Biden-Trump Debate

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why was the border more secure when Trump was president than Biden?

<yawn>

And the trains ran on time under Mussolini ...​

</yawn>

That aside, Senate GOP blocks border bill as Democrats underscore Republican resistance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How would this legislation help stop illegal people from entering the country?

A bi-partisan bill, covering immigration and aid to Ukraine, was approved by the House, and had majority support in the Senate, urged along by Mitch McConnell. This bill provided money for additional resources to process migrants and asylum seekers, among other measures, and was considered a workable tool to reduce illegal immigration.

Donald Trump, however, felt that the bill would be a "win" for President Biden, and instructed (yes, "instructed") the Senate to vote the bill down. Even McConnell, a supporter of the bill, eventually caved -- and that was that.

Why was the border more secure when Trump was president than Biden? Trump did not need this legislation, why does Biden need it?

I wonder if anyone in America thinks about what pursuades people to leaave everything behind and try to migrate elsewhere. Famine, fear of death at the hands of organized gangs and despotic governments. I wonder if this "Christian nation" is so afraid of furriners that they are unmoved by the dire plights of those people. But that's just me being a humanist, so what would I know about "what would Jesus do?"

So, you may recall that under Trump, cruel and unethical methods were being used, some of which were clearly unconstitutional -- for example separating children from their parents (some of whom will never find each other again!).

Sending migrants back

What Trump did: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border. Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Trump left the White House. Even at the height of the pandemic, Title 42 came under frequent criticism from those who argued the policy allowed the US to expel asylum seekers without any legal process. Human Rights Watch, for example, said the policy was "illegal and violates the human rights of those subjected to it".

What Biden did: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over two million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and 11 May 2023, when it, alongside the declared US coronavirus public health emergency, expired. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. The strategy included opening regional processing centres in Latin America to help migrants apply to come to the US, and expanded access to CBP One, an app for migrants to schedule asylum appointments.

Making migrants stay in Mexico

What Trump did: In January 2019, the Trump administration implemented a policy - officially known as Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP - that forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their US immigration hearings.
About 70,000 people were returned to Mexico under the policy. They were often left there for months at a time and sometimes preyed upon by criminal gangs. Human Rights First, a charity organisation, estimated that more than 1,500 migrants were kidnapped, raped or abused after being returned to Mexico. Mr Biden called the policy "inhumane".

What Biden did: The administration moved to suspend Remain in Mexico on Mr Biden's first day in the White House in January 2021. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) moved to officially terminate the policy in June the same year. But a ruling by a Trump-appointed federal court judge in Texas found that the administration had improperly cancelled the policy. It was restarted in December 2021. In June 2022, the US Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration, ruling it didn't violate proper administrative procedure in rescinding Remain in Mexico. The ruling allowed the policy to be terminated.

Separating families

What Trump did: Under Trump, the US government had a "zero-tolerance" policy that allowed authorities to deport adults who crossed the border illegally. In some cases parents were deported back to their home countries without their children, who were placed in government custody. Trump repeatedly defended - and continues to defend - the policy as a way to deter would-be migrants. At least 3,900 children were separated from their parents between 2017 and 2021.

What Biden did: Mr Biden reversed the practice and some families - but not all - have been reunited. While a task force has reunited most families, as of April 2024 nearly 1,400 children were still waiting - although about 300 of them were in the process of being reunited or their families had been contacted. In December 2021, the administration also moved to stop holding families in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention.
Biden administration officials have noted that the president's new executive order includes exemptions for unaccompanied children and those suspected of being trafficked. The Biden administration has also rolled out family reunification programmes for citizens of certain countries - including Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Colombia - who have relatives in the US.

Parole

What Trump did: Trump made little use of parole - where the government allows migrants into the US even if they don't have a visa or can't qualify for one - compared to President Biden. Instead, his administration led an effort to decrease the number of migrants on parole in the US and in 2018 announced the creation of the MPP programme, or "Remain in Mexico". Trump has said on the campaign trail that he would end the "outrageous abuse of parole" by President Biden.

What Biden did: Mr Biden is said to be one of the presidents rely most on parole, a practice which has existed since the 1950s. That has prompted fierce criticism from Republicans and Trump. The use of parole by the Biden administration includes the humanitarian parole of migrants who have been detained, in particular when they are found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture in their home country. There are also special, targeted parole programmes for people of specific nationalities, including Afghans and Ukrainians. As many as 30,000 migrants a month are able to fly to the US legally on parole - with a sponsorship - under the programme for Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, and Haitians. The administration argues it has helped reduce crossings at the Mexico-US borders, but it sparked a lawsuit from multiple Republican-led states. The scrapped border bill would have kept these programmes in place and allowed parole for those in humanitarian need, but broadly speaking would have restricted its use.

@Clizby Wampuscat, I know all this won't answer your question adequately. I don't have all the solutions to the world's problems -- nobody does. So the question becomes: are we good enough to be at least as little humanitarian, or are we so frightened of everything that we must shut and lock our doors against every bump in the night? Remember these words? " Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" When they were written, Americans weren't so afraid of every shadow. What has happened to it?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

<yawn>

And the trains ran on time under Mussolini ...​

</yawn>

That aside, Senate GOP blocks border bill as Democrats underscore Republican resistance.

That does not address the question why was Trump able to secure the border without this legislation Biden says he requires?

Also why did Biden say the border was secure for 3 years and now it isn't and it is the republicans fault? How can that be if Biden's policies were good for three years now all of a sudden in an election year it is not his fault?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That does not address the question why was Trump able to secure the border without this legislation Biden says he requires?

Did he "secure the border?" Illegal border crossings, as measured by apprehensions at the southwest border, were 14.7% higher in Trump’s final year in office compared with the last full year of Obama’s term. There was a roller-coaster of illegal immigration during Trump’s time in office. The number of apprehensions fluctuated wildly from a monthly low of 11,127 in April 2017 shortly after he took office to a high of 132,856 in May 2019. Naturally, it lowered considerably during the pandemic, but I wouldn't give Trump too much praise for that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

A bi-partisan bill, covering immigration and aid to Ukraine, was approved by the House, and had majority support in the Senate, urged along by Mitch McConnell. This bill provided money for additional resources to process migrants and asylum seekers, among other measures, and was considered a workable tool to reduce illegal immigration.

Donald Trump, however, felt that the bill would be a "win" for President Biden, and instructed (yes, "instructed") the Senate to vote the bill down. Even McConnell, a supporter of the bill, eventually caved -- and that was that.

Are you interested in the real reasons the republicans were against the bill? Here are a few:

1. Proposed changes are ties to funding for Ukraine and Israel. Why?
2. Automatic triggers at average 5000/ day for a week or 8500/day. How does this change the policy at all. The first 8500 let say in a day are still screened and deported. How does this limit illegal immigration?
3. Increased use of alternates to detention which is just catch and release in a different form.
4. Even though Biden says it allows him to shut down the border, it does not do any such thing.
5. Bill calls for more agents to process more people, how is this restricting immigration?

I wonder if anyone in America thinks about what pursuades people to leaave everything behind and try to migrate elsewhere. Famine, fear of death at the hands of organized gangs and despotic governments. I wonder if this "Christian nation" is so afraid of furriners that they are unmoved by the dire plights of those people. But that's just me being a humanist, so what would I know about "what would Jesus do?"

So, you may recall that under Trump, cruel and unethical methods were being used, some of which were clearly unconstitutional -- for example separating children from their parents (some of whom will never find each other again!).

Sending migrants back

What Trump did: In March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a controversial statute ostensibly meant as a public health measure. The policy allowed US authorities to swiftly expel migrants - including asylum seekers - at the border. Nearly 400,000 people were detained and expelled between its implementation and January 2021, when Trump left the White House. Even at the height of the pandemic, Title 42 came under frequent criticism from those who argued the policy allowed the US to expel asylum seekers without any legal process. Human Rights Watch, for example, said the policy was "illegal and violates the human rights of those subjected to it".

What Biden did: He defended keeping Title 42 in place, using the pandemic as justification. Over two million people were expelled using Title 42 authority between January 2021 and 11 May 2023, when it, alongside the declared US coronavirus public health emergency, expired. To replace it, US immigration authorities unveiled a "carrot and stick" approach that encourages legal pathways, while also implementing strict penalties for those who cross illegally. The strategy included opening regional processing centres in Latin America to help migrants apply to come to the US, and expanded access to CBP One, an app for migrants to schedule asylum appointments.

Making migrants stay in Mexico

What Trump did: In January 2019, the Trump administration implemented a policy - officially known as Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP - that forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their US immigration hearings.
About 70,000 people were returned to Mexico under the policy. They were often left there for months at a time and sometimes preyed upon by criminal gangs. Human Rights First, a charity organisation, estimated that more than 1,500 migrants were kidnapped, raped or abused after being returned to Mexico. Mr Biden called the policy "inhumane".

What Biden did: The administration moved to suspend Remain in Mexico on Mr Biden's first day in the White House in January 2021. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) moved to officially terminate the policy in June the same year. But a ruling by a Trump-appointed federal court judge in Texas found that the administration had improperly cancelled the policy. It was restarted in December 2021. In June 2022, the US Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration, ruling it didn't violate proper administrative procedure in rescinding Remain in Mexico. The ruling allowed the policy to be terminated.

Separating families

What Trump did: Under Trump, the US government had a "zero-tolerance" policy that allowed authorities to deport adults who crossed the border illegally. In some cases parents were deported back to their home countries without their children, who were placed in government custody. Trump repeatedly defended - and continues to defend - the policy as a way to deter would-be migrants. At least 3,900 children were separated from their parents between 2017 and 2021.

What Biden did: Mr Biden reversed the practice and some families - but not all - have been reunited. While a task force has reunited most families, as of April 2024 nearly 1,400 children were still waiting - although about 300 of them were in the process of being reunited or their families had been contacted. In December 2021, the administration also moved to stop holding families in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention.
Biden administration officials have noted that the president's new executive order includes exemptions for unaccompanied children and those suspected of being trafficked. The Biden administration has also rolled out family reunification programmes for citizens of certain countries - including Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Colombia - who have relatives in the US.

Parole

What Trump did: Trump made little use of parole - where the government allows migrants into the US even if they don't have a visa or can't qualify for one - compared to President Biden. Instead, his administration led an effort to decrease the number of migrants on parole in the US and in 2018 announced the creation of the MPP programme, or "Remain in Mexico". Trump has said on the campaign trail that he would end the "outrageous abuse of parole" by President Biden.

What Biden did: Mr Biden is said to be one of the presidents rely most on parole, a practice which has existed since the 1950s. That has prompted fierce criticism from Republicans and Trump. The use of parole by the Biden administration includes the humanitarian parole of migrants who have been detained, in particular when they are found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture in their home country. There are also special, targeted parole programmes for people of specific nationalities, including Afghans and Ukrainians. As many as 30,000 migrants a month are able to fly to the US legally on parole - with a sponsorship - under the programme for Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, and Haitians. The administration argues it has helped reduce crossings at the Mexico-US borders, but it sparked a lawsuit from multiple Republican-led states. The scrapped border bill would have kept these programmes in place and allowed parole for those in humanitarian need, but broadly speaking would have restricted its use.

Ok, thanks for the information. Seems like Bidens changes resulted in a less secure border.

@Clizby Wampuscat, I know all this won't answer your question adequately. I don't have all the solutions to the world's problems -- nobody does. So the question becomes: are we good enough to be at least as little humanitarian, or are we so frightened of everything that we must shut and lock our doors against every bump in the night? Remember these words? " Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" When they were written, Americans weren't so afraid of every shadow. What has happened to it?

You seem to think all immigrants are poor families belong persecuted. That is not the case. Also, I am for legal immigration that we can sustain. That is what this is all about. We do have illegal people that are in this country committing terrible crimes. What sense does it make to let people into this country who we have no idea who they are or why they are here? Or let so many in our resources cannot handle them? I am for legal sustainable immigration, not what is happening under Biden or what the new law would do.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Did he "secure the border?" Illegal border crossings, as measured by apprehensions at the southwest border, were 14.7% higher in Trump’s final year in office compared with the last full year of Obama’s term. There was a roller-coaster of illegal immigration during Trump’s time in office. The number of apprehensions fluctuated wildly from a monthly low of 11,127 in April 2017 shortly after he took office to a high of 132,856 in May 2019. Naturally, it lowered considerably during the pandemic, but I wouldn't give Trump too much praise for that.

Less illegal people came into the country under Trump.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you interested in the real reasons the republicans were against the bill? Here are a few:

The Republicans were FOR the bill until commanded by the orange God to be againast it.

The last time Congress passed an immigration reform bill was 1986, signed by President Reagan. What's the Congress for, if the President is supposed to do everything himself? The 2023 bill was bi-partisan, with support from both parties in the House and in the Senate -- until Donald Trump intervened. Your saviour booted it out -- he and he alone scotched any legal reform.

For the same reason he does everything -- his own personal gain. And that is how he will go on. Enjoy it (while you can).

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The Republicans were FOR the bill until commanded by the orange God to be againast it.

The last time Congress passed an immigration reform bill was 1986, signed by President Reagan. What's the Congress for, if the President is supposed to do everything himself? The 2023 bill was bi-partisan, with support from both parties in the House and in the Senate -- until Donald Trump intervened. Your saviour booted it out -- he and he alone scotched any legal reform.

For the same reason he does everything -- his own personal gain. And that is how he will go on. Enjoy it (while you can).

Is it necessary for you to say things like "my savior" and "orange God" when you have these discussions?

I told you reasons the republicans were against it. Believe what you want but that bill would not have accomplished what we wanted. Not all republicans agree on all subjects like the Dems.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is it necessary for you to say things like "my savior" and "orange God" when you have these discussions?

My disdain for the man is immense. I'm sorry you can't see him for who he really is. Ask his sister, Mary.

I told you reasons the republicans were against it. Believe what you want but that bill would not have accomplished what we wanted. Not all republicans agree on all subjects like the Dems.

The Republicans helped to write it!

Last October, Senate Republicans made it clear that they would not back additional aid for Ukraine without a bill that would help secure the southern border of the United States. With the blessing of both Senator Chuck Schumer, the Majority Leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader, a bipartisan team of senators began negotiations to produce a bill that enough members of both parties could accept to overwhelm objections from progressive Democrats and America First Republicans.

The team negotiated for four months to produce this bill. It took less than four days for its support among Republicans to collapse. Why? Because Donal Trump ordered it.

That's the easiest explanation -- Republicans in both the House and Senate yielded to objections from their all-but-certain presidential nominee, former president Donald Trump. Once the House Speaker stated publicly that he would not allow the Senate bill to reach the House floor for a vote, Republican senators were unwilling to run the political risk of supporting a measure that would not become law.

After 1986, several attempts were made, and failed, at immigration reform

The next best chance to enact comprehensive reform came in 2013 during President Barack Obama’s second term, when a bipartisan group of senators dubbed the “Gang of Eight” agreed on a bill that would toughen security at the southern border and make it harder for employers to hire migrants who had entered the U.S. illegally while providing legal status and a path to citizenship for millions of such migrants who had resided in the U.S. for many years. The proposal passed the Senate 68 to 32 with strong bipartisan support. But because it did not enjoy the support of a majority of House Republicans, then-Speaker John Boehner refused to bring it to floor for a vote, and the measure died.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

My disdain for the man is immense. I'm sorry you can't see him for who he really is. Ask his sister, Mary.

Ok, So his sister does not like him so I am not supposed to either.

The Republicans helped to write it!

Last October, Senate Republicans made it clear that they would not back additional aid for Ukraine without a bill that would help secure the southern border of the United States. With the blessing of both Senator Chuck Schumer, the Majority Leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader, a bipartisan team of senators began negotiations to produce a bill that enough members of both parties could accept to overwhelm objections from progressive Democrats and America First Republicans.

The team negotiated for four months to produce this bill. It took less than four days for its support among Republicans to collapse. Why? Because Donal Trump ordered it.

That's the easiest explanation -- Republicans in both the House and Senate yielded to objections from their all-but-certain presidential nominee, former president Donald Trump. Once the House Speaker stated publicly that he would not allow the Senate bill to reach the House floor for a vote, Republican senators were unwilling to run the political risk of supporting a measure that would not become law.

After 1986, several attempts were made, and failed, at immigration reform

The next best chance to enact comprehensive reform came in 2013 during President Barack Obama’s second term, when a bipartisan group of senators dubbed the “Gang of Eight” agreed on a bill that would toughen security at the southern border and make it harder for employers to hire migrants who had entered the U.S. illegally while providing legal status and a path to citizenship for millions of such migrants who had resided in the U.S. for many years. The proposal passed the Senate 68 to 32 with strong bipartisan support. But because it did not enjoy the support of a majority of House Republicans, then-Speaker John Boehner refused to bring it to floor for a vote, and the measure died.

Like I said not all republicans are in lock step with each other. Just because some republicans supported it does not mean all of us did.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Like I said not all republicans are in lock step with each other. Just because some republicans supported it does not mean all of us did.

Just pointing out -- it's been the Republicans stopping immigration reform over and over again: all while whining about how important it is. That's hypocrisy.

Ok, So his sister does not like him so I am not supposed to either.

Frankly, I don't care who you like, or why. I just simply cannot understand people who make claims about loving law and order, about civility and any number of topics that Trump clearly is NOT an exemplar of. It's amazing -- if Trump loses an election, it was rigged; if Trump loses a court case, it was rigged; apparently, the man has been an absolute saint since birth! Successful businessmen don't go bankrupt 6 times, especially when running sure-thing money-makers like casinos; but Trump is a "great businessman." Why does anybody think he's going to treat Americans any better than he's treated his wives, or other women in his life? Why does nobody notice that everybody who does his bidding winds up in court or jail? Why can't anybody on that side of the aisle see anything that he actually does?

But they can't. Whatever lie he tells, and he never stops, becomes their truth. I do not think that's very bright, I have to say that. When people constantly lie to me, I begin to have a little less trust in their honesty, to be frank. For most of us, it's a natural reaction. But not to Republicans where Trump is concerned. That, to me, is a greater mystery than how the universe got underway.

Look, the Democrats, right now, are having conversations about whether Biden should step down over his debate performance. They will decide in his favour, but at least they're having the conversation. Are the Republicans having the same conversation about the lies Trump told in the debate? No, they are not. Nor will they. And someday, the public is going to notice.

 

[InChrist]

You quote an an article exposing an abysmal strategy about promoting an abysmal "bigoted billionaire" "extreme right-wing presidential candidate" while you whine that you can't "muster a vote for either." Apparently you are perfectly willing to muster a 4-year extreme right-wing bigoted administration willing and capable of inflicting unimaginable harm to science, the rule of law, reproductive care, and human rights in general.

So, what have we learned? We've learned that Clinton's campaign was willing to propel a neo-fascist white-nationalist candidate that you're willing to propel into office. Well done.

I guess you didn’t comprehend what I was saying or you already had a preconceived idea and response you wanted to give. Maybe you’re just having a hard day.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Just pointing out -- it's been the Republicans stopping immigration reform over and over again: all while whining about how important it is. That's hypocrisy.

I disagree as I have shown why many times.

Frankly, I don't care who you like, or why. I just simply cannot understand people who make claims about loving law and order, about civility and any number of topics that Trump clearly is NOT an exemplar of. It's amazing -- if Trump loses an election, it was rigged; if Trump loses a court case, it was rigged; apparently, the man has been an absolute saint since birth! Successful businessmen don't go bankrupt 6 times, especially when running sure-thing money-makers like casinos; but Trump is a "great businessman." Why does anybody think he's going to treat Americans any better than he's treated his wives, or other women in his life? Why does nobody notice that everybody who does his bidding winds up in court or jail? Why can't anybody on that side of the aisle see anything that he actually does?

But they can't. Whatever lie he tells, and he never stops, becomes their truth. I do not think that's very bright, I have to say that. When people constantly lie to me, I begin to have a little less trust in their honesty, to be frank. For most of us, it's a natural reaction. But not to Republicans where Trump is concerned. That, to me, is a greater mystery than how the universe got underway.

Look, the Democrats, right now, are having conversations about whether Biden should step down over his debate performance. They will decide in his favour, but at least they're having the conversation. Are the Republicans having the same conversation about the lies Trump told in the debate? No, they are not. Nor will they. And someday, the public is going to notice.

Ok, nice rant, thanks for the advice. People are not voting for him because he is a boy scout. The problem with the dems is they have not even tried to figure out why people vote for him. They just go on tirades and call him hitler etc. and people that vote for him names as well. The dems gave him his power and popularity.