#46 President Joe Biden

Gern Blansten

shecky said:

Dem states, cities overrun by migrants funneled millions in federal COVID-19 aid to support illegals

Biden admin 'directly subsidized "undocumented" immigration under the guise of COVID-19 pandemic relief,' report states

 By Thomas Catenacci Fox News

Published February 21, 2024 8:00am EST

FIRST ON FOX: Democrat-run states and cities across the country that have been inundated with illegal immigrants in recent months previously earmarked tens of millions of dollars in COVID-19 financial assistance programs to support "undocumented residents."

According to a Fox News Digital review of state and local programs, Democrat governors and mayors earmarked at least $517 million for the programs, which generally consisted of providing cash payments to individual illegal immigrants. The funding reviewed by Fox News Digital was drawn from the American Rescue Plan (ARP), the $1.9 trillion federal COVID-19 stimulus package President Biden signed into law in March 2021.

"This means the Biden Administration directly subsidized ‘undocumented’ immigration under the guise of COVID-19 pandemic relief," a recent report from the Economic Policy Innovation Center stated, pointing to how federal ARP funds were diverted to illegal immigrants in Washington state.

Overall, in addition to Washington, Fox News Digital identified such a funding mechanism in Illinois and New Jersey, and the cities of Washington, D.C., Chicago, Denver and Boston. The jurisdictions, in particular, used funding from the ARP's Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, which was designed to help local governments recover from the pandemic.

LOL...so red states throw their problems at blue states and then bitch about how the blue states scramble to fund the expenses?

Please shut up.

Merkin Baller

So many Useful Idiots... 

shecky

Biden considering new executive action to restrict asylum at the border, sources say

 

By Priscilla Alvarez and MJ Lee, CNN

 4 minute read 

Updated 6:35 PM EST, Wed February 21, 2024

CNN — 

The White House is considering executive action to restrict migrants’ ability to seek asylum at the US-Mexico border if they crossed illegally – a maneuver reminiscent of controversial action from the Donald Trump era and is sure to invite fierce backlash from immigration advocates and progressives.

The handling of the US-Mexico border has dogged President Joe Biden for years as migration across the Western hemisphere reached record levels and resulted in thousands of migrants arriving at the border.

I GUESS SOMEONE FINALLY READ RECENT POLL RESULTS TO JOEY, BEFORE HIS NAP TIME.

gimmesometruth27

shecky said:

Biden considering new executive action to restrict asylum at the border, sources say

 

By Priscilla Alvarez and MJ Lee, CNN

 4 minute read 

Updated 6:35 PM EST, Wed February 21, 2024

CNN — 

The White House is considering executive action to restrict migrants’ ability to seek asylum at the US-Mexico border if they crossed illegally – a maneuver reminiscent of controversial action from the Donald Trump era and is sure to invite fierce backlash from immigration advocates and progressives.

The handling of the US-Mexico border has dogged President Joe Biden for years as migration across the Western hemisphere reached record levels and resulted in thousands of migrants arriving at the border.

I GUESS SOMEONE FINALLY READ RECENT POLL RESULTS TO JOEY, BEFORE HIS NAP TIME.

what do you want from him? he is doing exactly what you guys want and it's not good enough.

The Juggler

gimmesometruth27 said:

shecky said:

Biden considering new executive action to restrict asylum at the border, sources say

 

By Priscilla Alvarez and MJ Lee, CNN

 4 minute read 

Updated 6:35 PM EST, Wed February 21, 2024

CNN — 

The White House is considering executive action to restrict migrants’ ability to seek asylum at the US-Mexico border if they crossed illegally – a maneuver reminiscent of controversial action from the Donald Trump era and is sure to invite fierce backlash from immigration advocates and progressives.

The handling of the US-Mexico border has dogged President Joe Biden for years as migration across the Western hemisphere reached record levels and resulted in thousands of migrants arriving at the border.

I GUESS SOMEONE FINALLY READ RECENT POLL RESULTS TO JOEY, BEFORE HIS NAP TIME.

what do you want from him? he is doing exactly what you guys want and it's not good enough. What are the odds someone like ol' shecky even has knowledge of what maga did to the bipartisan border bill?

HughFreakingDillon

shecky said:

Biden considering new executive action to restrict asylum at the border, sources say

 

By Priscilla Alvarez and MJ Lee, CNN

 4 minute read 

Updated 6:35 PM EST, Wed February 21, 2024

CNN — 

The White House is considering executive action to restrict migrants’ ability to seek asylum at the US-Mexico border if they crossed illegally – a maneuver reminiscent of controversial action from the Donald Trump era and is sure to invite fierce backlash from immigration advocates and progressives.

The handling of the US-Mexico border has dogged President Joe Biden for years as migration across the Western hemisphere reached record levels and resulted in thousands of migrants arriving at the border.

I GUESS SOMEONE FINALLY READ RECENT POLL RESULTS TO JOEY, BEFORE HIS NAP TIME.

there was a bi partisan immigration bill that even republicans in congress were attributed as saying it was the strongest legislation on immigration they'd ever seen. and who canned it? REPUBLICANS. BECAUSE TRUMP WANTS TO RUN ON OPEN BORDERS. WAKE UP

Merkin Baller

I don't see the point in trying to have a serious conversation with an unserious person, but that's just me. 

The Juggler

Merkin Baller said:

I don't see the point in trying to have a serious conversation with an unserious person, but that's just me. 

I would like to have a conversation about all the unserious people in this country though. They are fascinating to me. The idea that someone can wake up one day and post that without, seemingly, any idea about what just happened in the senate last week is mind boggling. Or if they know what happened and just do not want to admit that their party is the one holding things up, yet continue to play this charade....I'm curious in that as well. 

Unserious people blindly following an unserious political party which is being led by one of our biggest adversaries. 

Merkin Baller

The Juggler said:

Merkin Baller said:

I don't see the point in trying to have a serious conversation with an unserious person, but that's just me. 

I would like to have a conversation about all the unserious people in this country though. They are fascinating to me. The idea that someone can wake up one day and post that without, seemingly, any idea about what just happened in the senate last week is mind boggling. Or if they know what happened and just do not want to admit that their party is the one holding things up, yet continue to play this charade....I'm curious in that as well. 

Unserious people blindly following an unserious political party which is being led by one of our biggest adversaries. 

IDK if it's denialism, nihilism, or what the f is behind it, but I'm burnt out on trying to understand it, really. 

Halifax2TheMax

It’s a cult.

shecky

Federal judge torches Biden admin for 'colluding' with activist group on asylum rule: 'Frenemies'

The asylum rule was put into place as Title 42 ended last year

 By Adam Shaw Fox News

Published February 23, 2024 8:38am EST

A judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an extraordinary dissent to a motion related to the Biden administration’s rule limiting asylum, scorched the administration for what he called "collusion" with an immigration activist group to put the rule on ice.

The case involves the Biden administration’s "Circumvention of Lawful Pathways" rule, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced last year as Title 42 ended. The rule limits asylum claims, barring those who have crossed illegally and failed to claim asylum in a country through which they have already traveled. 

The administration said it was a key part of its efforts to control the crisis at the border, but it was soon blocked by a lawsuit by a liberal activist group. The administration then appealed that decision. However, both sides filed an appeal to put it into abeyance pending discussions of a settlement. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal panel agreed, but Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a former President Trump appointee, dissented from the decision and tore into the administration’s decision to seek a settlement.

"For months, the rule was so important that ‘any interruption’ in its implementation, even for a short period of time, would incapacitate the executive’s border response. This panel made decisions based on those representations. Now, the government implies the rule isn’t so important after all. Indeed, the government is now ‘engaged in discussions’ that could result in the rule going away. What?"

He said that the move from the Biden administration makes no sense as a legal move and suspects that politics are at play.

"At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year," he said.

He said that the administration looks like it is "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — purposely avoiding an ultimate win that would eventually come later this year, whether from this court or from the Supreme Court."

He also said that the government had given no indication of when the settlement abeyance would end, guessing that sometime after November might eventually be the plan.

He also suggested that the government may be trying to avoid an immigration loss in the courts amid ongoing concerns across the country about the border crisis.

"Placing these proceedings in abeyance avoids the possibility of a loss before the Ninth Circuit that could potentially exacerbate the issues at the border in the months leading up to the election — a loss made even more damaging given that it would be meted out by a panel comprised primarily of Democratic appointees, no less," he said. 

"The CNN headline practically writes itself: ‘Biden Immigration Enforcement Policy Struck Down by Two Clinton Appointees,’" he quipped.

He also floated the idea that the administration "may be seeking to create policy that resonates with its base while blaming the practical results of that policy on the courts."

"Up until now, we have been repeatedly assured that the rule is critical to the security of the border. But now, astoundingly, the government seeks to abandon its defense of the rule — or at least put that defense on ice until a more politically convenient time," he said. "Whatever the parties’ real motivations are for seeking to stay this case, they haven’t provided us with a legally sufficient basis for their sudden change of course."

Halifax2TheMax

shecky said:

Federal judge torches Biden admin for 'colluding' with activist group on asylum rule: 'Frenemies'

The asylum rule was put into place as Title 42 ended last year

 By Adam Shaw Fox News

Published February 23, 2024 8:38am EST

A judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an extraordinary dissent to a motion related to the Biden administration’s rule limiting asylum, scorched the administration for what he called "collusion" with an immigration activist group to put the rule on ice.

The case involves the Biden administration’s "Circumvention of Lawful Pathways" rule, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced last year as Title 42 ended. The rule limits asylum claims, barring those who have crossed illegally and failed to claim asylum in a country through which they have already traveled. 

The administration said it was a key part of its efforts to control the crisis at the border, but it was soon blocked by a lawsuit by a liberal activist group. The administration then appealed that decision. However, both sides filed an appeal to put it into abeyance pending discussions of a settlement. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal panel agreed, but Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a former President Trump appointee, dissented from the decision and tore into the administration’s decision to seek a settlement.

"For months, the rule was so important that ‘any interruption’ in its implementation, even for a short period of time, would incapacitate the executive’s border response. This panel made decisions based on those representations. Now, the government implies the rule isn’t so important after all. Indeed, the government is now ‘engaged in discussions’ that could result in the rule going away. What?"

He said that the move from the Biden administration makes no sense as a legal move and suspects that politics are at play.

"At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year," he said.

He said that the administration looks like it is "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — purposely avoiding an ultimate win that would eventually come later this year, whether from this court or from the Supreme Court."

He also said that the government had given no indication of when the settlement abeyance would end, guessing that sometime after November might eventually be the plan.

He also suggested that the government may be trying to avoid an immigration loss in the courts amid ongoing concerns across the country about the border crisis.

"Placing these proceedings in abeyance avoids the possibility of a loss before the Ninth Circuit that could potentially exacerbate the issues at the border in the months leading up to the election — a loss made even more damaging given that it would be meted out by a panel comprised primarily of Democratic appointees, no less," he said. 

"The CNN headline practically writes itself: ‘Biden Immigration Enforcement Policy Struck Down by Two Clinton Appointees,’" he quipped.

He also floated the idea that the administration "may be seeking to create policy that resonates with its base while blaming the practical results of that policy on the courts."

"Up until now, we have been repeatedly assured that the rule is critical to the security of the border. But now, astoundingly, the government seeks to abandon its defense of the rule — or at least put that defense on ice until a more politically convenient time," he said. "Whatever the parties’ real motivations are for seeking to stay this case, they haven’t provided us with a legally sufficient basis for their sudden change of course."

A lot of assumptions and projections and not very much in the way of citations but what did you expect from a POOTWH appointed “judge?” Maybe it’s an audition for Loose Cannon’s bench seat in the Mar-I-Lieo case?

Merkin Baller

Yeah... it's a cult. 

HughFreakingDillon

meh. just another drive by poster that has no original thought but just copies and pastes "articles" from the far right. 

jimjam1982

Joe had a slam dunk in 2024...really truly did.

Then he left the border wide open and is going to lose instead of being the Commander in Chief and handling it.

One will have the 25th invoked because he is mentally lost and the other will end up in federal prison.

Now we get a long year of annoying political drama with 2 ridiculous presidential nominees.  Basically you have to vote for the VP cause neither Joe nor Donny are fit for office. 

mrussel1

shecky said:

Federal judge torches Biden admin for 'colluding' with activist group on asylum rule: 'Frenemies'

The asylum rule was put into place as Title 42 ended last year

 By Adam Shaw Fox News

Published February 23, 2024 8:38am EST

A judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an extraordinary dissent to a motion related to the Biden administration’s rule limiting asylum, scorched the administration for what he called "collusion" with an immigration activist group to put the rule on ice.

The case involves the Biden administration’s "Circumvention of Lawful Pathways" rule, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced last year as Title 42 ended. The rule limits asylum claims, barring those who have crossed illegally and failed to claim asylum in a country through which they have already traveled. 

The administration said it was a key part of its efforts to control the crisis at the border, but it was soon blocked by a lawsuit by a liberal activist group. The administration then appealed that decision. However, both sides filed an appeal to put it into abeyance pending discussions of a settlement. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal panel agreed, but Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a former President Trump appointee, dissented from the decision and tore into the administration’s decision to seek a settlement.

"For months, the rule was so important that ‘any interruption’ in its implementation, even for a short period of time, would incapacitate the executive’s border response. This panel made decisions based on those representations. Now, the government implies the rule isn’t so important after all. Indeed, the government is now ‘engaged in discussions’ that could result in the rule going away. What?"

He said that the move from the Biden administration makes no sense as a legal move and suspects that politics are at play.

"At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year," he said.

He said that the administration looks like it is "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — purposely avoiding an ultimate win that would eventually come later this year, whether from this court or from the Supreme Court."

He also said that the government had given no indication of when the settlement abeyance would end, guessing that sometime after November might eventually be the plan.

He also suggested that the government may be trying to avoid an immigration loss in the courts amid ongoing concerns across the country about the border crisis.

"Placing these proceedings in abeyance avoids the possibility of a loss before the Ninth Circuit that could potentially exacerbate the issues at the border in the months leading up to the election — a loss made even more damaging given that it would be meted out by a panel comprised primarily of Democratic appointees, no less," he said. 

"The CNN headline practically writes itself: ‘Biden Immigration Enforcement Policy Struck Down by Two Clinton Appointees,’" he quipped.

He also floated the idea that the administration "may be seeking to create policy that resonates with its base while blaming the practical results of that policy on the courts."

"Up until now, we have been repeatedly assured that the rule is critical to the security of the border. But now, astoundingly, the government seeks to abandon its defense of the rule — or at least put that defense on ice until a more politically convenient time," he said. "Whatever the parties’ real motivations are for seeking to stay this case, they haven’t provided us with a legally sufficient basis for their sudden change of course."

Thanks for pointing us to a minority dissent.  How very fucking useful. 

Halifax2TheMax

And Brandon is unfit for office?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3szzdZOZhk/?igsh=MXRlcnFqaThranNlMQ==

Merkin Baller

jimjam1982 said:

Joe had a slam dunk in 2024...really truly did.

Then he left the border wide open and is going to lose instead of being the Commander in Chief and handling it.

One will have the 25th invoked because he is mentally lost and the other will end up in federal prison.

Now we get a long year of annoying political drama with 2 ridiculous presidential nominees.  Basically you have to vote for the VP cause neither Joe nor Donny are fit for office. 

The GOP walked away from bipartisan negotiated measures to strengthen border security (measures which the border patrol approved of) because trump told them to. It's too valuable a platform for trump's re-election campaign. This isn't debatable, but somehow in your view, "[Biden} left the border wide open". 

Your position is untethered from reality. 

jimjam1982

Merkin Baller said:

jimjam1982 said:

Joe had a slam dunk in 2024...really truly did.

Then he left the border wide open and is going to lose instead of being the Commander in Chief and handling it.

One will have the 25th invoked because he is mentally lost and the other will end up in federal prison.

Now we get a long year of annoying political drama with 2 ridiculous presidential nominees.  Basically you have to vote for the VP cause neither Joe nor Donny are fit for office. 

The GOP walked away from bipartisan negotiated measures to strengthen border security (measures which the border patrol approved of) because trump told them to. It's too valuable a platform for trump's re-election campaign. This isn't debatable, but somehow in your view, "[Biden} left the border wide open". 

Your position is untethered from reality. 

The American Public was appalled at that shit burger pile of legislation. $60b for Ukraine and $18b or whatever for Israel and only $10b for us? Fuck out of here.  They saved us.  And I am a tried and true independent swing vote.  I have voted more democratic then republican in my life.  But it's going in a dangerous direction with the libs.

Joe has Executive powers to close the border and deploy the troops.

I would venture you are confused and don't understand the Presidents powers.

shecky

The bill you reference would have allowed 5,000 illegal aliens PER DAY to enter the U.S., which made it a nonstarter.