Democrats remain out of touch on border issues

 Newsbusters:

This week, the Biden administration proposed new immigration rules to reimplement asylum application measures from the Trump administration that one could even argue was a return to the “Remain in Mexico” policy. But after a news brief Tuesday night, ABC came off rather disappointed on Wednesday’s Good Morning America with President Biden incurring “fierce criticism from his own party” and lawsuits on the horizon.

Given the administration’s refusal to address the explosion in gotaways, expand and fortify physical border walls, and penchant for allowing illegal immigrants to escape into the U.S. with vague notices to appear and notices to report, it’s safe to be incredibly skeptical.
...

Tuesday’s World News Tonight didn’t foreshadow any discontent as ABC anchor David Muir explained “the Biden administration is proposing stricter new rules for migrants applying for asylum with the pandemic limits now set to expire.”

Muir continued:

Migrants would now be required to apply for asylum in countries they travel through on their way to the U.S. If they come to the U.S. anyway, they could apply at entry points but most of those who cross illegally, authorities say, will be sent back. Those pandemic-era rules known as Title 42 that allowed migrants to be sent back without a hearing, are expected to end in May.
But the next day, ABC must have received talking points. Co-host Robin Roberts lamented in a tease of “new border rules” that are the Biden administration’s “toughest immigration policy yet” that have resulted in “fierce criticism from his own party.”

Senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott reiterated the “the toughest immigration policy yet” line and said, “it comes as we have seen a record number of migrants cross our southern border.”

Explaining the new policy, she said it would become “mandatory for migrants to apply for asylum in the countries that they are traveling through on the way to the United States.”

And, because “this plan does mirror the policies proposed under the Trump administration” except for the exemption of minors, this represented the crossing of a red line:
...
Democrats are apparently not interested in enforcing US laws on immigration and the border.  That is another reason why US citizens would be wise to vote against Democrats.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more