Author Topic: Homeland Security, Border, sabotage of energy, transportation, environment  (Read 982838 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2300 on: April 15, 2020, 10:41:10 PM »
Presidential Power Is Limited but Vast
Trump can’t fully reopen the economy on his own authority. But he can go a long way in that direction.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
April 15, 2020 6:06 pm ET

President Trump has come under attack this week for saying he has “absolute authority” to reopen the economy. He doesn’t—his authority is limited. But while the president can’t simply order the entire economy to reopen on his own signature, neither is the matter entirely up to states and their governors. The two sides of this debate are mostly talking past each other.

The federal government’s powers are limited and enumerated and don’t include a “general police power” to regulate community health and welfare. That authority rests principally with the states and includes the power to impose coercive measures such as mandatory vaccination, as the Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). Nor may the federal government commandeer state personnel and resources to achieve its ends or otherwise coerce the states into a particular course of conduct. There is no dispute about these respective state and federal powers.


In most federal-state disputes, the question is what happens when authorities at both levels exercise their legitimate constitutional powers at cross-purposes. Here, the president has the edge. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause requires that when the federal government acts within its proper sphere of constitutional authority, state law and state officials must give way to the extent that federal requirements conflict with their own. Federal power encompasses a broad power to regulate the national economy. Thus although the president lacks plenary power to “restart” the economy, he has formidable authority to eliminate restraints states have imposed on certain types of critical commercial activity.

Much of this authority was established by Congress in the Defense Production Act of 1950, which Mr. Trump has invoked on a limited basis to require American manufacturers to make personal protective equipment and ventilators. Most of his current critics lauded these actions and urged him to do more.

The DPA was enacted principally to assure U.S. military preparedness. But it defines “national defense” broadly to include “emergency preparedness” and “critical infrastructure protection and restoration.” The law “provides the President with an array of authorities to shape national defense preparedness programs and to take appropriate steps to maintain and enhance the domestic industrial base.” It authorizes him to prioritize the production of certain products and to “allocate materials, services, and facilities in such a manner, upon such conditions, and to such extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.”

The DPA isn’t a blank check. The president cannot, for example, impose wage and price controls without additional congressional action, and he is often required to use carrots rather than sticks to achieve the law’s purposes. Nevertheless, because he is acting under an express congressional grant of authority, he is operating, as Justice Robert Jackson explained in his iconic concurring opinion in the “steel seizure” case Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952), at the apex of his legal and constitutional power.

Any state restrictions on commerce or personal behavior would have to yield to the federal imperative. “The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government,” the Supreme Court explained in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). States, whether acting alone or in coordination, would be barred, for example, from forbidding their residents to return to work in critical industries, or from restraining industrial, agricultural or transportation facilities in ways that impede the federal mandate.

That said, even the most expansive interpretation of the DPA, and other federal statutes regulating interstate commerce, wouldn’t permit President Trump to reopen all aspects of the American economy on his own authority. The reopening of many local businesses, such as restaurants and nonessential retailers, would be up to the states.

Thus state governors and lawmakers are as vital a part of this effort as the president and Congress. Federal and state officials have to work together, however much they may dislike each other politically or personally, to get America back on its feet.

The truly difficult legal issues coming out of the Covid-19 crisis are whether government at all levels has sufficiently protected individual rights. All exercises of federal and state power, emergency or not, are subject to the overriding limitations of the Bill of Rights. The courts have traditionally taken the nature and extent of national emergencies into account in construing and applying these rights, but they cannot be ignored entirely.

So far the American people have largely accepted temporary restrictions on their liberty—especially freedom of assembly and religion—that may not stand up to court challenges. It would serve the president and governors well to make a priority of easing these restrictions and others as soon as possible after the worst of the danger has passed.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s Office and Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush and have litigated separation-of-powers cases, representing states in challenges to ObamaCare and the federal Clean Power Plan


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
War Gaming the Next Pandemic
« Reply #2302 on: April 20, 2020, 07:56:26 PM »
War-Gaming The Next Pandemic
What I learned from the Dark Winter simulation and the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing.
By Frank Keating
April 19, 2020 11:32 am ET

I have experience—though not in real life—in dealing with a public emergency caused by an infectious virus. In June 2001, as governor of Oklahoma, I participated in Dark Winter, a simulation of the release of the smallpox virus at an Oklahoma City shopping center. The simulated virus spread to 25 other states and 15 countries.

Fourteen participants played the roles of federal and state leaders, including former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Jim Woolsey, former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Bill Sessions and political analyst David Gergen. Johns Hopkins University and the Center for Strategic and International Studies organized the event at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

Dark Winter was spontaneous and unrehearsed. It quickly punctured the myth that every level of government would work together because each knew its role and that state and local officials would salute smartly when the feds walked into the room.

Instantly, debate focused on the public-health response, the inexplicable lack of an adequate supply of smallpox vaccine, the roles and missions of federal and state governments, and the civil liberties associated with isolation and quarantine.

The scenario was different from the real crisis we faced in Oklahoma on April 19, 1995—3½ months after I took office—but the fundamental principles were the same.

The massive terror bomb that detonated in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City 25 years ago killed 168 and injured hundreds. The response overnight joined more separate agencies from local, state and federal government than had ever worked cooperatively on a single task. The outcome could have been chaotic but wasn’t. Later, observers coined the label “The Oklahoma Standard” to describe the way everyone worked together to respond to what was then the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI.

The after-action analyses from Oklahoma City are remarkably similar to those that followed the Dark Winter simulation. For one, first responders will be local. The federal government doesn’t maintain rapid-response teams; the Federal Emergency Management Agency arrived the night after the 1995 bombing. Local private physicians and public health officials were the first to detect cases of smallpox in Dark Winter, and local government and law-enforcement agencies imposed quarantines, curfews and martial law. The locals collected epidemiological data to forward to federal agencies and handled relations with the press.

Another lesson is the local knowledge advantage. Locals know the geography, infrastructure and resources that shape the immediate response.

Dark Winter featured repeated disagreement between federal and local authorities over what the public would be told. We Oklahomans argued that leaving the public uninformed would result in angst, suspicion, mistrust, fear and panic. The feds (particularly the military) seemed to focus more on gathering intelligence than saving lives immediately. Fortunately, the state won the debate. Government won’t earn the trust of those it serves if it is overly secretive.

Perhaps the strongest lesson from Oklahoma City, and the most worrisome outcome from Dark Winter, was the federal government’s instinctive urge to open the federal umbrella over any and all functions and activities. It acted like a 2,000-pound gorilla. Instantly, the feds sought to commandeer the National Guard. Fortunately, Mr. Nunn, who played the president, overruled them and we continued to work together as equals. Still, the states can’t know what horror is about to attack the country. Only the national government knows that. That means early warnings and constant contact are essential.

The Oklahoma City bombing and Dark Winter exercise pulled light out of darkness. Leadership, training, equipment and a hound’s nose for facts were essential to a satisfactory outcome. Teamwork is the principal ingredient, especially in America. Federalism requires it. Federalism works.

Mr. Keating served as governor of Oklahoma, 1995-2003.






Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2311 on: April 28, 2020, 05:17:23 PM »
I'd say Barr's hand can be seen in recent developments  , , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2312 on: April 28, 2020, 05:22:04 PM »
I'd say Barr's hand can be seen in recent developments  , , ,

Let me know when we actually see people in handcuffs. Don't hold your breath.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2313 on: April 28, 2020, 05:28:19 PM »
Tricky legal issues when it comes to undrawing a guilty plea , , , the Judge has ultimate say if I am not mistaken.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2314 on: April 28, 2020, 05:35:49 PM »
Tricky legal issues when it comes to undrawing a guilty plea , , , the Judge has ultimate say if I am not mistaken.

A separate issue from the many federal charges that could be filed against many deep state operatives and aren't. It's called running out the clock.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2315 on: April 28, 2020, 05:56:46 PM »
Or it could be a matter of letting Flynn make his play to reverse his guilty plea AND allowing ongoing investigations to complete so that all ducks are in a row.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2316 on: April 28, 2020, 06:10:03 PM »
Or it could be a matter of letting Flynn make his play to reverse his guilty plea AND allowing ongoing investigations to complete so that all ducks are in a row.

How easy would it be to charge Comey for any number of felonies and let the other players cut plea deals in exchange for testimony?

How's that investigation into Epstein's death going?

More failure theater. "Gosh, we really wanted to do something, but the Trump administration ended/the statute of limitations ran out".


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2317 on: April 29, 2020, 06:31:45 AM »
Those are fair points.

How about this one?

It would cost Trump the election.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
President Trump with Border Patrol
« Reply #2320 on: June 24, 2020, 06:11:06 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
SCOTUS gets one right
« Reply #2322 on: June 26, 2020, 05:05:42 AM »
Court Closes Asylum Loophole
The Justices deliver another defeat for the Ninth Circuit.
By The Editorial Board
June 25, 2020 7:19 pm ET


Immigration opponents like to point to disorder at the border, and too often liberal judges have helped them by undermining the law. On Thursday a 7-2 Supreme Court majority restored some sanity to asylum law by ruling that illegal immigrants who step foot on American soil can’t seek a writ of habeas corpus to stay lawfully in the United States.

Habeas corpus is the common-law principle that protects individuals from unlawful detention. The Court has held that the Constitution’s Suspension Clause “protects the writ as it existed in 1789.” But living constitutionalists have been trying to expand its edges, most notably in Boumediene v. Bush(2008) when Anthony Kennedy joined with the four liberal Justices to extend the right to enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay.

In DHS v. Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan man caught within 25 yards of the Mexican border without documentation claimed that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)’s expedited removal process violated the Suspension Clause.

Mr. Thuraissigiam at first tried to exploit U.S. asylum law to avoid immediate deportation. Illegal immigrants caught at the border merely need to convince asylum officers that they have a “credible fear” of prosecution in their homeland to be allowed to stay in the U.S. Over the last five years more than three-quarters of asylum claimants have passed this “credible fear” test.

But two asylum officers and an immigration judge found Mr. Thuraissigiam’s claim wasn’t credible. So he sought a habeas writ to get his deportation order reviewed by a federal judge. Immigration law specifically limits federal review of asylum decisions to three factual challenges—none of which Mr. Thuraissigiam made.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled that the IIRIRA violated the Suspension Clause. But no appellate court before had extended habeas to individuals apprehended at the border. Even the Obama Administration had argued the contrary.

As Justice Samuel Alito writes in the majority opinion, the Court has in the past noted that “‘[h]abeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention’ and that what these individuals wanted was not ‘simple release’ but an order requiring them to be brought to this country. Claims so far outside the ‘core’ of habeas may not be pursued through habeas.”

In a concurring opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg write that extending habeas corpus might be warranted in other immigration cases. “Habeas corpus, as we have said, is an ‘adaptable remedy,’ and the ‘precise application and scope’ of the review it guarantees may change ‘depending upon the circumstances,” they write, poking Chief Justice John Roberts by citing his Boumediene dissent. They and the dissent by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wink at liberal groups to tee up another habeas challenge.

America has long offered asylum to the truly endangered, but public support falls when it is exploited by those who aren’t. By refusing to open an illegal loophole, the Court did a service to lawful asylum seekers.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
if we do not defend our citizenship or our borders
« Reply #2325 on: July 10, 2020, 05:54:48 AM »
then we have no united nation.
we have a location where everyone comes and leaves here at their will

as though they are entitled

let me be clear - I don't pay taxes so everyone can walk over here and get stuff:

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/07/10/25000-academics-say-americans-citizenship-is-an-artificial-distinction/#

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Legal Basis for DHS in Portland and elsewhere
« Reply #2327 on: July 22, 2020, 06:15:30 AM »
White House Says 40 U.S. Code 1315 Gives Trump, DHS Jurisdiction To Act In Portland (VIDEO)

“They can be deputized for the duty, in connection to the protection of property owned or occupied by the federal government and persons on that property,” she continued. “When a federal courthouse is being lit on fire and commercial fireworks being shot at it, being shot at the officers I think that falls pretty well within the limits of 40 U.S. Code 1315.”


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile









Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
The worsening of the disaster already upon us
« Reply #2340 on: November 24, 2020, 05:01:53 AM »
"The coming disaster"

for American citizens

but for the Democrat Party it will be a. huge achievement

with more Democrats , more undocumented ballots , and the last vestiges of red in the US wiped out for good.

what could put a bigger grin on their faces

Rino's and Wall Street couldn't give a shit either .

Thanks to them we have God knows how many in this country illegally
etc etc

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2341 on: November 24, 2020, 02:36:03 PM »
Ending Trump Travel Ban Portends Return to Immigration Security Challenges
by Todd Bensman
November 23, 2020

https://www.investigativeproject.org/8645/ending-trump-travel-ban-portends-return-to

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Stratfor: US-Mexico Border Crossing poised to grown in 2021
« Reply #2342 on: December 08, 2020, 03:31:57 AM »
ON SECURITY
U.S.-Mexico Border Crossings Are Poised to Grow in 2021
10 MINS READ
Dec 8, 2020 | 10:00 GMT
Cars line up on the Mexican side of the San Ysidro crossing port at the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana, Mexico, on March 12, 2020.
Cars line up on the Mexican side of the San Ysidro crossing port at the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana, Mexico, on March 12, 2020.

(GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images)
HIGHLIGHTS

The compounding crises of 2020 will likely contribute to a new wave of immigrants from hard-hit Central American countries. While previous surges of migrants in 2018 and 2019 contributed to significant disruptions along the U.S.-Mexico border, a repeat of those episodes in 2021 is unlikely. But addressing the many security challenges that still plague the United States’ southern border will require working more deeply with Mexico on a long-term solution....

The compounding crises of 2020 will likely contribute to a new wave of immigrants from hard-hit Central American countries. While previous surges of migrants in 2018 and 2019 contributed to significant disruptions along the U.S.-Mexico border, a repeat of those episodes in 2021 is unlikely. But addressing the many security challenges that still plague the United States’ southern border will require working more deeply with Mexico on a long-term solution.

Immigration and the status of the U.S.-Mexico border will be among the policies to see the most dramatic shifts in approach once U.S. President-elect Joe Biden takes office in January 2021. The distinction between Biden and outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetoric on immigration is as stark as it is relevant, with the latter campaigning on his signature border wall and used a flurry of executive orders to block, slow down and deter immigration. Biden, by contrast, has promised to defund the ongoing construction of the border wall, as well as reform the U.S. immigration system to make it more efficient and create pathways to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. But as immigration constraints related to both the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump’s aggressive policies weaken, Biden could soon find himself facing another surge of Central American migrants at his country’s southern border.

Changes to Immigration Patterns

The U.S.-Mexico border is one of the longest and busiest in the world. In 2018, 500,000 people and $1.7 billion worth of goods crossed the nearly 2,000-mile border every day, according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Mexico is the United States’ third-biggest trading partner behind Canada and China; U.S. consumers and manufacturers are also heavily reliant upon the dozens of road and rail networks that connect the two countries along the border. Consumers and manufacturers were thus concerned when surges of migrants from Central America caused disruptions to the movement of people and goods across the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018 and 2019. Trump also threatened to place tariffs on Mexican goods if migrant flows through Mexico didn’t decline.

Immigration along the southern U.S. border has changed dramatically over the course of the 21st century. In 2000, Mexican nationals accounted for 98% of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border (while imperfect, apprehensions are an approximate indicator of how many people are attempting to cross the border illegally). Since 2000, CBP apprehensions of Mexican nationals have been declining, while apprehensions of nationals from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador (the three Central American countries that make up what’s known as the Northern Triangle) have been increasing.

The Push and Pull

These changes have made Central America much more relevant to future waves of migration. Poverty, crime and corruption already provided Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans plenty of incentives to emigrate before 2020, as evidenced by the years-long upward trend in apprehensions of Northern Triangle nationals along the U.S.-Mexico border. But the economic fallout from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, combined with back-to-back major hurricanes in November, has further worsened living conditions in the Northern Triangle, especially for the poorer, marginalized segments of society that were already more likely to attempt the arduous journey north to the United States. The World Bank is projecting negative GDP growth of 8.7%, 7.1% and 3% for El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, respectively, for 2020.

The factors pulling migrants to the United States are also set to strengthen in 2021. First and foremost, those considering immigrating to the United States will feel they have a better chance of entering and staying in the country once Biden takes office compared with the past four years under Trump. Second, the U.S. economy has always been a strong pull for migrants from all over the world. But the expected fast timeline for the U.S. economic recovery in 2021 will make the United States that much more appealing to those seeking work. Part of that economic success is also based on the anticipation of widespread access to COVID-19 vaccines by the second half of 2021. Marginalized, impoverished populations in Central America may assess that their chances of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine are higher in the United States than in their own hometown — an incentive that could convince them to overcome fears of exposure to the virus during the risky journey north.   

Constraints on Migration

Trump’s campaign pledge to build a wall between the United States and Mexico was his highest-profile policy aimed at addressing unauthorized immigration. But his deal with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in 2019 to reinforce Mexico’s southern border, along with the unexpected COVID-19 pandemic, have so far had a much more dramatic impact on reducing illegal immigration. Between May and October 2019, the Mexican government deployed thousands of newly minted National Guard forces to its southern and northern borders to reinforce existing military efforts aimed after Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican exports to the United States. Over that same time period, CBP apprehensions at the US.-Mexico border declined by two-thirds, suggesting that attempted unauthorized border crossings returned to more normal levels. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 has since further reduced border apprehensions to record lows. A combination of public concern, stay-at-home orders and a freeze on nonessential personal border crossings similarly impacted authorized travel, with border crossings plummeting from 24 million in December 2019 to just 97,000 in March 2020.

But these forces that contributed to an overall decline in border activity are not permanent. First, Biden will likely upend Trump’s efforts to shift the migration burden onto Mexico via threats and personalized deals. And second, COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be widely available by the second half of 2021 in the United States and other developed nations. As greater immunity alleviates fears of infection and death, local officials will lift restrictions on the movement of people, prompting the United States, Canada and Mexico to eventually reopen their borders. The subsidence of concerns over contracting the virus and return to normal levels of traffic will create more opportunities for smugglers and human traffickers to bring unauthorized individuals into the United States.

Mexico’s Role

As the constraints to immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border weaken, 2021 could see a repeat of the border crises seen between 2018 and 2019, depending on how heavily Mexico and the United States respond to the expected surge in migrants from Northern Triangle countries. Once the primary source of migrants at the U.S. southern border, Mexico is now largely a transit country for Central Americans seeking entry to the United States. Between 2016 and 2019, Northern Triangle nationals outnumbered Mexican nationals in apprehensions. Mexico also fell from first to third (behind Guatemala and Honduras) as a source of nationals attempting to immigrate illegally. This has, in turn, made Mexico’s southern border with Belize and, more importantly, Guatemala, a focal point when it comes to U.S. immigration from Mexico.
 
The 124-mile wide Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which spans the Mexican states of Oaxaca and Veracruz, is a far more strategic chokepoint for stopping migrants from the Northern Triangle than the borders Mexico shares with both the United States and Guatemala. Since 2014, Mexico has deployed military units and established thousands of checkpoints between Guatemala and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in an effort to apprehend and deport migrants from Northern Triangle countries. This effort will continue regardless of who is in the White House, meaning there will be basic infrastructure in place to limit migration from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador — especially as the COVID-19 pandemic remains a top priority for the Mexican government.


But without U.S. threats or incentives to stem a flow of migrants moving through Mexico to the United States, Mexico cannot be guaranteed to defend its southern border in 2021 and beyond with the same vigor that contributed to the rapid decline in attempted migrations in 2019. The incoming Biden administration will likely remove some of its predecessor’s executive orders that slowed down the asylum application process and enhanced border security efforts. This will prompt more Central Americans to migrate to the United States, increasing pressure on Mexican security forces trying to stop them from moving north.

The Mexican government, meanwhile, will have less incentive to block these Northern Triangle migrants from reaching the United States as Biden’s more lenient policies reduce the threat of U.S. retaliation, while the distribution of vaccines reduce the threat of migrants spreading COVID-19 in Mexico. Mexico also has plenty of other security threats requiring its finite federal security resources, including a record-high murder rate, rampant fuel theft from its national energy company, and powerful criminal organizations competing with the state over territorial control.

A New Approach Under Biden

But even if renewed migration incentives spark another surge of unauthorized crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border, the widespread disruptions to border activity seen in 2018 and 2019 are unlikely under the Biden administration. While Trump administration policies appear to have deterred immigration, they also contributed to increased tensions. In November 2018, for example, thousands of Central American nationals seeking asylum in the United States protested along the California border in the Mexican city of Tijuana, resulting in U.S. border security forces firing tear gas in an attempt to disperse the crowds. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) closed the nearby San Ysidro port of entry (one of the busiest along the border) to enhance security measures and prevent protesters from rushing the border. As apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants along the U.S.-Mexico border climbed dramatically, Trump then threatened to close the entire border in 2018. While that threat never materialized, CBP did deploy agents away from border checkpoints to border patrols, slowing down commercial and passenger traffic and causing days-long delays that threatened those strategic supply chains.

The 2019 threats to shut down the border and delays at border crossings were the product of the Trump administration’s efforts to force Congress to approve funding for his border wall project. But President-elect Biden has criticized these more aggressive tactics and has promised to reverse Trump’s executive actions on asylum. Compared with Trump, Biden is also more likely to seek a comprehensive strategic deal that addresses the underlying issues compelling people to flee the Northern Triangle countries, rather than rely on threats to motivate Mexico’s actions along its own southern border. An agreement between the United States, Mexico and Central American countries on humanitarian aid, technical assistance and infrastructure development in the Northern Triangle that incorporates Mexico’s proximity to the region would be a more sustainable solution to addressing migration issues. Such an agreement is unlikely to come quickly, but if there are early signs of progress and prioritization of such a deal during the initial months of the Biden administration, it would likely sustain Mexico’s efforts to stem migration along the southern border, thus alleviating pressure on the U.S.-Mexico border.

But the strategic significance and political contentiousness of the U.S.-Mexico border means that other types of crises are still possible. Unmitigated surges in migrants could overwhelm an already understaffed U.S. Border Patrol, potentially disrupting personal and commercial traffic at certain ports of entry. Conservative opposition in the United States could thwart the Biden administration’s ability to either pass comprehensive immigration reform or pursue a more holistic strategy that addresses the source of migration flows from Central America. While Biden is expected to bring a different policy approach and style of governance to the U.S.-Mexico border, the historical and compounding challenges introduced in 2020 make a comprehensive solution very unlikely in 2021.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Boiling the frog
« Reply #2344 on: December 15, 2020, 08:49:41 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/boiling-the-frog-slowly-on-immigration/

I am paywall blocked.  Would someone paste the article please?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Boiling the Frog Slowly on Immigration, National Review
« Reply #2345 on: December 15, 2020, 10:50:19 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/boiling-the-frog-slowly-on-immigration/

I am paywall blocked.  Would someone paste the article please?
Paywall tip, open in a different browser, Brave, Chrome, Duckduckgo etc. or with a different device.

Boiling the Frog Slowly on Immigration
By MARK KRIKORIAN
December 15, 2020

Biden’s unraveling of border rules will be gradual but inexorable.

President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to reverse the immigration policies implemented by the Trump administration. His campaign site’s immigration page says he will “take urgent action to undo Trump’s damage and reclaim America’s values.” As Rich Lowry has written, “Biden will move on all fronts to loosen immigration controls.”

Despite what anti-borders groups say, this will be relatively easy to do. Because virtually all the changes to immigration policy made by the Trump administration have been executive actions of one sort or another, the incoming administration will simply rescind them in the same manner. That’s what Trump’s people thought they’d be able to do to Obama’s policies, of course, but lawless members of the “Resistance” judiciary have prevented him from discontinuing DACA, or from implementing a new rule on welfare use by prospective legal immigrants, or even from not renewing the ostensibly time-limited Temporary Protected Status work-permit program for certain illegal aliens. Biden will not face that hurdle, and so will be able to undo most everything Trump has done; in some cases immediately, in others over a period of several months.

As this won’t be done all at once, Biden will do his best to try to hide the politically explosive consequences from public view. The new administration will likely fail to mask the fallout of Biden’s immigration pledges, but he has the Top Men in the anti-borders brain trust working on the problem.

The Biden team and its allies are aware of the political danger inherent in its immigration promises. The Migration Policy Institute, for instance, a Biden-friendly think tank in Washington, wrote concerning one such border-related promise: “Even though the Biden administration could immediately lift the public-health order, doing so without having a considered new policy in place could quickly stoke major new flows at the border. Chaotic scenes of arrivals, as occurred in 2019 under the Trump administration, could narrow Biden’s political maneuvering room on immigration.”

I’ll say.

So how will a Biden administration try to finesse this? Firstly, it won’t make the changes as quickly as possible, preferring instead to boil the frog slowly. The public-health authority referred to above, for instance, allows immediate expulsion of border-jumpers without any court process because of the pandemic. Biden allies have said this might remain in place for a while, however much activists dislike it. It will be whittled down with exemptions until it’s a nullity, but will technically remain for some time.

On the other hand, the Migration Protection Protocols, more commonly known as “Remain in Mexico,” whereby border-jumping illegal immigrants who apply for asylum are returned across the border to await their hearings, will be discontinued immediately. But there are tens of thousands of Central Americans waiting in Mexico, and the Biden people will not want to hand the 2022 Republican campaigns the footage for ads of thousands of people being waved into the country. They will all be admitted and released into the U.S., of course, never to be removed even after their asylum claims are rejected. But their admission will be spread out over days and weeks, in different ports of entry, perhaps even under the cover of darkness (taking a page from alien smugglers, who before 9/11 would often fly their newly crossed clients out of airports in the Southwest to the interior on late-night or early-morning flights).

What about the various amnesties Biden has promised? Restoring the supposedly temporary DACA program will be easy enough and is unlikely to create too much political blowback, allowing the Biden administration to expand eligibility to double or triple the number of illegal immigrants already given work permits under the cover of simply renewing an existing program.

The broad amnesty for all illegal aliens that Biden promised to propose to Congress is unlikely to go anywhere. And the administration will not want to tempt fate by summarily issuing work permits to the entire illegal population, as some supporters have suggested. Instead, the administration will probably use a gimmick called “parole in place“ to grant “temporary” work permits and Social Security numbers (i.e., amnesty) piecemeal, half a million here, a million there, until most of the illegal population is no longer really illegal — without Congress having lifted a finger. “Essential workers” might be first, with anti-borders pressure groups pushing for as broad a definition as possible — there’s a pandemic and we’re helpless without them! Then maybe illegal-alien caregivers of disabled children or adults. And so on. It will add up, but not so fast (they hope) that the frog will jump out of the pot.

The strategy of increasing immigration gradually, and hiding the increase, will be pursued south of the border as well. For instance, one of the most effective policies keeping non-Mexican illegal immigrants from swarming the border has been Mexico’s deployment of its National Guard on its own southern border with Guatemala. This has succeeded in bottling up a significant number of “asylum-seekers” from Central America, the Caribbean, and farther afield, preventing them from passing through Mexico on their way north. The deployment came in response to threats of trade sanctions from President Trump. Mexico and the Biden administration have a shared interest in waiting a while before sending the troops back to their barracks. Mexico will want to show that it did not, in fact, bend to threats from Trump, while the Biden administration will want to blunt the border surge the roll-back of Trump’s policies will inevitably cause. So the bottleneck will be opened up again, but not right after inauguration.

As camouflage, the Biden administration is likely to revive and radically expand an Obama-era scheme called the Central American Minors (CAM) program. Under that arrangement, certain left-behind children whose illegal-immigrant parents had benefited from a work-permit amnesty (such as Temporary Protected Status) were flown directly to the United States at taxpayer expense, saving the parents the cost and trouble of hiring smugglers. Obama’s relative timidity about subverting the rule of law meant this remained a limited program, and it was discontinued by the Trump administration. The appeal for the Biden crowd of a restored and radically expanded program like this (encompassing a wider array of relatives, and not only of those with some kind of legal status in the U.S., and lowering the bar of “persecution” that must be demonstrated) is that it would avoid uncomfortable news coverage of caravans and massed border-jumpers, since people would simply be flown in, a few hundred a day, to different airports, often at night, allowing a Biden-compliant media to ignore the story.

None of this may ending up working in the end. The Biden Effect at the border — the surge of illegal immigrants expecting to be let in by Democrats — has already begun, with increasing apprehensions of minors and families. This is no surprise; my colleague Todd Bensman visited southern Mexico early this year and spoke with dozens of Central Americans biding their time in Mexico in hopes that Trump would lose and the Democrats would let them in. “I want Trump out!” one told Bensman. “I’ll wait for that because it would make things easier to get in.”

But it’s important not to create the expectation that the floodgates will open on Day One — because they won’t, not entirely anyway, prompting the administration and its media poodles to say that conservative fears were overblown.

None of this changes the Biden administration’s goal: unlimited immigration. To this end, refugee numbers will be dramatically increased, interior enforcement ended, asylum standards lowered, “temporary” worker programs expanded. The result will be millions of additional foreign workers, many admitted unlawfully, but all with work permits, Social Security numbers, and driver’s licenses. Because of this, it is unlikely they’ll ever be made to leave. But Biden’s people will work to hide this until it’s too late to reverse.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2346 on: December 15, 2020, 07:33:07 PM »
My inchoate fears reified!!!

 :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

"Paywall tip, open in a different browser, Brave, Chrome, Duckduckgo etc. or with a different device.

This is brilliant!


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile