Biden can certainly look at what can be done but as we’ve seen previously any mor move Will face the court challenge and / or won’t have the funding. As noted the current and previous administration tried to unilaterally close the border and was stopped from doing so by the courts.
The EU parliament is more functional than the US Congress when it comes to immigration reform! Take that EU haters. After 8 years, the EU has passed asylum and migration reform. Paraphrased: The reforms include sharing responsibilities for asylum seekers across all EU nations, fast-track deportation, faster processing of applications, enhancement of security screening measures, housing asylum seekers outside of the EU in designated "safe" countries, establishment of detention centers, .... EU asylum and migration pact has passed despite far right and left’s objections https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...passed-despite-far-right-and-lefts-objections Almost a decade in the making, the EU’s new migration and asylum pact suffered so many setbacks, stalemates and rewrites that when member states finally announced a deal last year, its passage through parliament seemed assured. That was, however, to ignore the objections of Europe’s resurgent far-right parties, who felt it was not tough enough (and, perhaps, hoped to profit at the ballot box from allowing the current chaos around migration to continue). The far left objected too, on the grounds that the package of 10 different bills was too tough, marking the abandonment of European values of compassion and human dignity, a surrender to the far right, and a major blow to human rights. More than 160 rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Rescue Committee, also denounced the pact, arguing it would lead to greater suffering, less protection and more rights violations. Devised after Europe’s 2015 migration crisis which saw 1.3 million people – mostly Syrian refugees – cross into the bloc, the pact establishes border centres to hold people while asylum requests are vetted and speed up any deportations. In the name of European solidarity, it also requires EU member states to either take in thousands of asylum seekers from frontline states such as Italy and Greece, or provide money or other resources to the most under-pressure nations. Particularly controversial measures include sending asylum seekers to countries outside the EU that are deemed “safe”, if a person has some ties to that country, and taking facial images and fingerprints from children as young as six. Politics also got in the way: even though the parliament’s three main groups – the centre-right EPP, centre-left S&D and liberal Renew – backed the deal, some national party delegations, unwilling to vote with domestic political opponents, pledged to block it. Less than two months before the European parliament elections in June that are widely forecast to produce a surge in support for radical-right parties, the pro-EU political centre portrayed the pact as proof of its viability against the far right. But by the time the package came to the vote on Wednesday, there were mounting concerns in Brussels and many other EU capitals that opposition was so strong MEPs would reject at least some parts of it, resulting in the failure of the whole. In the end, every element passed, to the undisguised relief of the mainstream groups – many of whose MEPs had confessed to personal misgivings about some of the harsher measures in the pact, but backed it as an overall improvement. With more than 46,000 people entering the EU via irregular migration routes so far this year alone, and an estimated 400 dying while doing so, some kind of new collective plan was desperately needed to replace a decade of go-it-alone responses. Whether this one will work is another matter. Hungary and Poland were swift to say they would not accept relocations under the new solidarity rules, while far-right, far-left and Green parties, and NGOs, have pledged – for different reasons – to fight on. Experts, too, have expressed grave doubts about how the pact will function, pointing out that the new system, while based on shared responsibilities, would be infinitely more complex – and not all member states would be inclined to put in the effort. For the time being, though, Europe’s centre can savour a victory – of sorts. “We have an obligation to the citizens of Europe to show that Europe can actually work, that it can deliver,” the veteran Dutch MEP Sophie in ’t Veld said before the vote. There were clearly “very justified doubts and concerns about this package”, she said, adding: “Everything will hinge on implementation.” As if to underline her words, on Wednesday rescuers recovered the bodies of three girls off the Greek island of Chios. The trio died after a boat carrying migrants from nearby Turkey ran into rocks. Fourteen people, including eight other children, were rescued. Coastguard officials said three patrol vessels were looking for other possible survivors.
Say you actually wanted to "solve unauthorized immigration" 1) Stop supporting local elites who like our own elites hoard all the money. You could even take it one step further and support local union leaders who work to redistribute some of the money from their elites to the folks who otherwise would be forced to immigrate-- even without papers. When the local elites respond typically with military coups or terror stop supplying them with weapons even though it helps the "defense" industry profits and the local elite leaders were our elite's school chums in Ivy League colleges. 3) Do sensible things like pay the peasants of Guatemala to stay on their drought stricken lands and plant trees that may eventually help their ability to cultivate their fields to at least a subsistence level. 4). Have more legal immigration whether as guest workers or permanent immigrants as it is good for the US economy. Though to resist a backlash our elites will have to stop hoarding the money from our beleaguered under class, and stop demagoguing the immigration issue to win elections like Trump, Abbot etc. do.
There appear to be two undesirable possibilities in this situation: Squandering taxpayer money by enacting redundant laws that already exist in the legal code. Imposing new regulations and requirements that would make it excessively difficult for certain citizens to exercise their right to vote by mandating overly burdensome and unnecessary documentation requirements - unnecessary, given the evidence of very little voter fraud occurring. Regardless of which scenario, it is unlikely to pass the Senate. But it makes sense as political maneuvering aimed at influencing the 2024 election.
An interesting experience I had last week on a site visit of one of my projects under construction. The project is located in a small city in MN along the Mississippi and is an apartment binding with a mixed concrete and wood framed construction. The wood structural frame walls are going up and I was there doing an inspection. All of the framers are Hispanic and I get the feeling that several didn’t speak English well. One of them asked me some questions in Spanish. I speak a little Spanish but am very rusty on it. I frequently get mistaken though for being Hispanic and since I was wearing sunglasses and a hard hat I could see why they might’ve thought I was Hispanic. I didn’t check their immigration status but given their overall poor English skills I’m sure almost all of them were migrants. Even without good English they were skilled workers and were doing a good job and was Impressed with how fast they were getting the structure up.
Just an explanation in case you just repet this uncritically from Fox or Abbott and friends. It was migrant assistance in MATAMOROS which is just across the border from Brownsville. Quite a few folks on the border are dual citizens, living on one side or the other. They are not encouraging non US citizens to attempt to vote. The conservative Heritage Foundation maintains a database, dating to 1979, that it says includes a “sampling” of election-fraud cases brought by prosecutors. In that period, about 2 billion votes have been cast in federal elections, according to a calculation for The Fact Checker by the Brennan Center for Justice. A recent search of the Heritage database found 85 cases involving allegations of noncitizen voting from 2002 to 2023 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/06/truth-about-noncitizen-voting-federal-elections/
