Senators race to secure border deal with Ukraine aid at stake

[RocksInMyHead]

Since we are talking about immigration if Democrats had worked with Trump we wouldn't have this issue today.

They tried in 2018: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/15/politics/trump-immigration-compromise/index.html

Senators Strike Bipartisan Deal on Immigration Despite Veto Threat (Published 2018)

The legislation sets up a clash that will pit the political center of the Senate against the president and the Republican congressional leadership.

www.nytimes.com

The Rs tried to ram through their own plan in 2017, but fell short, and in 2019/2020, Trump resorted to executive action rather than trying to compromise.

 

[Laodicean60]

immigration in 2006

Do you have anything more recent? That was during a time when the economy was booming.

A New York City-funded pilot program will give prepaid debit cards to some migrants sheltering in the city’s hotels to pay for food. But those debit cards are not worth up to $10,000, as social media users have claimed.

I'm not sure why you posted this.

 

[Laodicean60]

They tried in 2018: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/15/politics/trump-immigration-compromise/index.html

Senators Strike Bipartisan Deal on Immigration Despite Veto Threat (Published 2018)

The legislation sets up a clash that will pit the political center of the Senate against the president and the Republican congressional leadership.

www.nytimes.com

The Rs tried to ram through their own plan in 2017, but fell short, and in 2019/2020, Trump resorted to executive action rather than trying to compromise.

Is this the same that no Democrat voted for in the House?

 

[The Barbarian]

So, then why did only half of the country come to this revelation now for this specific situation and not all the others?

Pretty much always have. As people like Tucker Carlson shows, Putin has a lot of assets in right wing media and politics.

Perhaps some of the people supporting this now are in the category of people who own an apology to George HW Bush for the monday morning quarterbacking they did pertaining to him going into Iraq after they invaded Kuwait?

There was huge support for Desert Shield, tossing Saddam out of Kuwait. Since he hadn't threatened or invaded any countries after that, there wasn't as much support for Desert Storm. I think you've confused the two. Desert Storm was largely predicated on the false idea that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11.

Importantly, most Americans thought – erroneously, as it turned out – there was a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. In October 2002, 66% said that Saddam helped the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Two Decades Later, the Enduring Legacy of 9/11

Twenty years ago, Americans came together – bonded by sadness and patriotism – after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But a review of public opinion in the two decades since finds that unity was fleeting. It also shows how support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was strong initially but fell...

www.pewresearch.org

On September 14, I was with Bush when he had his first phone call after 9/11 with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Bush immediately said he was planning to “hit” Iraq soon. Blair was audibly taken aback. He pressed Bush for evidence of Iraq’s connection to the 9/11 attack and to al-Qaida. Of course, there was none, which British intelligence knew.

On September 18, a week after 9/11, Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan came to the White House to see Bush. The meeting took place on the Truman Balcony. Vice President Richard Cheney and Rice were there as well. My note says the president “clearly thinks Iraq must be behind this. His questions to Bandar show his bias.” Bandar was visibly perplexed. He told Bush that the Saudis had no evidence of any collaboration between Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Indeed their history was of being antagonists.

9/11 and Iraq: The making of a tragedy | Brookings

Obsessed with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration misled the American public into believing Iraq was connected to the September 11 attacks, Bruce Riedel writes.

www.brookings.edu

It is the salient failure of the Bush administration, one that doomed his legacy.

 

[Laodicean60]

That's another straw man. Turns out that it has about zero to do with illegal workers coming in:

How do you distinguish between an illegal worker and a drug smuggler when they are sneaking in?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is this the same that no Democrat voted for in the House?

No. It is not the same bill. (I believe a large portion of the House Democrats were willing to vote for the Senate Ukraine/Border/Israel bill.) In the end there were no votes for the Senate border bill at all.

 

[Laodicean60]

Perhaps some of the people supporting this now are in the category of people who own an apology to George HW Bush for the monday morning quarterbacking they did pertaining to him going into Iraq after they invaded Kuwait?

I was young and ignorant and didn't think of the issues this would have caused. I was wrong for supporting taking out Saddam. I apologize.

 

[Laodicean60]

No. It is not the same bill. (I believe a large portion of the House Democrats were willing to vote for the Senate Ukraine/Border/Israel bill.) In the end there were no votes for the Senate border bill at all.

I think we talking about apples and oranges, Rocks mentioned a 2018 bill about immigration.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Is this the same that no Democrat voted for in the House?

No. There were two House bills in 2018 - one supported by conservative Republicans and the other a compromise. The only one that was voted on was the hard-line legislation proposed by Rep. Goodlatte. After that failed, leadership elected to defer the compromise bill and it never came back up.

Here's more on the negotiation process: Bipartisan Agreement Proved Elusive in 2017 Immigration Negotiations

 

[Laodicean60]

Since he hadn't threatened or invaded any countries after that, there wasn't as much support for Desert Storm. I think you've confused the two. Desert Storm was largely predicated on the false idea that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11.

The reason I supported George was the lie of WMD which I knew Saddam used on the Kurds a decade before.

 

[Laodicean60]

No. There were two House bills in 2018 - one supported by conservative Republicans and the other a compromise. The only one that was voted on was the hard-line legislation proposed by Rep. Goodlatte. After that failed, leadership elected to defer the compromise bill and it never came back up.

Here's more on the negotiation process: Bipartisan Agreement Proved Elusive in 2017 Immigration Negotiations

"Democrats appear prepared to vote en masse against both bills. That means that neither of them will pass unless Republicans vote overwhelmingly in favor — at least 218 of the House’s 235 Republicans would need to support either bill to pass."

The House is set to debate 2 sweeping immigration bills that don’t address family separation

The bills would legalize immigrants currently protected under the DACA program — and cut legal family-based immigration. (If they pass. Which they probably won’t.)

www.vox.com

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you have anything more recent? That was during a time when the economy was booming.

The economy is booming now. There's a labor shortage.

US weekly jobless claims fall as labor market remains tight​

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-weekly-jobless-claims-unexpectedly-fall-2024-02-22/

No end to the worker shortage: America had 11.3 million jobs available in January ​

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/09/economy/us-job-openings-quits-january/index.html​

But yes...

The surge in immigration will help bolster the U.S. economy by about $7 trillion over the next decade by swelling the labor force and increasing demand, the Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday.

The stronger growth will be good for the federal government, lifting revenues by about $1 trillion more than otherwise over the period, according to the non-partisan agency. Wages, however, will rise more slowly, in part reflecting the increase in the number of lower skilled workers, in the CBO’s estimation.

“Increases in the population boost the demand for goods, services, and housing,” the CBO said in its budget and economic outlook for the next 10 years. “They also expand the productive capacity of the economy by increasing the size of the labor force.”

Immigration Surge Forecasted to Boost U.S. Economy

Growth in the labor force driven by migration will help bolster the U.S. economy by about $7 trillion over the next decade, per the Congressional Budget Office.

time.com

 

[The Barbarian]

How do you distinguish between an illegal worker and a drug smuggler when they are sneaking in?

Same way you distinguish between workers and drug smugglers coming in legally.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Pretty much always have. As people like Tucker Carlson shows, Putin has a lot of assets in right wing media and politics.


There was huge support for Desert Shield, tossing Saddam out of Kuwait. Since he hadn't threatened or invaded any countries after that, there wasn't as much support for Desert Storm. I think you've confused the two. Desert Storm was largely predicated on the false idea that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11.

Desert Shield and Desert Storm were two phases of the 1990-91 Gulf War.

The "Iraq War" was what was launched post-9/11.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Desert Shield and Desert Storm were two phases of the 1990-91 Gulf War.

The "Iraq War" was what was launched post-9/11.

And during the Gulf War (much like the Russia Ukraine situation), the public were pretty split at the time.

(later on, support numbers increased)


There's that old slogan/song "War, what is good for? Absolutely nothing"

As it pertains to US political discourse, it's more like "War, what is it good for? Bashing the opposing ideological faction when they want to get involved in one"


Although, the reversal in sentiments is, I feel, explained to a degree by the extraneous dynamics involving perceptions surrounding Trump/Russia/2016.

 

[The Barbarian]

Desert Shield and Desert Storm were two phases of the 1990-91 Gulf War.

The "Iraq War" was what was launched post-9/11.

Yes. Sorry about that.

 

[wing2000]

Or students of history, who remember that appeasing aggressors only whets their appetite for more aggression. While appeasers like Trump may tell us that giving Putin what he wants will produce "peace in our time", history shows that is the way to general wars.

[2/14]
Estonia’s foreign minister said Wednesday that NATO has about three or four years to strengthen its defenses as Russian President Vladimir Putin ramps up his country’s “war machine.”
Tsahkna and Sikorski stressed the importance of maintaining strong support for Ukraine.

The Estonian foreign minister recalled how in 2017, when he was defense minister, Russia deployed 120,000 troops across the border of the Baltic states. Those troops have since been deployed to Ukraine, where many have been killed.

Tsahkna said it proves that “Ukraine is not fighting for us, but instead of us.”


I agree with the foreign minister. If Ukraine falls, Estonia and the Baltics are next. Putin wants to restore his version of Russian empire. And if the isolationists rule in Washington, he will achieve his goals.

Estonia's foreign minister says the Baltics have 3 or 4 years to prepare for Russian 'test' of NATO

Estonia’s foreign minister says NATO has about three or four years to strengthen its defenses as Russian President Vladimir Putin ramps up his country’s “war machine.”

apnews.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree with the foreign minister. If Ukraine falls, Estonia and the Baltics are next. Putin wants to restore his version of Russian empire. And if the isolationists rule in Washington, he will achieve his goals.

The issue with that notion is that there's typically no limiting principle in terms of "getting involved"

The more hawkish legislators who would be eager to send weapons to Ukraine forever are also many of the same ones who would be rather eager to jump in any other conflict as well.

There's not too many "happy mediums" in terms of interventionism with regards to decision makers.

You have the Rand Pauls who want to stay out of virtually everything, and you have the Lindsey Grahams who would be more than happy to give a blank check to defense contractors and go chasing "intervention opportunities" wherever they may find them.

And given that there's no real consensus in the public pertaining to "which conflicts are worth getting involved in" (see: "Israel support vs. Ukraine support"), I don't see how we stop it from going off the rails.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"Democrats appear prepared to vote en masse against both bills. That means that neither of them will pass unless Republicans vote overwhelmingly in favor — at least 218 of the House’s 235 Republicans would need to support either bill to pass."

The House is set to debate 2 sweeping immigration bills that don’t address family separation

The bills would legalize immigrants currently protected under the DACA program — and cut legal family-based immigration. (If they pass. Which they probably won’t.)

www.vox.com

"There’s very little in either bill for Democrats. Both bills allow immigrants currently facing the loss of their protections under the DACA program (which the Trump administration is currently fighting in court to end) to apply for legal status in the US. The compromise bill would allow many of them to ultimately apply for green cards, making them eligible for citizenship.

But both bills make cuts to legal immigration (by eliminating the diversity visa lottery and some forms of family-based immigration), which Democrats have said is a nonstarter. And both would significantly tighten asylum standards and make it much easier for the government to detain and deport asylum seekers — something Democrats are much less willing to get on board with as the Trump administration’s separation of families at the border remains the top news story."

Can't really fault the Democrats for not getting on board if the Republicans aren't going to compromise with them. Note also that these bills were written in the wake of Trump's comments about not wanting immigrants from "poophole" countries.

As pointed out in my other links, there was a bipartisan bill in the Senate in early 2018. Trump killed that one too.

 

[wing2000]

The issue with that notion is that there's typically no limiting principle in terms of "getting involved"

The more hawkish legislators who would be eager to send weapons to Ukraine forever are also many of the same ones who would be rather eager to jump in any other conflict as well.

There's not too many "happy mediums" in terms of interventionism with regards to decision makers.

You have the Rand Pauls who want to stay out of virtually everything, and you have the Lindsey Grahams who would be more than happy to give a blank check to defense contractors and go chasing "intervention opportunities" wherever they may find them.

And given that there's no real consensus in the public pertaining to "which conflicts are worth getting involved in" (see: "Israel support vs. Ukraine support"), I don't see how we stop it from going off the rails.

I think the majority of Americans still support the mutual defense principle on which NATO is founded: An attack on one is an attack on all. However, that majority is slimer today...as the WW2 generation passes on...and people forget the wars of aggression in Europe.

As long as the US remains behind NATO's committment, we will avoid further involvment in Europe. If we don't, we'll be faced with fighting Russia in NATO member countries a few years from. Putin may be right...he may outlast American resolve.