no connection between the funding and the called-for action. For example, the Feds can withhold highway subsidies if the given state refuses to agree to a federally approved speed limit. They cannot withhold those same funds if the state opts not to cooperate with immigration officials; there's no nexus.

Even if that were not true, do you really think withholding aid to the poor in order to get immigration law enforcement is a wise move, politically?

You change one policy, that which bars local law enforcement from enforcing federal law in regard to this problem. Then you threaten to withdraw federal funding unless they obey the federal law. The problem goes away immediately once the Fed shows it’s willing to back up its talk with action.

I wish we could, but I don't think it will stand up in court.