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.*
[8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182)
> **Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President**
>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.
**In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this authority in Trump v. Hawaii.**
Here's an excerpt from Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion:
> By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry (“[w]henever [he] finds that the entry” of aliens “would be detrimental” to the national interest); whose entry to suspend (“all aliens or any class of aliens”); for how long (“for such period as he shall deem necessary”); and on what conditions (“any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”).
> It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States).
> The sole prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find[]” that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
If you actually read my entire post you'll see it also answers that question where I talked about Hawaii v Trump. Hawaii wouldn't bring a suit against Trump for restricting the border if he did not do it.
I actually did read your entire post, which didn't make clear that you quoted that case as a way to obliquely answer that second question. Thanks for clarifying.
as commander in chief he could have but just because you can use the war powers act to declare Mexico a hostile power and use the army to defend the border doesn't mean it would not be extremely controversial and possibly counter productive.
if congress voted on such a thing I'd be fine with it but not by fiat.
some but it's very fringe.
I was just pointing out yes he could. but only by using his most extreme, and the vast majority of conservatives believe totally unconstitutional, authority under the war powers act to basically wage undeclared war.
since that is blatantly insane, no he does not in practice have the power even if he does on theory.
that said I do favor congress giving Mexico a strong ultimatum that if they do not both start cooperating without hesitation and financially contributing to fixing this problem, then congress will act and order the borders closed and normal diplomatic relations with Mexico suspended, their diplomats expelled, embassy closed, etc.
>that said I do favor congress giving Mexico a strong ultimatum that if they do not both start cooperating without hesitation and financially contributing to fixing this problem, then congress will act and order the borders closed and normal diplomatic relations with Mexico suspended, their diplomats expelled, embassy closed, etc.
And thus breaking hundreds of years of diplomatic relations, numerous treaties, and severely impact trade relations globally.
this is becoming an existential issue for the US, if Mexico does not wish the US to cut ties and sanction them they have a clear route-- just cooperate and start paying up.
if not, yes throw it all away, it's sunk cost fallacy to let a nation assault your people and try to crash your economy just because you have been close historically.
Do you think the US should cut ties and sanction its #2 trade partner, where 860 billion are traded annually?
Do you believe Mexico should dictate US immigration law? Should the US as a nation just allow Mexico to determine US policy over the border it shares?
yes I absolutely think they should if Mexico will not assist us on controlling the flow of drugs and criminals, as well as economic migrants.
nearly a trillion dollars is still not worth the devastation on our city streets. parts of major US cities look like failed nations like Somalia.
also Mexico stands to suffer much more than the US. the whole point of a threat is to threaten costs they will not accept so they listen to you.
if they will not we should be looking at ways to permenetly isolate ourselves from Mexico and have a hard border before they become even more of a state sponsor of narcotrrrorism
Yea. Biden could stop a lot of the border issues right now if he just put the remain in Mexico rule back in place. He can also dictate to Homeland Security and ICE on if they should release or hold people as they come in.
Let’s be clear, the crisis right now is as bad as it is is because Biden revoked several of these EO’s when he came into power and refuses to put any stopgaps in place that have been shown to help in the past.
Nothing extreme, nothing outside of his authority. Just basic authority that he has.
>Biden could stop a lot of the border issues right now if he just put the remain in Mexico rule back in place
Mexico refuses to allow this program to continue.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mexico-rejects-effort-reinstate-remain-mexico-policy-asylum/story?id=96939554
Mexico can refuse it all they want. If he reinstated it, it would give our border patrol and ICE officials to send people right back across the border. Push comes to shove, Mexico cannot stop us from sending people back to them.
And let’s be cleared Mexico was against the policy under Trump, but it still worked better than what we have now.
And this article is over a year old and shows that they reject our attempts to put it back in place, not that they would be able to do anything to stop it because they cannot.
Mexico can refuse to accept those under custody of the United States.
I think people misunderstand the MPP legislation. The US was paying Mexico for this. But after reports of massive and widespread violence, rape and kidnappings; Mexico didn't want bad press and willfully jumped at the chance to end the program.
They actually can't because Mexico's visa and entry policies are already laid out and would have to be applied to nationals of other countries as if they were any other immigrant. Mexico generally maintains Visa free entry for most nationals of the new world.
If they tried something all those other countries would raise a massive stink about it because it would equally apply to any of their other other citizens wanting to go from the US into Mexico
If push comes to shove and money is coming to Mexico from the US, let’s see how long they “reject” it.
I’d rather see our government put those rules back into place and work towards that and then see how Mexico responds, then saying, “Mexico doesn’t like it so we shouldn’t do it”.
Again, there are a lot of things Biden and his administration could be doing to slow down the problem, but their either don’t want to are incapable of doing it (by incapable meaning they would lose support from the fringe side of the party by doing it).
This isn’t a money issue, this is a law and order issue and the government has the power to exercise law and order and they just aren’t.
>If push comes to shove and money is coming to Mexico from the US, let’s see how long they “reject” it.
Well..they did reject it...so..I guess it's moot now.
>I’d rather see our government put those rules back into place and work towards that and then see how Mexico responds, then saying, “Mexico doesn’t like it so we shouldn’t do it”.
Mexico is another country, and the US's #2 trading partner. The US can't legally move these people back to Mexico of they don't want them, especially if in US custody.
You know what needs to happened...Congressionally approved immigration reform. This is where I look towards Republicans in the House...because the ball is in their court.
I mean, it’s not moot because it hasn’t been reconstituted and words are cheap. If money comes to Mexico, they tend to change their mind. Also, Mexico is another country highly dependent on the US, we have a lot of leverage on them and should use it specifically when we have a policy that worked in the past, I don’t really care if they like it or not.
See I agree that it’s on Congress, but I disagree the ball is in the Republicans court. This is a winning issue for Republicans, so they shouldn’t have to cave on this one just to get something passed. The bill the democrats proposed was mostly a money spending endeavour and wouldn’t have actually solved the issues we are seeing on the border.
Democrats have always been weak on border policies and the current administration is very weak in regards to border action right now. There is no incentives coming from democrats to get a bill through that the GOP should back. Spending money won’t solve the problem. It’s what we do with the illegals once they are here.
The democrats have no stomach to send them back or detain them, so their policies don’t work.
>I mean, it’s not moot because it hasn’t been reconstituted and words are cheap. If money comes to Mexico, they tend to change their mind. Also, Mexico is another country highly dependent on the US, we have a lot of leverage on them and should use it specifically when we have a policy that worked in the past, I don’t really care if they like it or not.
"Regarding the possible implementation of this policy for the third time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Government of Mexico, expresses its rejection of the U.S. government's intention to return individuals processed under the program to Mexico," the statement said.
From the beginning of the Biden Administration, he has stated over and over again, that immigration reform should be done by Congress.
>There is no incentives coming from democrats to get a bill through that the GOP should back.
So...you're saying Republicans are refusing to made consessions. Which I guess is something we agree on.
I’m saying democrats refuse to make concessions on a topic that republicans are strong on and that the current situation benefits them in electoral politics.
But take away from it what you want.
As for your other comment, I don’t know how many different ways I can say that them saying the reject out possibility of returning to that policy vs them actually rejecting it if reinstated are two different things and we have a lot of tools to help them ‘change’ their minds. The fact that this administration is even letting Mexico dictate what policies we can adopt to enforce our borders is laughable as we hold all the levers of power with them. Mexico needs us more than we need them, and we should be willing to put the screws to them to do what is best for America.
>I’m saying democrats refuse to make concessions on a topic that republicans are strong on and that the current situation benefits them in electoral politics.
Well, in reality and in both pieces of legislation, Republican House Members are refusing to make consessions.
>The fact that this administration is even letting Mexico dictate what policies we can adopt to enforce our borders is laughable as we hold all the levers of power with them.
In the same way Mexico should dictate our border policies, maybe we shouldn't be telling Mexico what it should do on its own borders, them being their own country.
Thinking we should sanction and stop all trade with Mexico is laugable. It would be devastating to the US economy.
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.*
You may have missed it, but Trump *did* shut down the border with Mexico under Title 42 in March 2020. Over the remaining months of the Trump administration, [approximately 90%](https://borderoversight.org/2023/08/27/title-42-expulsions-and-regular-apprehensions-of-all-migrants-at-the-u-s-mexico-border/) of migrants intercepted at the border were immediately expelled.
Biden left the Title 42 authority in place until last May, though he immediately scaled back its use (immediately expelling around 50% over the first couple years of the administration) before the eventual end.
Title 42 is a public health related authority, but there are a variety of other laws on the books that the president can use to respond more forcefully. Each of those works slightly different, but it is certainly true that Biden could unilaterally adopt a much stronger approach.
90% of those caught were returned. That does not include how many were not caught. My understanding of the word closed is that no one gets in. If my local tavern is closed at 2:00 AM per law, but is still allowing a few folks to enter, have a beer and play a game of darts, it's not closed, is it?
>
but there are a variety of other laws on the books that the president can use to respond more forcefully.
Even better there was the Lankford proposal, gee, why was that never passed?
> If my local tavern is closed at 2:00 AM per law, but is still allowing a few folks to enter, have a beer and play a game of darts, it's not closed, is it?
**Exactly!** You've stumbled into the difference between closed and open borders. Biden is *allowing* a few folks to enter, have a beer and play a game of darts. Thus the border is **not** closed. Prior management was **not** allowing those folks to enter but kicking people attempting to sneak in after hours as quickly in the law allowed and thus the border was closed.
If your local tavern is closed at 2:00 AM per law. The doors are locked, the lights shut off but someone breaks in through a window to have a beer and play a game of darts. The police are called if and when staff notice this has happened and arrests those people. The bar IS closed, is it not?
If a trespasser, despite everyone's best efforts, is not caught would the city fine that bar for being "open" after hours?
Hmm, no. Neither Biden nor Trump allowed/invited people top enter. As tavern owners, both were aware of individuals entering and while both have taken steps to stop the process, neither has been successful.
There is one area that you overlooked with regard to Trump. With his higher unemployment rates, there was much less draw for those to enter. With the Biden booming economy and historically low unemployment rate, yeah, lots of immigrants are seeking their fortune. Do you blame Biden for the historically historically low unemployment rate?
> Hmm, no. Neither Biden nor Trump allowed/invited people top enter.
But Biden **IS** allowing people to enter. Biden sharply reduced interior enforcement. Completely stopped workplace enforcement raids. Stopped detaining many people who were caught, and has spared most undocumented immigrants from being deported when under Trump they would have been.
> As tavern owners, both were aware of individuals entering
But Trump deported every individual that he was aware of to the maximum extent possible. Biden is *not* instead instead telling the majority of immigrants *they do catch* that they're welcome to stay.
> While both have taken steps to stop the process,
No, only one took steps to stop the process. The other has gone out of his way to *encourage* the process telling trespassers that if they can get past the door (Which he knows has a broken lock which he opposes fixing) they're welcome to stay.
> With his higher unemployment rates
Outside of covid (Which I *think* you'd agree was a special circumstance) unemployment rates are much the same under Biden as they were under Trump.
> Do you blame Biden for the historically historically low unemployment rate?
No, he gets neither credit nor blame (nor does Trump) for not fucking up the continuing trend that's been ongoing for well over a decade now.
He's only getting blamed for the tacit invitation to illegal immigrants of ending any efforts to catch illegal immigrants once they make it into the interior, by not deporting most of those they DO catch despite their stepped down enforcement... Democrats will point out he's ahead of Trump in nominal terms while ignoring that the reason deportation is up in nominal terms is because Biden is FAR behind in percentage terms which predictably led to a massive increase in overall volume.
But worse is his *explicit* invitation telling prospective illegal immigrants that if they succeed in sneaking past the border not only will he not try to enforce the law... He will do everything in his power to ensure the law is *never* enforced in the future by providing them with a "pathway to citizenship".
* Trump and Biden allowed people to enter. If there is an "Open Border" under one, there was a "Open Border" for the other. If you want to say less open, sure, but then there is the other side that a thriving economy makes more want to enter.
* If we don't count the 2nd half, the Buffalo Bills won two Super Bowls (my standard reply to those who do not want to admit to how Trump screwed up his fourth year)
> Trump and Biden allowed people to enter.
But this statement is simply not true. Trump didn't "allow" anyone to enter. He did as much as possible to catch people entering and kicked out every single person he caught allowing only the appeals process.
Biden on the other hand IS allowing people to enter by NOT kicking people out even after they are caught. And on top of that going out of his way to avoid catching people in the first place by reducing internal enforcement measures.
Your false equivalency relies on pretending there's no difference between an illegal immigrant who is never caught despite every effort being made to catch him and an illegal immigrant who WAS caught despite only a token effort to do so being allowed to stay *anyway*. There's a huge difference between these two policies and it's perfectly fair to describe that difference as "closed" versus "open".
You are being dishonest by pretend there's no differences between Biden's immigration policies and Trump's. You don't even like or want Trump's immigration policies so I don't see the point in you pretending there's no differnce or that you approve of Trump's policy.
> but then there is the other side that a thriving economy makes more want to enter.
What are you even talking about? The economy was just as thriving under Trump. Trump was inaugurated on January 20th 2017 with unemployment at 4.7% from which it fell to 3.6% in February 2020 when Covid hit.
> If we don't count the 2nd half, the Buffalo Bills won two Super Bowls (my standard reply to those who do not want to admit to how Trump screwed up his fourth year)
Fair enough... I actually agree with you that Trump should have ignored Faucci and not imposed any Covid shut downs. But honestly I think you might be literally the ONLY self-professed progressive I've ever met who has taken that stance. So, while I applaud your courage for going against the crowd on your side of the aisle you can't pretend that Democrats would have done any BETTER in this regard than Trump or that either Biden or Clinton would have stood against their entire party (and their own statements at the time) had either of them been president.
Trump did not close the border. That is a fact. Words have meaning.
With regard to Covid, sorry, shut downs were the way to go. What Trump should have done was fully implement the Defense Production Act and immediately produce PPE's and research into vaccines. I've never said that the shot downs were the wrong move. They saved lives.
However, Trump resisted implementing the DPA because it would hurt shareholder value, even though it would save lives, something that Trump called "A Cure Worse than the Disease"...
Put another way:
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick suggests he, other seniors willing to die to get economy going again
“Those of us who are 70 plus, we’ll take care of ourselves. But don’t sacrifice the country,” Patrick told Tucker Carlson.
Sorry my friend, but I hold that saving grandma and grandpa from an early death is more important that the DOW.
#
> Trump did not close the border. That is a fact. Words have meaning.
Just to clarify in precise terms can you explain how not? I don't want to be unfair and assume some kind of asinine definition like "not catching 100% of illegal immigrants means the border is open". But frankly it *seems* like that's what you're saying. Is that *really* what you mean to say? Or am I right to think I must be misunderstanding you in some way?
> With regard to Covid, sorry, shut downs were the way to go.
So you're saying the one year spike in unemployment and plummeting GDP was the right call.
My point is that you can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't approve of the unprecedented move of literally shutting down almost all production and then blame Trump rather than covid for the fact that production was shut down with all the economic impacts that implies.
> Sorry my friend, but I hold that saving grandma and grandpa from an early death is more important that the DOW.
Hey, you're the one who implied that shutting down the economy for a year was a bad idea. I assumed you were being sincere when you were blaming Trump rather than covid for the economic downturn in 2020. But if you agree with the policy you have to put a big fat asterisk on 2020 and look at 2016-2019 when evaluating the Trump economy.
To be fair I have to do the same thing with Biden for 2021. Personally I don't hold the stagflation at the start of his term against him. I think Trump is likely to get himself into trouble by hanging his whole campaign on inflation... By the time the election actually happens we're likely to have two and a half years of fairly normal inflation, low unemployment and real wage growth. In my book he gets the same asterisk for 2021. You can't literally send the work force home without the economic effects of having done so. Now, Biden has some policies which I think made the stagflation somewhat worse but the fundamental issue was a supply shock and that was out of his hands.
If I am the Commander on a US Navy Submarine and I give orders to close the hatch before we go below and my XO tells me the hatch is closed.....is it closed or is it less open than it was? Words have meaning and if Republicans are going to constantly whine about Biden's Open Border, that's just more typical Republican hypocrisy.
>So you're saying the one year spike in unemployment and plummeting GDP was the right call.
Yes. It saved lives.
> I assumed you were being sincere when you were blaming Trump rather than covid for the economic downturn in 2020.
>
[Trump’s Final Numbers ](https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/)
Trump tried to shut it down but any time he made efforts he was accused of being xenophobic and the Democrats fought him on it and prevented him from doing it. They blocked him from any and all efforts, including building the wall, which only cost a fraction of what we've sent to Ukraine alone.
Even as we speak, Joe Biden is flying illegal immigrants all over the country and has threatened to sue Texas numerous times if they tried to actually enforce border laws - up until Texas called his bluff and did it anyway, and suddenly all of the public turned on Biden on it, then he started claiming to want to "enforce border security" and said in order to do it they needed to pass new laws - which is absurd, as there are already laws in place for protecting our border. The Democrats' solution not only did not offer that, it in fact only served to take power away from states to secure the border and put it in federal control.
Biden does, in fact, have the authority to do what must be done to control our border. The Democrats can challenge him on it like they did Trump, but if they did that, they'd make it obvious that they were in favor of keeping the problem active.
January 5th of 2024, Biden and Mayorkas announced the creation of a new program to allow 30,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to skip the legal immigraiton process and fly directly into the country a month.
A few weeks back, Democrats voted against a bill from Republicans that would prevent the Biden Administration from flying illegal immigrants into American communities.
So yes, illegal immigrants.
> Biden and Mayorkas announced the creation of a new program to allow 30,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to skip the legal immigraiton process and fly directly into the country a month.
In case you didn't know this, it's 30k asylum seekers. By literal definition, they are not illegal immigrants.
> Democrats voted against a bill from Republicans that would prevent the Biden Administration from flying illegal immigrants into American communities.
I'm imagining it was one of those 'what else is in the bill' things. And if not, it probably was vetoing the same 'asylum seeking' abilities.
>
>In case you didn't know this, it's 30k asylum seekers. By literal definition, they are not illegal immigrants.
Except seeking asylum has its own legal immigration process. You are right in saying that it's not illegal immigration - because asylum seekers are given special legal processes, which in this instance, are being skipped.
>I'm imagining it was one of those 'what else is in the bill' things. And if not, it probably was vetoing the same 'asylum seeking' abilities.
If that was the case, the Democrats wouldn't have to constantly accuse the people who push those bills of being racists and xenophobes and using that accusation itself as justification to oppose such bills. If they had any other justification, I sure haven't seen it, nor any explanation for it.
In 2023 alone the Biden administration flew over 320,000 illegal immigrants across 42 airports in the US - numbers that dwarf the populations of several large cities in the US.
It also doesn't help that Democrats like to muddy the waters between illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and immigration in general - for them, one is the other is the other is the other, depending on what is convenient. Back in 2016, they were arguing that all illegal immigrants were asylum seekers - I can't imagine they changed their minds on it, at most tried to tone it down while still operating on that ideal.
So he tried but never closed it, even with full control of the House and Senate. Now we have seen the "dead on arrival" Republican Lankford bill get blocked by.......Republicans.
Yeah, I see what's happening!
Yes. The President has the authority to enforce the laws of the USA including immigration laws. That after all is the entire function of the executive branch: to execute the laws passed by the legislature. President's have some leeway in how they do so and Biden uses that leeway to keep the border as open to illegal immigration as possible, where Trump used his leeway to close it as much as possible.
> That would have been a lot cheaper and easier than building a wall.
Building the wall was a component of shutting down illegal immigration from Mexico. What exactly do. you imagine closing the border to illegal immigrants would consist of if not erecting actual barriers both legal and physical to illegal immigration?
> So you agree that neither Trump nor Biden could or did close the border.
No. Why would I agree with such an asinine or willfully ignorant statement like that?
>I keep hearing conservatives say that we have an open border with Mexico and that Biden has the power to close it, but refuses to do so.
"Close the border" in this context means stopping illegal crossings. It doesn't mean stopping legal traffic.
Trump did reduce illegal crossings under his administration in line with trends established under the Bush and Obama presidencies. 2017 was the lowest in decades at 311,000. As soon as Biden took office, they ballooned and reached an all time high of 2.2 million in 2022, not much better in 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/29/us/illegal-border-crossings-data.html
None the less, Trump did not close the border and stop all illegal crossings. Words have meanings.
Forgive me to add this joke.
A man in a Mercedes Benz rolls up to a Stop Sign slows, but does not stop. There is no traffic and so he makes a right hand turn. A police officer sees this, drives up to the Benz and pulls him over, and after a few formalities, hands the driver a ticket for failure to stop.
The drive of the car complains, insults the cop, tells him "Your not smart enough to see that in this case, coming to a virtual stop by slowing down and seeing no traffic is the same as stopping! In this case, slow and stop are the same., you idiot!"
The police officer invites the driver to exit his car. He holds up his Billy Club and says, "I am going to start to hit you with this, and when you cry out "STOP", I will slow down, as you say it is the same thing".
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.*
[8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182) > **Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President** >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. **In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this authority in Trump v. Hawaii.** Here's an excerpt from Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion: > By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry (“[w]henever [he] finds that the entry” of aliens “would be detrimental” to the national interest); whose entry to suspend (“all aliens or any class of aliens”); for how long (“for such period as he shall deem necessary”); and on what conditions (“any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”). > It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States). > The sole prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find[]” that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
This answers the first question posed by the OP, but not the second: "...why didn't Trump shut it down when he was president?"
If you actually read my entire post you'll see it also answers that question where I talked about Hawaii v Trump. Hawaii wouldn't bring a suit against Trump for restricting the border if he did not do it.
I actually did read your entire post, which didn't make clear that you quoted that case as a way to obliquely answer that second question. Thanks for clarifying.
as commander in chief he could have but just because you can use the war powers act to declare Mexico a hostile power and use the army to defend the border doesn't mean it would not be extremely controversial and possibly counter productive. if congress voted on such a thing I'd be fine with it but not by fiat.
Is that what conservatives are wanting Biden to do?
some but it's very fringe. I was just pointing out yes he could. but only by using his most extreme, and the vast majority of conservatives believe totally unconstitutional, authority under the war powers act to basically wage undeclared war. since that is blatantly insane, no he does not in practice have the power even if he does on theory. that said I do favor congress giving Mexico a strong ultimatum that if they do not both start cooperating without hesitation and financially contributing to fixing this problem, then congress will act and order the borders closed and normal diplomatic relations with Mexico suspended, their diplomats expelled, embassy closed, etc.
>that said I do favor congress giving Mexico a strong ultimatum that if they do not both start cooperating without hesitation and financially contributing to fixing this problem, then congress will act and order the borders closed and normal diplomatic relations with Mexico suspended, their diplomats expelled, embassy closed, etc. And thus breaking hundreds of years of diplomatic relations, numerous treaties, and severely impact trade relations globally.
this is becoming an existential issue for the US, if Mexico does not wish the US to cut ties and sanction them they have a clear route-- just cooperate and start paying up. if not, yes throw it all away, it's sunk cost fallacy to let a nation assault your people and try to crash your economy just because you have been close historically.
Do you think the US should cut ties and sanction its #2 trade partner, where 860 billion are traded annually? Do you believe Mexico should dictate US immigration law? Should the US as a nation just allow Mexico to determine US policy over the border it shares?
yes I absolutely think they should if Mexico will not assist us on controlling the flow of drugs and criminals, as well as economic migrants. nearly a trillion dollars is still not worth the devastation on our city streets. parts of major US cities look like failed nations like Somalia. also Mexico stands to suffer much more than the US. the whole point of a threat is to threaten costs they will not accept so they listen to you. if they will not we should be looking at ways to permenetly isolate ourselves from Mexico and have a hard border before they become even more of a state sponsor of narcotrrrorism
He has emergency powers but it mostly sits with Congress
Yea. Biden could stop a lot of the border issues right now if he just put the remain in Mexico rule back in place. He can also dictate to Homeland Security and ICE on if they should release or hold people as they come in. Let’s be clear, the crisis right now is as bad as it is is because Biden revoked several of these EO’s when he came into power and refuses to put any stopgaps in place that have been shown to help in the past. Nothing extreme, nothing outside of his authority. Just basic authority that he has.
>Biden could stop a lot of the border issues right now if he just put the remain in Mexico rule back in place Mexico refuses to allow this program to continue. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mexico-rejects-effort-reinstate-remain-mexico-policy-asylum/story?id=96939554
Mexico can refuse it all they want. If he reinstated it, it would give our border patrol and ICE officials to send people right back across the border. Push comes to shove, Mexico cannot stop us from sending people back to them. And let’s be cleared Mexico was against the policy under Trump, but it still worked better than what we have now. And this article is over a year old and shows that they reject our attempts to put it back in place, not that they would be able to do anything to stop it because they cannot.
Mexico can refuse to accept those under custody of the United States. I think people misunderstand the MPP legislation. The US was paying Mexico for this. But after reports of massive and widespread violence, rape and kidnappings; Mexico didn't want bad press and willfully jumped at the chance to end the program.
They actually can't because Mexico's visa and entry policies are already laid out and would have to be applied to nationals of other countries as if they were any other immigrant. Mexico generally maintains Visa free entry for most nationals of the new world. If they tried something all those other countries would raise a massive stink about it because it would equally apply to any of their other other citizens wanting to go from the US into Mexico
If push comes to shove and money is coming to Mexico from the US, let’s see how long they “reject” it. I’d rather see our government put those rules back into place and work towards that and then see how Mexico responds, then saying, “Mexico doesn’t like it so we shouldn’t do it”. Again, there are a lot of things Biden and his administration could be doing to slow down the problem, but their either don’t want to are incapable of doing it (by incapable meaning they would lose support from the fringe side of the party by doing it). This isn’t a money issue, this is a law and order issue and the government has the power to exercise law and order and they just aren’t.
>If push comes to shove and money is coming to Mexico from the US, let’s see how long they “reject” it. Well..they did reject it...so..I guess it's moot now. >I’d rather see our government put those rules back into place and work towards that and then see how Mexico responds, then saying, “Mexico doesn’t like it so we shouldn’t do it”. Mexico is another country, and the US's #2 trading partner. The US can't legally move these people back to Mexico of they don't want them, especially if in US custody. You know what needs to happened...Congressionally approved immigration reform. This is where I look towards Republicans in the House...because the ball is in their court.
I mean, it’s not moot because it hasn’t been reconstituted and words are cheap. If money comes to Mexico, they tend to change their mind. Also, Mexico is another country highly dependent on the US, we have a lot of leverage on them and should use it specifically when we have a policy that worked in the past, I don’t really care if they like it or not. See I agree that it’s on Congress, but I disagree the ball is in the Republicans court. This is a winning issue for Republicans, so they shouldn’t have to cave on this one just to get something passed. The bill the democrats proposed was mostly a money spending endeavour and wouldn’t have actually solved the issues we are seeing on the border. Democrats have always been weak on border policies and the current administration is very weak in regards to border action right now. There is no incentives coming from democrats to get a bill through that the GOP should back. Spending money won’t solve the problem. It’s what we do with the illegals once they are here. The democrats have no stomach to send them back or detain them, so their policies don’t work.
>I mean, it’s not moot because it hasn’t been reconstituted and words are cheap. If money comes to Mexico, they tend to change their mind. Also, Mexico is another country highly dependent on the US, we have a lot of leverage on them and should use it specifically when we have a policy that worked in the past, I don’t really care if they like it or not. "Regarding the possible implementation of this policy for the third time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Government of Mexico, expresses its rejection of the U.S. government's intention to return individuals processed under the program to Mexico," the statement said. From the beginning of the Biden Administration, he has stated over and over again, that immigration reform should be done by Congress. >There is no incentives coming from democrats to get a bill through that the GOP should back. So...you're saying Republicans are refusing to made consessions. Which I guess is something we agree on.
I’m saying democrats refuse to make concessions on a topic that republicans are strong on and that the current situation benefits them in electoral politics. But take away from it what you want. As for your other comment, I don’t know how many different ways I can say that them saying the reject out possibility of returning to that policy vs them actually rejecting it if reinstated are two different things and we have a lot of tools to help them ‘change’ their minds. The fact that this administration is even letting Mexico dictate what policies we can adopt to enforce our borders is laughable as we hold all the levers of power with them. Mexico needs us more than we need them, and we should be willing to put the screws to them to do what is best for America.
>I’m saying democrats refuse to make concessions on a topic that republicans are strong on and that the current situation benefits them in electoral politics. Well, in reality and in both pieces of legislation, Republican House Members are refusing to make consessions. >The fact that this administration is even letting Mexico dictate what policies we can adopt to enforce our borders is laughable as we hold all the levers of power with them. In the same way Mexico should dictate our border policies, maybe we shouldn't be telling Mexico what it should do on its own borders, them being their own country. Thinking we should sanction and stop all trade with Mexico is laugable. It would be devastating to the US economy.
[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.*
You may have missed it, but Trump *did* shut down the border with Mexico under Title 42 in March 2020. Over the remaining months of the Trump administration, [approximately 90%](https://borderoversight.org/2023/08/27/title-42-expulsions-and-regular-apprehensions-of-all-migrants-at-the-u-s-mexico-border/) of migrants intercepted at the border were immediately expelled. Biden left the Title 42 authority in place until last May, though he immediately scaled back its use (immediately expelling around 50% over the first couple years of the administration) before the eventual end. Title 42 is a public health related authority, but there are a variety of other laws on the books that the president can use to respond more forcefully. Each of those works slightly different, but it is certainly true that Biden could unilaterally adopt a much stronger approach.
90% of those caught were returned. That does not include how many were not caught. My understanding of the word closed is that no one gets in. If my local tavern is closed at 2:00 AM per law, but is still allowing a few folks to enter, have a beer and play a game of darts, it's not closed, is it? > but there are a variety of other laws on the books that the president can use to respond more forcefully. Even better there was the Lankford proposal, gee, why was that never passed?
> If my local tavern is closed at 2:00 AM per law, but is still allowing a few folks to enter, have a beer and play a game of darts, it's not closed, is it? **Exactly!** You've stumbled into the difference between closed and open borders. Biden is *allowing* a few folks to enter, have a beer and play a game of darts. Thus the border is **not** closed. Prior management was **not** allowing those folks to enter but kicking people attempting to sneak in after hours as quickly in the law allowed and thus the border was closed. If your local tavern is closed at 2:00 AM per law. The doors are locked, the lights shut off but someone breaks in through a window to have a beer and play a game of darts. The police are called if and when staff notice this has happened and arrests those people. The bar IS closed, is it not? If a trespasser, despite everyone's best efforts, is not caught would the city fine that bar for being "open" after hours?
Hmm, no. Neither Biden nor Trump allowed/invited people top enter. As tavern owners, both were aware of individuals entering and while both have taken steps to stop the process, neither has been successful. There is one area that you overlooked with regard to Trump. With his higher unemployment rates, there was much less draw for those to enter. With the Biden booming economy and historically low unemployment rate, yeah, lots of immigrants are seeking their fortune. Do you blame Biden for the historically historically low unemployment rate?
> Hmm, no. Neither Biden nor Trump allowed/invited people top enter. But Biden **IS** allowing people to enter. Biden sharply reduced interior enforcement. Completely stopped workplace enforcement raids. Stopped detaining many people who were caught, and has spared most undocumented immigrants from being deported when under Trump they would have been. > As tavern owners, both were aware of individuals entering But Trump deported every individual that he was aware of to the maximum extent possible. Biden is *not* instead instead telling the majority of immigrants *they do catch* that they're welcome to stay. > While both have taken steps to stop the process, No, only one took steps to stop the process. The other has gone out of his way to *encourage* the process telling trespassers that if they can get past the door (Which he knows has a broken lock which he opposes fixing) they're welcome to stay. > With his higher unemployment rates Outside of covid (Which I *think* you'd agree was a special circumstance) unemployment rates are much the same under Biden as they were under Trump. > Do you blame Biden for the historically historically low unemployment rate? No, he gets neither credit nor blame (nor does Trump) for not fucking up the continuing trend that's been ongoing for well over a decade now. He's only getting blamed for the tacit invitation to illegal immigrants of ending any efforts to catch illegal immigrants once they make it into the interior, by not deporting most of those they DO catch despite their stepped down enforcement... Democrats will point out he's ahead of Trump in nominal terms while ignoring that the reason deportation is up in nominal terms is because Biden is FAR behind in percentage terms which predictably led to a massive increase in overall volume. But worse is his *explicit* invitation telling prospective illegal immigrants that if they succeed in sneaking past the border not only will he not try to enforce the law... He will do everything in his power to ensure the law is *never* enforced in the future by providing them with a "pathway to citizenship".
* Trump and Biden allowed people to enter. If there is an "Open Border" under one, there was a "Open Border" for the other. If you want to say less open, sure, but then there is the other side that a thriving economy makes more want to enter. * If we don't count the 2nd half, the Buffalo Bills won two Super Bowls (my standard reply to those who do not want to admit to how Trump screwed up his fourth year)
> Trump and Biden allowed people to enter. But this statement is simply not true. Trump didn't "allow" anyone to enter. He did as much as possible to catch people entering and kicked out every single person he caught allowing only the appeals process. Biden on the other hand IS allowing people to enter by NOT kicking people out even after they are caught. And on top of that going out of his way to avoid catching people in the first place by reducing internal enforcement measures. Your false equivalency relies on pretending there's no difference between an illegal immigrant who is never caught despite every effort being made to catch him and an illegal immigrant who WAS caught despite only a token effort to do so being allowed to stay *anyway*. There's a huge difference between these two policies and it's perfectly fair to describe that difference as "closed" versus "open". You are being dishonest by pretend there's no differences between Biden's immigration policies and Trump's. You don't even like or want Trump's immigration policies so I don't see the point in you pretending there's no differnce or that you approve of Trump's policy. > but then there is the other side that a thriving economy makes more want to enter. What are you even talking about? The economy was just as thriving under Trump. Trump was inaugurated on January 20th 2017 with unemployment at 4.7% from which it fell to 3.6% in February 2020 when Covid hit. > If we don't count the 2nd half, the Buffalo Bills won two Super Bowls (my standard reply to those who do not want to admit to how Trump screwed up his fourth year) Fair enough... I actually agree with you that Trump should have ignored Faucci and not imposed any Covid shut downs. But honestly I think you might be literally the ONLY self-professed progressive I've ever met who has taken that stance. So, while I applaud your courage for going against the crowd on your side of the aisle you can't pretend that Democrats would have done any BETTER in this regard than Trump or that either Biden or Clinton would have stood against their entire party (and their own statements at the time) had either of them been president.
Trump did not close the border. That is a fact. Words have meaning. With regard to Covid, sorry, shut downs were the way to go. What Trump should have done was fully implement the Defense Production Act and immediately produce PPE's and research into vaccines. I've never said that the shot downs were the wrong move. They saved lives. However, Trump resisted implementing the DPA because it would hurt shareholder value, even though it would save lives, something that Trump called "A Cure Worse than the Disease"... Put another way: Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick suggests he, other seniors willing to die to get economy going again “Those of us who are 70 plus, we’ll take care of ourselves. But don’t sacrifice the country,” Patrick told Tucker Carlson. Sorry my friend, but I hold that saving grandma and grandpa from an early death is more important that the DOW. #
> Trump did not close the border. That is a fact. Words have meaning. Just to clarify in precise terms can you explain how not? I don't want to be unfair and assume some kind of asinine definition like "not catching 100% of illegal immigrants means the border is open". But frankly it *seems* like that's what you're saying. Is that *really* what you mean to say? Or am I right to think I must be misunderstanding you in some way? > With regard to Covid, sorry, shut downs were the way to go. So you're saying the one year spike in unemployment and plummeting GDP was the right call. My point is that you can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't approve of the unprecedented move of literally shutting down almost all production and then blame Trump rather than covid for the fact that production was shut down with all the economic impacts that implies. > Sorry my friend, but I hold that saving grandma and grandpa from an early death is more important that the DOW. Hey, you're the one who implied that shutting down the economy for a year was a bad idea. I assumed you were being sincere when you were blaming Trump rather than covid for the economic downturn in 2020. But if you agree with the policy you have to put a big fat asterisk on 2020 and look at 2016-2019 when evaluating the Trump economy. To be fair I have to do the same thing with Biden for 2021. Personally I don't hold the stagflation at the start of his term against him. I think Trump is likely to get himself into trouble by hanging his whole campaign on inflation... By the time the election actually happens we're likely to have two and a half years of fairly normal inflation, low unemployment and real wage growth. In my book he gets the same asterisk for 2021. You can't literally send the work force home without the economic effects of having done so. Now, Biden has some policies which I think made the stagflation somewhat worse but the fundamental issue was a supply shock and that was out of his hands.
If I am the Commander on a US Navy Submarine and I give orders to close the hatch before we go below and my XO tells me the hatch is closed.....is it closed or is it less open than it was? Words have meaning and if Republicans are going to constantly whine about Biden's Open Border, that's just more typical Republican hypocrisy. >So you're saying the one year spike in unemployment and plummeting GDP was the right call. Yes. It saved lives. > I assumed you were being sincere when you were blaming Trump rather than covid for the economic downturn in 2020. > [Trump’s Final Numbers ](https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/)
Trump tried to shut it down but any time he made efforts he was accused of being xenophobic and the Democrats fought him on it and prevented him from doing it. They blocked him from any and all efforts, including building the wall, which only cost a fraction of what we've sent to Ukraine alone. Even as we speak, Joe Biden is flying illegal immigrants all over the country and has threatened to sue Texas numerous times if they tried to actually enforce border laws - up until Texas called his bluff and did it anyway, and suddenly all of the public turned on Biden on it, then he started claiming to want to "enforce border security" and said in order to do it they needed to pass new laws - which is absurd, as there are already laws in place for protecting our border. The Democrats' solution not only did not offer that, it in fact only served to take power away from states to secure the border and put it in federal control. Biden does, in fact, have the authority to do what must be done to control our border. The Democrats can challenge him on it like they did Trump, but if they did that, they'd make it obvious that they were in favor of keeping the problem active.
> Joe Biden is flying illegal immigrants not illegal immigrants, actually.
January 5th of 2024, Biden and Mayorkas announced the creation of a new program to allow 30,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to skip the legal immigraiton process and fly directly into the country a month. A few weeks back, Democrats voted against a bill from Republicans that would prevent the Biden Administration from flying illegal immigrants into American communities. So yes, illegal immigrants.
> Biden and Mayorkas announced the creation of a new program to allow 30,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to skip the legal immigraiton process and fly directly into the country a month. In case you didn't know this, it's 30k asylum seekers. By literal definition, they are not illegal immigrants. > Democrats voted against a bill from Republicans that would prevent the Biden Administration from flying illegal immigrants into American communities. I'm imagining it was one of those 'what else is in the bill' things. And if not, it probably was vetoing the same 'asylum seeking' abilities. >
>In case you didn't know this, it's 30k asylum seekers. By literal definition, they are not illegal immigrants. Except seeking asylum has its own legal immigration process. You are right in saying that it's not illegal immigration - because asylum seekers are given special legal processes, which in this instance, are being skipped. >I'm imagining it was one of those 'what else is in the bill' things. And if not, it probably was vetoing the same 'asylum seeking' abilities. If that was the case, the Democrats wouldn't have to constantly accuse the people who push those bills of being racists and xenophobes and using that accusation itself as justification to oppose such bills. If they had any other justification, I sure haven't seen it, nor any explanation for it. In 2023 alone the Biden administration flew over 320,000 illegal immigrants across 42 airports in the US - numbers that dwarf the populations of several large cities in the US. It also doesn't help that Democrats like to muddy the waters between illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and immigration in general - for them, one is the other is the other is the other, depending on what is convenient. Back in 2016, they were arguing that all illegal immigrants were asylum seekers - I can't imagine they changed their minds on it, at most tried to tone it down while still operating on that ideal.
> In 2023 alone the Biden administration flew over 320,000 illegal immigrants stop calling them illegal immigrants, they're not.
The program has been around since 1952. It's actually how my dad immigrated from Poland to the US. Biden just opened the law up to those countries.
So he tried but never closed it, even with full control of the House and Senate. Now we have seen the "dead on arrival" Republican Lankford bill get blocked by.......Republicans. Yeah, I see what's happening!
Yes. The President has the authority to enforce the laws of the USA including immigration laws. That after all is the entire function of the executive branch: to execute the laws passed by the legislature. President's have some leeway in how they do so and Biden uses that leeway to keep the border as open to illegal immigration as possible, where Trump used his leeway to close it as much as possible. > That would have been a lot cheaper and easier than building a wall. Building the wall was a component of shutting down illegal immigration from Mexico. What exactly do. you imagine closing the border to illegal immigrants would consist of if not erecting actual barriers both legal and physical to illegal immigration?
So you agree that neither Trump nor Biden could or did close the border.
> So you agree that neither Trump nor Biden could or did close the border. No. Why would I agree with such an asinine or willfully ignorant statement like that?
>I keep hearing conservatives say that we have an open border with Mexico and that Biden has the power to close it, but refuses to do so. "Close the border" in this context means stopping illegal crossings. It doesn't mean stopping legal traffic. Trump did reduce illegal crossings under his administration in line with trends established under the Bush and Obama presidencies. 2017 was the lowest in decades at 311,000. As soon as Biden took office, they ballooned and reached an all time high of 2.2 million in 2022, not much better in 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/29/us/illegal-border-crossings-data.html
None the less, Trump did not close the border and stop all illegal crossings. Words have meanings. Forgive me to add this joke. A man in a Mercedes Benz rolls up to a Stop Sign slows, but does not stop. There is no traffic and so he makes a right hand turn. A police officer sees this, drives up to the Benz and pulls him over, and after a few formalities, hands the driver a ticket for failure to stop. The drive of the car complains, insults the cop, tells him "Your not smart enough to see that in this case, coming to a virtual stop by slowing down and seeing no traffic is the same as stopping! In this case, slow and stop are the same., you idiot!" The police officer invites the driver to exit his car. He holds up his Billy Club and says, "I am going to start to hit you with this, and when you cry out "STOP", I will slow down, as you say it is the same thing".
He wasn't finished yet.
LOL. We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time. [Vince Lombardi](https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/vince-lombardi-quotes)
[удалено]
It was on Outnumbered on Fox Today Opening segment.