Seriously? There is no realistic scenario in which this administration enforces any border protections. It’s a sham. As for Ukraine, we’ve wasted $200 billion on a corrupt, authoritarian regime.
Biden might refuse to enforce the new procedure if he wins reelection. That's certainly possible.
However, assuming the war in Ukraine continues, he's likely to want Congress to appropriate more money. In that case, the same thing that's driving him into this deal will probably drive him to keep enforcing the new law.
Biden will also need cooperation from Republicans in Congress on other basic funding matters. So again, he will have incentives not to blow off the new law -- along with incentives to blow it off.
There's much to be said for Paul's point, but (a) I don't think the deal under consideration deals with gotaways, and the border will and would remain porous under Biden dux and redux, (b) there's bound to be play in the joints of any deal Biden could exploit, and (c) if Republicans would have leverage in the future, why not push the envelope now, when continued border disaster would increase the likelihood Democrats would lose a presidential election? Some argue Republican pressure now would shift blame for the open border to the Republicans, but that's unlikely given Biden's history on this issue and the tools he has to stanch the flow without any change in law. Jim Dueholm
Good points, Jim. My answer to (c) is the enormous number of illegal immigrants that will pour into the U.S. without a deal between now and the time Biden (in the scenario I discuss) comes back to Congress for Ukraine aid and Republicans are willing, that time around, to agree to one -- a day that might never come.
To me the real question is the extent to which this deal slashes that number. For the reasons set forth in my post, I believe it will slash them quite significantly (but no one knows for sure). The deal will also help prevent Russia from winning in Ukraine and help Ukraine continue to bleed our geopolitical enemy.
My concern is the same as Mr. Gegler's. If Biden wins, he'll be a lame duck president with little to lose, so it would again likely be Joey unbar the door, intent on defying the law. There is really no way to compel a president to enforce the law. I think Biden's actions and inaction on the border are impeachable offenses, but impeachment, and more particularly removal by the Senate, is not a realistic remedy. No court would undertake the task of issuing and policing a mandatory injunction on the scale that would be required. As a matter of policy we can't criminalize action or neglect by a president in performing his official functions. The only thing that would hamstring Biden or a similarly disposed Democrat is a wall reinforced by human and technological monitoring. Indeed, a wall is necessary even if the law is rigorously enforced, for how do you stop a 2600 mile border without strategically placed physical barriers? The Biden administration said recently it would build some wall, though I don't think it has done so, so it would be hard for it to claim walls don't work or are unnecessary. Dueholm
Seriously? There is no realistic scenario in which this administration enforces any border protections. It’s a sham. As for Ukraine, we’ve wasted $200 billion on a corrupt, authoritarian regime.
... with no chance of "winning," whatever that means.
You mention that Biden wouldn’t refuse to enforce the procedure because of the election.
What about the day after and he happens to win?
Biden might refuse to enforce the new procedure if he wins reelection. That's certainly possible.
However, assuming the war in Ukraine continues, he's likely to want Congress to appropriate more money. In that case, the same thing that's driving him into this deal will probably drive him to keep enforcing the new law.
Biden will also need cooperation from Republicans in Congress on other basic funding matters. So again, he will have incentives not to blow off the new law -- along with incentives to blow it off.
There's much to be said for Paul's point, but (a) I don't think the deal under consideration deals with gotaways, and the border will and would remain porous under Biden dux and redux, (b) there's bound to be play in the joints of any deal Biden could exploit, and (c) if Republicans would have leverage in the future, why not push the envelope now, when continued border disaster would increase the likelihood Democrats would lose a presidential election? Some argue Republican pressure now would shift blame for the open border to the Republicans, but that's unlikely given Biden's history on this issue and the tools he has to stanch the flow without any change in law. Jim Dueholm
Good points, Jim. My answer to (c) is the enormous number of illegal immigrants that will pour into the U.S. without a deal between now and the time Biden (in the scenario I discuss) comes back to Congress for Ukraine aid and Republicans are willing, that time around, to agree to one -- a day that might never come.
To me the real question is the extent to which this deal slashes that number. For the reasons set forth in my post, I believe it will slash them quite significantly (but no one knows for sure). The deal will also help prevent Russia from winning in Ukraine and help Ukraine continue to bleed our geopolitical enemy.
My concern is the same as Mr. Gegler's. If Biden wins, he'll be a lame duck president with little to lose, so it would again likely be Joey unbar the door, intent on defying the law. There is really no way to compel a president to enforce the law. I think Biden's actions and inaction on the border are impeachable offenses, but impeachment, and more particularly removal by the Senate, is not a realistic remedy. No court would undertake the task of issuing and policing a mandatory injunction on the scale that would be required. As a matter of policy we can't criminalize action or neglect by a president in performing his official functions. The only thing that would hamstring Biden or a similarly disposed Democrat is a wall reinforced by human and technological monitoring. Indeed, a wall is necessary even if the law is rigorously enforced, for how do you stop a 2600 mile border without strategically placed physical barriers? The Biden administration said recently it would build some wall, though I don't think it has done so, so it would be hard for it to claim walls don't work or are unnecessary. Dueholm