What if the border wall had been completed by Biden? It was to be a physical barrier to show that America was a goal to be achieved by law-abiding immigrants. Biden halted the construction within days after the election, out of spite, and the world saw an “open sesame sign” at the border.
People would still be coming in across the border, and Republicans would still be demagogueing it. So Biden would have wasted millions of dollars for no policy or political advantage.
“Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was. The Battle of Gettysburg,” the former president said Saturday. “What an unbelievable―I mean, it was so much and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways.”
As he spoke further, Trump even drew confused looks from his audience of supporters.
“The statement of Robert E. Lee―who’s no longer in favor, did you ever notice that?” Trump continued. “No longer in favor―‘Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.’ They were fighting uphill. He said, ‘Wow, that was a big mistake.’ He lost his great general, and they were fighting. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys!’ But it was too late.”
Leaving aside the incoherence, speaking about a Confederate general in a weird, favorable way also sets off some red flags.
Are we supposed to be surprised that the man responsible for the violent breaching of the Capitol building -- something that never happened even during the Civil War -- speaks favorably of the traitor general?
Three hundred and seventy pages of the “gimmes.” Surely one or two items on the list could have been put on hold while the lives of millions of immigrants, and the citizens of the towns along our southern border were given respect for their property and lives.
How did, for example, almost $3B for domestic uranium enrichment — most likely a worthy item, of course — get added into the immediate need for border control? Politicians always put their constituents needs first
Some $60 billion were for other important needs world-wide, which will most certainly receive the attention of Washington, sooner than later, and another bill will emerge.
But, the out of control immigration at the border weakens the U.S. in the eyes of the world and diminishes our ability to be the leader of that free world.
Three hundred and seventy pages of the “gimmes.” Surely one or two items on the list could have been put on hold while the lives of millions of immigrants, and the citizens of the towns along our southern border were given respect for their property and lives.
How did, for example, almost $3B for domestic uranium enrichment — most likely a worthy item, of course — get added into the immediate need for border control? Politicians always put their constituents needs first
Some $60 billion were for other important needs world-wide, which will most certainly receive the attention of Washington, sooner than later, and another bill will emerge.
But, the out of control immigration at the border weakens the U.S. in the eyes of the world and diminishes our ability to be the leader of that free world.
You can believe what you like, but the bipartisan agreement on the border bill was undone by Trump and because he wants to make chaos a campaign issue. And, of course, Trump's MAGA sycophants fell in line.
Also, this is the way government works. Always has, always will. Grow up.
Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.
I wonder if mtierney has ever looked at the details of bills passed that she supports. Were they free of the kinds of "extras" she's complaining about here? If so, she should share an example, as that would make a good contrast to this bill she opposes. If she has no examples because she doesn't look at bills she doesn't object to -- why?
I wonder if mtierney has ever looked at the details of bills passed that she supports. Were they free of the kinds of "extras" she's complaining about here? If so, she should share an example, as that would make a good contrast to this bill she opposes. If she has no examples because she doesn't look at bills she doesn't object to -- why?
do you think mtierney actually looked a the border bill, or just found a graphic of GOP talking points. Personally I don't take those numbers at face value given there's not sourcing. I'm going to have to look it up myself to see if they're real.
I wonder if mtierney has ever looked at the details of bills passed that she supports. Were they free of the kinds of "extras" she's complaining about here? If so, she should share an example, as that would make a good contrast to this bill she opposes. If she has no examples because she doesn't look at bills she doesn't object to -- why?
do you think mtierney actually looked a the border bill, or just found a graphic of GOP talking points. Personally I don't take those numbers at face value given there's not sourcing. I'm going to have to look it up myself to see if they're real.
PBS broke it down here. There's a lot in there that mtierney has asked for in previous posts.
$10 billion in humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, among other places
$2.3 billion in refugee assistance inside the U.S.
$20.2 billion for improvements to U.S. border security
$2.72 billion for domestic uranium enrichment
THE IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS
Asylum. There are many big changes here.
A new system. The bill moves most new asylum cases to the Department of Homeland Security. No longer would these cases be heard by immigration judges under the Department of Justice. Instead, the people hearing these cases would be asylum officers with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency under DHS.
This rule is both for the initial asylum claims and also for most appeals. The idea here is that it is a much faster review, often without attorneys or a deliberative process.
A new standard. At the initial interview, an asylum seeker must establish “clear and convincing” proof that they have a credible fear of persecution if they stay in their country. The standard would change to a “significant possibility.” The bill authors believe this change would result in the vast majority of applications being rejected.
Other new criteria, earlier in the process. During the initial interview, the bill says, asylum claims can be rejected if the person has a disqualifying criminal history, if they were living safely in a third country before seeking asylum, or if they could safely relocate in their original home country.
A new process. Under the bill, this system is to be in place and operational 91 days after the bill is signed into law. This is how it would work: (1) Migrants receive an initial screening within 90 days of arrival. (2) If the claim fails — a “negative protection decision” — they are immediately ordered for removal. They have 72 hours to appeal or request a hearing. (3) If the claim passes initial screening — “positive protection decision” — they will get a work authorization immediately, be released into the country and have another 90 days before a final decision is made on their case.
New detention beds and rules. The number of detention beds goes to 50,000. Right now, there are fewer than 40,000.
People who arrive and are processed via ports of entry are not automatically detained. They could await processing inside the United States. Migrants entering the country illegally and seeking asylum are more likely to be detained than under current law.
But there are significant exceptions, including families, who are not detained. Instead they will be tracked using one of various “alternatives to detention” methods, chosen by the person processing the claim. Options include ankle bracelets and simple contact.
New border emergency authority. The bill sets up a new trigger based on the average number of migrant encounters. After this level is reached, most new migrants entering the country illegally, outside of legal ports of entry, will automatically be removed. But it is more complicated than “shutting down” the border.
If the average number of migrants crossing is:
4,000 per day, over seven days, DHS can launch this authority.
5,000 per day, over seven days, DHS must launch this authority.
This emergency trigger turns off within two weeks of the numbers falling below 4,000 or 5,000. And it cannot be used more than 270 days in the first year, with smaller amounts in the next two years. This authority would sunset in three years.
When the emergency authority is launched, DHS can ban entry by all those who enter illegally, i.e. not through ports of entry. For most of the people turned away, there would be no screening for credible fear asylum seekers before being returned.
But there are exceptions:
Unaccompanied minors would be admitted.
DHS can screen for people claiming they will be tortured upon return, or who are fighting other removal orders already in place.
At least 1,400 of the migrants who enter outside legal ports of entry will be processed per day at the southwest border. (Allowing some narrow access to asylum, and fulfilling demands of international law.)
Humanitarian parole. This bill ends other forms of parole, including the one used now to release migrants found crossing the border illegally. It does not significantly change the president’s ability to use humanitarian parole. Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans (CHNV) — the parole program known as Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezeulans stays in place, with residents of those countries able to apply for entry using those spots. However, they must come through ports of entry, generally.
OTHER BIG PROVISIONS
More legal immigration: 50,000 new visas a year for five years. These are job- or family-related.
The Afghan Adjustment Act: This gives green cards and pathways to citizenship for Afghans admitted or paroled after the U.S. withdrawal in 2021.
I wonder if mtierney has ever looked at the details of bills passed that she supports. Were they free of the kinds of "extras" she's complaining about here? If so, she should share an example, as that would make a good contrast to this bill she opposes. If she has no examples because she doesn't look at bills she doesn't object to -- why?
do you think mtierney actually looked a the border bill, or just found a graphic of GOP talking points. Personally I don't take those numbers at face value given there's not sourcing. I'm going to have to look it up myself to see if they're real.
Surely you're not suggesting that her posts are simply shallow partisanship?
I wonder if mtierney has ever looked at the details of bills passed that she supports. Were they free of the kinds of "extras" she's complaining about here? If so, she should share an example, as that would make a good contrast to this bill she opposes. If she has no examples because she doesn't look at bills she doesn't object to -- why?
Good grief, Charle Brown, now you expect me to analyze all the bills before Congress, excluding those which you seem believe I don’t object to, to explain why I objected to a bill loaded with political perks at a time the immigration issue is first on voters’ minds, according to recent polls.
The Middle East may be exploding, but this country is bleeding now.
$10 billion in humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, among other places
$2.3 billion in refugee assistance inside the U.S.
$20.2 billion for improvements to U.S. border security
$2.72 billion for domestic uranium enrichment
THE IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS
Asylum. There are many big changes here.
A new system. The bill moves most new asylum cases to the Department of Homeland Security. No longer would these cases be heard by immigration judges under the Department of Justice. Instead, the people hearing these cases would be asylum officers with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency under DHS.
This rule is both for the initial asylum claims and also for most appeals. The idea here is that it is a much faster review, often without attorneys or a deliberative process.
A new standard. At the initial interview, an asylum seeker must establish “clear and convincing” proof that they have a credible fear of persecution if they stay in their country. The standard would change to a “significant possibility.” The bill authors believe this change would result in the vast majority of applications being rejected.
Other new criteria, earlier in the process. During the initial interview, the bill says, asylum claims can be rejected if the person has a disqualifying criminal history, if they were living safely in a third country before seeking asylum, or if they could safely relocate in their original home country.
A new process. Under the bill, this system is to be in place and operational 91 days after the bill is signed into law. This is how it would work: (1) Migrants receive an initial screening within 90 days of arrival. (2) If the claim fails — a “negative protection decision” — they are immediately ordered for removal. They have 72 hours to appeal or request a hearing. (3) If the claim passes initial screening — “positive protection decision” — they will get a work authorization immediately, be released into the country and have another 90 days before a final decision is made on their case.
New detention beds and rules. The number of detention beds goes to 50,000. Right now, there are fewer than 40,000.
People who arrive and are processed via ports of entry are not automatically detained. They could await processing inside the United States. Migrants entering the country illegally and seeking asylum are more likely to be detained than under current law.
But there are significant exceptions, including families, who are not detained. Instead they will be tracked using one of various “alternatives to detention” methods, chosen by the person processing the claim. Options include ankle bracelets and simple contact.
New border emergency authority. The bill sets up a new trigger based on the average number of migrant encounters. After this level is reached, most new migrants entering the country illegally, outside of legal ports of entry, will automatically be removed. But it is more complicated than “shutting down” the border.
If the average number of migrants crossing is:
4,000 per day, over seven days, DHS can launch this authority.
5,000 per day, over seven days, DHS must launch this authority.
This emergency trigger turns off within two weeks of the numbers falling below 4,000 or 5,000. And it cannot be used more than 270 days in the first year, with smaller amounts in the next two years. This authority would sunset in three years.
When the emergency authority is launched, DHS can ban entry by all those who enter illegally, i.e. not through ports of entry. For most of the people turned away, there would be no screening for credible fear asylum seekers before being returned.
But there are exceptions:
Unaccompanied minors would be admitted.
DHS can screen for people claiming they will be tortured upon return, or who are fighting other removal orders already in place.
At least 1,400 of the migrants who enter outside legal ports of entry will be processed per day at the southwest border. (Allowing some narrow access to asylum, and fulfilling demands of international law.)
Humanitarian parole. This bill ends other forms of parole, including the one used now to release migrants found crossing the border illegally. It does not significantly change the president’s ability to use humanitarian parole. Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans (CHNV) — the parole program known as Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezeulans stays in place, with residents of those countries able to apply for entry using those spots. However, they must come through ports of entry, generally.
OTHER BIG PROVISIONS
More legal immigration: 50,000 new visas a year for five years. These are job- or family-related.
The Afghan Adjustment Act: This gives green cards and pathways to citizenship for Afghans admitted or paroled after the U.S. withdrawal in 2021.
I wonder if mtierney has ever looked at the details of bills passed that she supports. Were they free of the kinds of "extras" she's complaining about here? If so, she should share an example, as that would make a good contrast to this bill she opposes. If she has no examples because she doesn't look at bills she doesn't object to -- why?
Good grief, Charle Brown, now you expect me to analyze all the bills before Congress, excluding those which you seem believe I don’t object to, to explain why I objected to a bill loaded with political perks at a time the immigration issue is first on voters’ minds, according to recent polls.
You're the one who posted here the details of a bill. How is it that you were able to share those details, but you're loathe to look into others? I've never seen you post a Trump-backed bill and complain it is full of "political perks."
It would be political suicide for Benjamin Netanyahu to follow Joe Biden’s advice.
By Walter Russell Mead
April 15, 2024 at 9:09 am ET
Joe Biden speaks on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, April 4. PHOTO: THE WHITE HOUSE/REUTERS
“Take the win,” President Biden reportedly advised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after Iran’s unprecedented missile and drone attacks against Israel sputtered shambolically to an ignominious end.
“As the world waits on tenterhooks for Israel’s response, two things seemed clear. It would be political suicide for Mr. Netanyahu to take the president’s advice, and it would be national suicide for any Israeli prime minister to do so. Mr. Biden is primarily worried about his re-election, a cause he conveniently if sincerely conflates with the survival of democracy in the U.S. and of freedom in the world. Israel is worried about something more tangible—the survival of the world’s only Jewish state.
“Mr. Biden is a lot smarter about the Middle East today than he was in January 2021, when he was still spouting inanities about isolating Saudi Arabia and pursuing the will o’ the wisp of détente with Iran. Today the president understands that he can’t simply shake hands with Iran and walk away from the Middle East. If the U.S. hopes to step back from a front-line role in the region, it must foster an alliance that can check Iran’s unrelenting and fanatical drive for hegemony. That is why Team Biden dramatically reversed its early policy of making Saudi Arabia a “pariah” and, borrowing some of the core concepts of Donald Trump’s Abraham Accords, made the promotion of an Israel-Saudi alliance a cornerstone of its regional strategy.
“This was an intelligent move, as far as it went. Until and unless Iran’s insatiable ambitions can be curbed, nothing but tumult and terrorism awaits the weary people of a region whose fossil fuel riches remain critical to the smooth functioning of the world economy. From an American point of view, assembling a group of American allies to take our place on the front lines at a time when we need to focus more closely on the Indo-Pacific is common sense.
“What the president appears not yet to understand is that Iran has become so powerful, and America’s reputation as a source of sound policy and reliable support so weak, that only resolute American backing of our allies can turn the tide. This problem has been decades in the making. George W. Bush’s mismanagement in Iraq removed the one regional power capable of containing Iran on its own—without building an effective replacement. Barack Obama’s feckless Syria policy gave Iran and its new best friend, Russia, a commanding position in the heart of the Middle East. Mr. Trump’s support for the Abraham Accords and tough policies toward Iran pointed in the right direction, but were mostly a case of too little, too late, and too erratic. Mr. Biden’s support for Israel is appreciated in Arab capitals as well as in Jerusalem, but his vacillations with Iran have further strengthened the ayatollahs and undercut America’s much-diminished prestige.
“National security adviser Jake Sullivan’s poorly timed Foreign Affairs article last October, hailing what he thought was the greatest regional stability in decades, was the cherry on the sundae of perceived intellectual incompetence by American policymakers in the region. The Washington foreign policy establishment, which former Obama staffer Ben Rhodes called “the Blob,” has never understood the Middle East very well.
“From an Arab point of view, there are two things that make Israel valuable at a time of diminished confidence in the U.S. First, Israel sees the common fight against Iran as part of its own fight for survival. It will be a reliable ally because it has no choice. Second, Israel offers the mix of strength and relentlessness without which Iran cannot be stopped. At a time when liberal opinion in the U.S. was elegantly wringing its hands about Israeli ruthlessness in Gaza destroying any possibility of Arab-Israeli cooperation, Jordan and Saudi Arabia leapt to Israel’s defense against the Iranian attacks. The fastest way for Israel to lose friends in the Middle East would be to start thinking like American liberal foreign-policy hands.
“This isn’t an ideal situation by any standard, and one may hope that better times will bring nobler views, but people fighting for their survival against an utterly amoral opponent will do what they must. Americans eager to critique what they see as the immorality of the region’s governments should reflect on the part our own poor choices have played in the deterioration of Middle Eastern security to its current abysmal state.
“Meanwhile, Mr. Biden will continue trying to save the world by getting re-elected and will evaluate developments abroad by their projected effect on Wisconsin and Michigan. Mr. Netanyahu will have to steer a course between the disastrous alternatives of alienating Mr. Biden by ignoring his preferences or endangering Israel by taking his advice.”
You're the one who posted here the details of a bill. How is it that you were able to share those details, but you're loathe to look into others? I've never seen you post a Trump-backed bill and complain it is full of "political perks."
mtierney was very positive about Trump's 2017 tax bill "This was a promise made by POTUS for middle class Americans and now, a promise kept" and that single act alone added $1,900,000,000,000 to our national debt.
No expert here, but seems possible that "political suicide" for BN could be a good thing for Israel and the world.
Have to agree with WSJ, though, that it was not helpful for the US to blow up the area in 2003+. Not that the place was a model of stability and cooperation before that.
No expert here, but seems possible that "political suicide" for BN could be a good thing for Israel and the world.
Have to agree with WSJ, though, that it was not helpful for the US to blow up the area in 2003+. Not that the place was a model of stability and cooperation before that.
I have often thought that chaos would be Saddam Hussein’s successor. However, it would’ve been nice had we not precipitated it.
A little history lesson from the current leader of the New Republican movement:
"Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was, It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country".
"Gettysburg, wow—I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to look and to watch, And the statement of Robert E. Lee, who's no longer in favor—did you ever notice it? He's no longer in favor. 'Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.' They were fighting uphill, he said, 'Wow, that was a big mistake,' he lost his great general. 'Never fight uphill, me boys,' but it was too late,"
And Gettysburg as addressed by President Biden a few years ago:
On July 4, 1863, America woke to the remains of perhaps the most consequential battle ever fought on American soil. It took place here on this ground in Gettysburg. Three days of violence, three days of carnage. 50,000 casualties wounded, captured, missing or dead. Over three days of fighting. When the sun rose on that Independence Day, Lee would retreat. The war would go on for nearly two more years, but the back of the Confederacy had been broken. The Union would be saved, slavery would be abolished. Government of, by, and for the people would not perish from the earth, and freedom would be born anew in our land.
There is no more fitting place than here today in Gettysburg to talk about the cost of division — about how much it has cost America in the past, about how much it is costing us now, and about why I believe in this moment we must come together as a nation. For President Lincoln, the Civil War was about the greatest of causes: the end of slavery, the widening of equality, the pursuit of justice, the creation of opportunity, and the sanctity of freedom.
His words here would live ever after.
We hear them in our heads, we know them in our hearts, we draw on them when we seek hope in the hours of darkness.
“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Here, on this sacred ground, Abraham Lincoln reimagined America itself. Here, a president of the United States spoke of the price of division and the meaning of sacrifice.
He believed in the rescue, the redemption, and the rededication of the Union, all this in a time not just of ferocious division, but also widespread death, structural inequality, and fear of the future.
And he taught us this: A house divided could not stand. That is a great and timeless truth.
If one hasn't read the article, but just posted the link because some other source had the link and said the guy was fired, then you post "the bloke gets fired".
Mtierney, when you chose to write that Berliner was fired, what was your reason?
I should have said suspended for five days without pay.
It appears to me that NPR has its knickers in a twist over the ultra liberal outing of the outlet and now is scrambling to try to correct the public’s view, After all, conservatives, liberals, progressives, all across this nation, watch and/or tune in for the news and features, not for political indoctrination — supported by taxpayers of all stripes. Hearing both sides of what’s happening is what makes America a democracy — and not an Iran, or Russia, or China, for example.
From the link..
A "final warning"
The circumstances surrounding the interview were singular.
Berliner provided me with a copy of the formal rebuke to review. NPR did not confirm or comment upon his suspension for this article.
In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.
The Free Press is a site that has become a haven for journalists who believe that mainstream media outlets have become too liberal. In addition to his essay, Berliner appeared in an episode of its podcast Honestly with Bari Weiss.
A few hours after the essay appeared online, NPR chief business editor Pallavi Gogoi reminded Berliner of the requirement that he secure approval before appearing in outside press, according to a copy of the note provided by Berliner.
In its formal rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner's appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR's chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.) The NPR letter also did not cite his remarks to The New York Times, which ran its article mid-afternoon Thursday, shortly before the reprimand was sent. Berliner says he did not seek approval before talking with the Times.
“Berliner says he did not get permission from NPR to speak with me for this story but that he was not worried about the consequences: "Talking to an NPR journalist and being fired for that would be extraordinary, I think."
“Berliner is a member of NPR's business desk, as am I, and he has helped to edit many of my stories. He had no involvement in the preparation of this article and did not see it before it was posted publicly.
“In rebuking Berliner, NPR said he had also publicly released proprietary information about audience demographics, which it considers confidential. He said those figures "were essentially marketing material. If they had been really good, they probably would have distributed them and sent them out to the world."
I would love to see that “ audience demographics” info. What fits the “really good” info do you think?
a wall can be defeated by one of the world's oldest technologies