Senators race to secure border deal with Ukraine aid at stake

[Laodicean60]

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

Did you get triggered? thx for the info though.

 

[Laodicean60]

As pointed out in my other links, there was a bipartisan bill in the Senate in early 2018.

Look I won't get into the political TiT for Tat but it is these partisan actions on both parties that keep anything moving forward. I don't care how you try to spin it I've been hearing about immigration since G Bush.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

Did you get triggered?

I just looked at my portfolio. Yeah, I opened a Guinness after that.

thx for the info though.

Businessmen have this figured out. And most other people are catching on. It's not the Trump economy any more.

 

[Laodicean60]

I just looked at my portfolio.

I hope good because I'm doing OK. The trigger comment was over the Bold replies.

 

[The Barbarian]

I just looked at my portfolio. Yeah, I opened a Guinness after that.

I hope good because I'm doing OK.

So are Americans, generally. Economy is growing, unemployment is down, more people are working. Good stuff.

The trigger comment was over the Bold replies.

I meant no offense. Sorry if I was unclear.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

I think think the bigger issue is the "half in/half out" approach.

If Russia is as dire of a threat as portrayed/labelled, why limit our involvement to just sending weapons to a country that's (let's be honest) underpowered to fight them? Why not go in guns blazing?

Half in/Half out approaches are the recipe for sustaining conflict, not ending it.

Many feel (and I'm somewhat sympathetic to this notion), either we stay out of it and let the chips fall where they may, or we "handle business".

The reason why the Vietnam war was so unpopular was because it was viewed as (and rightfully so) a war that wasn't meant to be "won or lost", but a war that was meant to be sustained.

Prolonging war to pad the pockets of people who profit from war isn't a good formula.

The proposals we see from the more hawkish people in DC of "let's just keep giving Ukraine the stuff they need to survive another month or two and then reconvene" doesn't represent legitimate concern for Ukrainians, nor does it represent a legitimate concern about the dangers of Putin's aggression.


Transpose that approach onto other historical events and tell me if it makes sense....

Hitler's invading France. Do we stay out of it? Put boots on the ground and do everything in our power to take out Hitler?, or do we give the French just enough resources that they can survive another 2-3 months at a time and then debate whether or not to extend that support another 2-3 months when the first deadline is up? Any reasonable person would have to question the motives of people consistently picking option 3 over and over again in that scenario...

 

[The Barbarian]

If Russia is as dire of a threat as portrayed/labelled, why limit our involvement to just sending weapons to a country that's (let's be honest) underpowered to fight them? Why not go in guns blazing?

For one thing, not necessary. If we resume supplying ammunition, Ukraine will continue grinding up Russian soldiers and equipment. It's close to a draw now, because Ukraine needs more ammunition and equipment.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think think the bigger issue is the "half in/half out" approach.

If Russia is as dire of a threat as portrayed/labelled, why limit our involvement to just sending weapons to a country that's (let's be honest) underpowered to fight them? Why not go in guns blazing?

Half in/Half out approaches are the recipe for sustaining conflict, not ending it.

Many feel (and I'm somewhat sympathetic to this notion), either we stay out of it and let the chips fall where they may, or we "handle business".

Contrary to what others would like to imply, this is not a proxy war started by the US/NATO. The war exists because Russia attacked and invaded Ukraine in a war of conquest. The purpose of the war is not to weaken Russia. Sending US/NATO troops to fight would mean direct combat with Russia. We're not interested in that. It would be a very dangerous thing to do.

 

[The Barbarian]

Contrary to what others would like to imply, this is not a proxy war started by the US/NATO. The war exists because Russia attacked and invaded Ukraine in a war of conquest.

Right. All that is necessary for the war to end, is for Russia to stop their invasion and withdraw to their own country.

 

[wing2000]

I think think the bigger issue is the "half in/half out" approach.

If Russia is as dire of a threat as portrayed/labelled, why limit our involvement to just sending weapons to a country that's (let's be honest) underpowered to fight them? Why not go in guns blazing?

Half in/Half out approaches are the recipe for sustaining conflict, not ending it.

By "guns blazing" do you mean direct involvement of US/NATO forces in Ukraine?

The reason why the Vietnam war was so unpopular was because it was viewed as (and rightfully so) a war that wasn't meant to be "won or lost", but a war that was meant to be sustained.

....an unpopular draft and over 50k American casulties were the bigger reasons IMO. If Biden were commit American troops to combat in Ukraine, I suspect support would start drop the minute those caskets start rolling off the plane at Dover AFB.

Prolonging war to pad the pockets of people who profit from war isn't a good formula.

The proposals we see from the more hawkish people in DC of "let's just keep giving Ukraine the stuff they need to survive another month or two and then reconvene" doesn't represent legitimate concern for Ukrainians, nor does it represent a legitimate concern about the dangers of Putin's aggression.


Transpose that approach onto other historical events and tell me if it makes sense....

And if Putin feals threatened enough to start using nukes on the battlefield? Flashback to when the Ukranians were pushing the Russians back. If NATO or only the US had jumped in at that point, there was a real risk of Putin reacting in a way that all us might regret. Maybe Biden was over cautious in that respect. Maybe we should have given the long range missles to Ukraine at the outset. It's judgement call.

 

[Laodicean60]

Contrary to what others would like to imply, this is not a proxy war started by the US/NATO. The war exists because Russia attacked and invaded Ukraine in a war of conquest. The purpose of the war is not to weaken Russia. Sending US/NATO troops to fight would mean direct combat with Russia. We're not interested in that. It would be a very dangerous thing to do.

Our desire to take over the world is provocative to other countries in the world especially those that don't hold our values (BRICS). I am of the opposing view because if we don't learn to peaceably live with one another we won't live at all. We need a reset in our foreign policy or we'll all go up in smoke.

• The opposing view argues that Russia’s security concerns are in fact genuine, and that NATO expansion eastward is seen by Russians as directed against their country. Putin has been clear for many years that if continued, the expansion would likely be met with serious resistance by the Russians, even with military action. That perspective isn’t held just by Russians; some influential American foreign policy experts have subscribed to it as well. Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that “hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.”
• Russian elite and broad public opinion have both long been opposed to such expansion, the placement of American rockets in Poland and Romania and the arming of Ukraine with Western weaponry.
  When President Bill Clinton’s administration moved to bring Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, Burns wrote that the decision was “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.”
• In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Ukraine war follows decades of warnings that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could provoke Russia

Lost in the outrage over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the fact that many in the West have long warned that widespread NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could spark just such a conflict.

theconversation.com

And yet we keep pushing and pushing! India?

"US Permanent Representative to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Julianne Smith Friday said India plays a crucial role in ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific that aligns with the alliance.:

NATO ‘Door Open’ For India For More Engagement, Not Membership: US' NATO Envoy Smith

US Permanent Representative to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Julianne Smith Friday said India plays a crucial role in ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific that aligns with the alliance.

news.abplive.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Contrary to what others would like to imply, this is not a proxy war started by the US/NATO. The war exists because Russia attacked and invaded Ukraine in a war of conquest. The purpose of the war is not to weaken Russia.

Really?

The secretary of defense seemed to have some ideas that weakening Russia is one of the focal points

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/biden-administration-russia-strategy/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/25/russia-weakened-lloyd-austin-ukraine-visit/

Sending US/NATO troops to fight would mean direct combat with Russia. We're not interested in that. It would be a very dangerous thing to do.

Then what's the point of all this? It's pretty clear that Ukraine can't stand on their own without weapons and money from other countries. And it should be evident at this point that providing just the weapons and money (and nothing more) is the formula for just sustaining the conflict and keeping it in limbo. We're going on how many months of conflict at this point?...and the "front line" has barely moved

Who’s Gaining Ground in Ukraine? This Year, No One.

Although both sides have launched ambitious offensives, the front line has barely shifted. After 18 months of war, a breakthrough looks more difficult than ever.

www.nytimes.com

So what's the plan here? to just keep sending them money and weapons indefinitely so they can continue to trade off a 400 square mile patch of territory?

 

[wing2000]

So what's the plan here? to just keep sending them money and weapons indefinitely so they can continue to trade off a 400 square mile patch of territory?

It's not our call. Ukraine just announced they have lost 31k in the war to date. The US has lost zero.

Ukraine is well aware of the stalemate on the battlefiled and I suspect that domestically, there is increasing pressure to call for a truce with Russia. Acknowledging their lossses (for the first time in the conflict) is a sign the Ukranian government may be going down that road. However, if their soldiers no longer have bullets and artillery shells to defend the gains made to date, Russia will have no incentive to negotiate. Putin will certainly exploit that weakness.

 

[Laodicean60]

By no means do I love Russia because I was brainwashed as a kid to fight Russia and communism. Now that I've grown I have kids and grandkids and I don't see Russia as the threat that they once were. Get those old tractors out of government who are still living a lie. Everyone here should force their politicians for term limits and no one after 60 years old in government. But I have watched our actions in the last 30 years and unfortunately, until recently I realize we've done more harm in relationships around the world. These catchy drumbeat slogans War on Terrorism and the old one War on Drugs, how's that been working for us? Sad what the Boomers have left our kids.

 

[The Barbarian]

Putin has openly admitted that he wants to restore the Soviet Empire. He just wants it to be a kleptocracy, not a Marxist state. Notice that amounts to the samething as far as smaller nations nearby are concerned. It would be very naive to suppose he'll be satisfied with "just one more country to conquer."

 

[Laodicean60]

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.”

I looked and I understand consumer (migrant) spending contributes to GDP but I wonder how much of that is our tax dollars in entitlements versus from them working? I know in New Mexico when my wife was in social work she doled out money to several migrants that had kids in school. I couldn't find a number of how many are working and paying taxes.

"Increases in the population boost the demand for goods, services, and housing,” Wages, however, will rise more slowly, in part reflecting the increase in the number of lower skilled workers, in the CBO’s estimation."

We've already heard some mayors requesting more federal mont because of the migrants Just using New York as an example.

"States thought fast work permits would solve their migrant problems. It hasn’t. The problem has been particularly pronounced in New York, which has drawn more than 140,000 migrants since spring 2022."

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/states-thought-fast-work-permits-would-solve-their-migrant-problems-it-hasnt-00128933

Then the outflows from some cities are tremendous.

"New York City is preparing for the worst — extending its contract with local hotels to help house migrants for up to three more years at a staggering added cost of more than $1 billion.

NYC now preparing to spend staggering extra $1B on hotels alone to shelter migrants for three more years

“Why are we extending this contract for three years? It sends the message of not wanting to reduce this migrant population,” said Nicole Gelinas.

nypost.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

Really?

Yes, really!

The secretary of defense seemed to have some ideas that weakening Russia is one of the focal points

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/biden-administration-russia-strategy/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/25/russia-weakened-lloyd-austin-ukraine-visit/

The article you linked is from *two years* after Russia began this war. (or 10 years if you go with the full war, and not the current hot phase.) Their purpose wasn't to weaken themselves (obviously). Nor did the US/NATO start the war. Giving Ukraine the tools to beat up one of our greatest strategic foes after they made a huge blunder is just an opportunity that must be taken.

Then what's the point of all this?

Ukraine doesn't want to be a Russian puppet state. That's why they resist.

It's pretty clear that Ukraine can't stand on their own without weapons and money from other countries.

And neither would Latvia or Poland if they were attacked by a large (Russian, face it, it would be Russian) army. S. Korea wouldn't have stood without weapons and money (and troops) from other countries in 1951, etc. That's how war often works. Nothing has changed about that in millennia.

And it should be evident at this point that providing just the weapons and money (and nothing more) is the formula for just sustaining the conflict and keeping it in limbo.

As I've noted in earlier posts, the 2023 Ukrainian offensive underperformed because the weapons and training they needed didn't arrive early enough (and aircraft *still* haven't arrived). Adequate artillery to harass the Russian fortification construction in Fall '22 and Winter '23 would have made the objective easier to take, instead the southern front was basically a giant fortification.

We're going on how many months of conflict at this point?

120 or 24 depending on how you count it.

...and the "front line" has barely moved

Who’s Gaining Ground in Ukraine? This Year, No One.

Although both sides have launched ambitious offensives, the front line has barely shifted. After 18 months of war, a breakthrough looks more difficult than ever.

www.nytimes.com

I am aware of this

So what's the plan here?

Zelenskyy doesn't share their plans with the public, and I suspect in part even with allies.

to just keep sending them money and weapons indefinitely so they can continue to trade off a 400 square mile patch of territory?

And yet, Ukraine's biggest accomplishments were in the air/sea war, especially in Crimea where Russia has taken a bad beating.

 

[Laodicean60]

"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.

I fault both Parties for not getting anything done. I do understand that Republicans are more resistant because I used to be one but I didn't agree because I'm married into a Mexican family. For decades both parties said there was nothing in it for them while the inability to come together leaves my family and others stuck in the middle. I get the feeling after all these years that our politicians have offered us lip service and don't want to solve this issue.

Undocumented immigrants here for decades ask Biden for work permits: can it be done?

Waiting years for legalization, undocumented immigrants in the U.S. see hope in recent work permits to eligible Venezuelan migrants despite legal challenges.

www.nbcnews.com