Is the assumption here that the executive branch under Biden was operating outside the authority granted to it by Congress?

That’s enforcement. Enforcement can end in release or removal or detainment, etc.

Again, we’ve had large waves - and recently - so if there were any logic to these concerns about “capacity” or “integration” you’d be able to point to an example in US history.

But that isn’t a crime.

We’ve been through large immigration waves and there was never any risk of “instability”. Your concerns aren’t rooted in logic.

What reason, specifically?

An encounter is definitionally an enforcement action. You’re mistaken.

“Illegal immigration” as a legal concept was introduced into U.S. law on explicitly racist grounds.

Asylum is legal immigration regardless of where or how you cross. You can request asylum within a year of arrival.

I think they’re reliable enough. The issue here is context. There were “record” encounters, but an encounter is an enforcement action. There were not record crossings.

So it’s curious conservatives were so upset about high enforcement.

You know he’s a literal alien that entered the U.S. without authorization, right?

And slavery wasn’t ended by voting and strongly worded letters to congressmen. There are so many ways to oppose fascism.

Unauthorized presence isn’t a crime. You’re mistaken.

I would love to see democrats decouple their arguments from *legality*. This is wrong because it’s violent, and it’s racist, and it serves no one. It’s got nothing to do with legality.

‘This is no life’: Trump deportees unable to return home left in limbo in Panama People who left countries such as Afghanistan and Nigeria in fear of their lives feel abandoned in Central America

This “refugee in orbit” problem was why safe third country agreements were created. Instead of recognizing failed model, US and EU are moving forward to make agreements that are more like this—with refugees send to countries w/ no ties and poor asylum systems.
www.theguardian.com/world/2025/a...

Over 2 million people entered the country without apprehension in 2000 alone. When someone was caught they were just let go. Friends of mine were told ‘better luck next time’ by border patrol.

The government can’t predict a future crime and the fact that undocumented immigrants *lower* the violent crime rate does in fact prove your point wrong.

I could just as easily be talking about the Clinton administration as the 18th century. For all intents and purposes people moved freely across the southern border until Obama took office.

That was my question to you. The U.S. has had multiple waves of open immigration, both authorized and not, and it’s never caused economic damage or a rise in crime.

The data doesn’t support any of this. Even with the most recent wave of immigrants, the cities that received the bulk of them saw their violent crime rate go down.

To be clear I’m calling you ignorant for having your facts wrong.

The crime of working to support yourself and your family?

I accept your concession.

You pointed to the debt, which no one is suggesting doesn’t exist. You weren’t able to tie it to immigration (or anything else). I can only conclude you’re unable to do so.

🙂 bsky.app/profile/star...

You’re saying you can endlessly cut revenue without effecting the debt?

You mean you can’t support your assertion. And you hadn’t heard of Reaganomics.

🙂