Let’s clear a few things up.
The idea that “no legislation was needed” and we just had to “apply the law” doesn’t match reality. The current asylum laws were written decades ago for a very different time. Under existing statute, anyone who steps foot on U.S. soil can request asylum—and the government is legally required to process it. That’s not optional, and it’s not something Biden made up. If you don’t like that, you need new legislation. That’s what this bill aimed to do: speed up screenings, add more judges, and give DHS the power to shut down the border during surges.
“Remain in Mexico” wasn’t a law—it was an executive policy. It was challenged in court, suspended, re-implemented, and eventually overturned. That’s the problem with relying on executive orders—they don’t last. Real reform needs to be written into law.
Citing the March drop in apprehensions without context is misleading. That drop followed a crackdown by Mexican authorities and new CBP enforcement tools tied to legal pathways—ironically, the kind of tools this bill would have expanded. And even if you take those numbers at face value, they don’t fix the long-term backlog, the judge shortage, or the lack of surge authority. This bill addressed all of that.
Now on the second post—yes, both parties have played politics with the border. But only one party walked away from the most serious border bill in decades because Trump told them not to give Biden a win. That’s not speculation—he said it out loud.
And the modest visa and green card expansions? That’s not some radical immigration agenda. It’s a basic way to create legal pathways and relieve pressure on the system. You can’t say “come legally” and then block every legal option.
So let’s drop the slogans. If you’re ignoring the courts, rejecting actual reform, and attacking anyone who tries to fix it, this isn’t about solving the problem—it’s about keeping it alive for the next election.
