Immigration Watch International (2): Top Dem and GOP lawmakers sound off on SCOTUS blocking Biden's immigration moves

Wednesday, December 21, 2022

Top Dem and GOP lawmakers sound off on SCOTUS blocking Biden's immigration moves

Democrat and Republican members of Congress have found bipartisan agreement on Title 42, a pandemic-era immigration policy used to deter over 2.5 million migrants, as the Supreme Court temporarily halted the Biden administration's plans to end the policy.

"There is a security and humanitarian nightmare at our border, and ending Title 42 right now will only make it worse," said Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the former Democrat who switched her party affiliation to Independent earlier this month.

Title 42, implemented under the Trump administration, is a public health rule that allows border agents to swiftly turn away migrants at border. The public health rule was set to expire on Dec. 21, but the Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked Biden's order to lift Title 42.

Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema recently announced her departure from the Democratic Party, officially registering as an Independent earlier this month.
Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema recently announced her departure from the Democratic Party, officially registering as an Independent earlier this month. (Caitlin O'Hara)

Montana Sen. Jon Tester, considered one of the most vulnerable Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2024, supported an extension of the Trump-era policy, a spokesperson for the senator's office told Fox.

Republican senators are also vocal about their support of Title 42, which they say is one of the critical tools agents use to secure the border.

"Fentanyl is pouring across the border, driving American overdoses to record highs," said Republican Sen. Josh Hawley. "Authorities are predicting as many 14,000 illegal immigrants every day but the Biden administration refuses to change course."

‘Scourge’ of fentanyl trafficking exacerbated by cartel use of border, U.S. attorney says as Title 42 end loomsVideo
"After years of ignoring the laws at our border and abandoning our border patrol agents, Joe Biden is nixing one of the last defenses to keep his border crisis under control," said Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.

Six House representatives responded to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the issue, while some Democrats view Title 42 as an imperfect solution to border issues.

Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar, whose border district includes El Paso, referred Fox to a previous statement on the issue. "For too long, members of Congress have championed Title 42 as a ‘solution’ to the challenges we face at the southern border and as a substitute for real and meaningful immigration reform. It is neither," the congresswoman stated.

On the other hand, Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, who represents a large portion of the Texas border with Mexico, said the public health order is one of the few effective tools law enforcement uses.

"While Title 42 was never intended as a permanent solution, it is the last line of defense for law enforcement along the border. Without it, we can expect illegal crossings to double overnight," Gonzales told Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-gop-politicians-scotus-blocking-bidens-immigration-moves-nightmare-at-our-border

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Wednesday, December 21, 2022

Top Dem and GOP lawmakers sound off on SCOTUS blocking Biden's immigration moves

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors