Connect with us

Government

Election Night 2020: Champagne and cheers, or anxiety and jeers?

Election Night 2020: Champagne and cheers, or anxiety and jeers?

Published

on

In what many voters feel like has been a never-ending presidential campaign cycle, Nov. 3 is finally close enough to touch. But will Election Day 2020 provide closure for a restless electorate?

As President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden barnstorm a handful of battleground states, the intricacies and mechanics of how a candidate becomes president are coming into light, and all eyes are on the Electoral College. Consisting of 538 electors representing all 50 states and Washington D.C., and roughly allocated by population, the Electoral College, not the popular vote, ultimately decides US presidential elections. To win, a candidate must secure an absolute majority – 270 or more electoral votes. Since most states – with the exceptions of Nebraska and Maine – assign electoral votes on a winner-take-all model based on statewide vote totals, a small percentage of voters in key states can play a deciding role in the overall election outcome. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton learned this painful lesson when she captured the popular vote but fell short of the electoral vote four years ago.

With so few states actually in play (in our view, this include Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Minnesota, North Carolina, and New Hampshire), political experts have been taking a deeper look at chaos theories and “what if” scenarios. What if results are contested? Could there be recounts, lawsuits or both? Will state legislatures have to get involved?

Source: Invesco analysis

Political talking heads have focused on Bush v. Gore in 2000 as the precedent for presidential election chaos. That dispute, untimely decided by the Supreme Court, halted an ongoing recount and determined that President George W. Bush had won Florida by 537 votes. That victory meant that Bush won all 25 of Florida’s electors, giving him a total of 271 votes in the Electoral College and, with that narrow majority, the presidency.

Some experts have forecasted that several states in 2020 could see similar recount and courtroom drama leading all the way to the Supreme Court in deciding whether Trump wins a second term or Biden claims victory. Their predictions are based on the craziness of 2020: the pandemic, a record number of mail-in ballots, the polarization of America and President Trump’s characterization of the voting process.

However, famed Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg recently put the odds of the 2020 presidential election ending up in a legal battle that sprawls into January at just 1%, citing more signs pointing to a smooth transition than a repeat of 2000.1 Keep in mind that only three of the 57 previous presidential elections have been contested. 1

But is history relevant in modern politics? Here are several variables to watch for to determine if this election will be decided within hours, weeks or months of the polls closing.

Vote counting

Democrats have embraced vote-by-mail while President Trump has lambasted it as fraudulent, despite casting his own ballot by mail in past elections. History will take a very close look at the encouragement – and discouragement – of mail-in and absentee voting on the results of the election both in terms of the presidential outcome as well as the impact on down-ballot candidates.

Election Day and subsequent weeks could see voting result fluctuations as in-person votes are tabulated and mail-in and absentee ballots are counted. As of Oct. 21, the US Elections Project counted 84.7 million absentee ballots that had been requested and 44 million people who had already voted. We expect to see confusion on election night as both political parties and news outlets grapple with reporting in-person votes versus absentee or mail-in as different states have different rules on when votes can be counted. Also, there are questions as to when mail-in or absentee votes are valid.

Here are three different categories of how and when states can count early votes, and they will be important to understand the differences as the results come in:

  1. Upon receipt. 22 state election authorities and the District of Columbia start counting when the ballot is received. Among this group, Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota and Nevada are considered the most pivotal for the presidential election and could foreshadow a good night for President Trump or former Vice President Biden. If Biden were to flip the red state of Georgia to blue and secure 16 electoral votes, it could prove be to be a tough road for Trump. Similarly, in 2016, Trump narrowly lost Minnesota – a state that has not voted for a Republican president since 1972. If the results look favorable for Trump there, it could not only put 16 critical electoral votes in his tally but foreshadow that the famous “Blue Wall” (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) has crumbled. Arizona’s ability to count as the votes are received prior to Nov. 3 could permit some early forecasting on whether Trump recaptures the Grand Canyon State’s 11 electoral votes, or if Biden is well on his way to becoming the 46th president.
  2. Before election day. 25 state election authorities can tabulate votes at a defined date by state law. Among this group, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio are considered the most critical to election outcomes. But these states differ as to when counting is permitted. On one end there is Florida, which started its tabulation on Sept. 24, and on the other end is Michigan, which starts counting 10 hours before Election Day. The early tabulation will allow states to report out Nov. 3 numbers that could either spell doom and gloom or early moments of celebration for either party. In our view, President Trump’s path to victory will be severely truncated if he cannot match his 2016 victories in Florida, Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina. Similarly, any victory by Biden in these same states would be a sign of optimism for Democrats. The ability for these states to count early should remove weeks of suspense as they will have a head start on tabulating votes while also counting in-person voting, which is expected to lean Republican. Another important element to watch in Florida is that the state does not allow ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day, which should reduce election result delays.
  • On election day. Four state election authorities can tabulate votes on the date of the election, with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by far the most important to determining election outcomes. President Trump shocked the political establishment in 2016 when he won both states, and neither party is leaving anything on the table in 2020. Both Republicans and Democrats will be closely watching election night to see results in these battleground states. Wisconsin officials have said they expect to have their results completed the day after the election. The state has also permitted county clerks to verify signatures on the outside of the ballots early, which should reduce day-of vote counting (and suspense) and reduce the number of questionable ballots.

What does this all mean?

The ability for critical bellwether states to either tabulate ballots as they come in or on a certain date before Nov. 3 does provide some certainty that election results will come sooner rather than later. It is estimated that 40% to 50% of the projected 150 million votes could be cast by mail. Experts largely expect early voting to favor Democrats and Election Day in-person voting to favor Republicans. Depending on when states begin counting mail-in votes, and therefore which votes – mail-in or in person – are reported first, there could be several “blue or red shifts.” This could create the impression that one state is headed blue or red based on that state’s ballot counting requirements. The “blue and red” shifts may frustrate the candidates and create the appearance of “fraud” or gamesmanship, but they are simply part of the process that will allow the results of the election to be made public faster.

Electoral College

With only a handful of truly competitive states, the path to either candidate securing the 270 electoral votes needed for victory hinges on election returns in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Minnesota. Contested or uncertain results in any of these states, as occurred in Florida in 2000, could prevent either candidate from reaching the 270-vote threshold. President Trump and some experts have raised concerns that delays in finalizing election results could run into the Dec. 8 safe harbor deadline. This deadline, set by federal law, is the last day when states can appoint electors without interference from Congress.

Electors are set to cast their votes on Dec. 14. If a state’s results remain contested and without a clear winner past Dec. 8, there is no clear remedy. One option would be for the state’s legislature to name its own slate of electors regardless of the results of the statewide vote. In states where one party controls the legislature and a different party holds the governor’s office, this could result in competing slates of electors being sent to Congress. In either case, a state government overriding the popular vote could lead to claims of a “stolen election” and push the losing party to not accept the results. Despite the possibility of these worse case scenarios, it is important to note that no state legislature has ever appointed a slate of electors supporting a candidate who lost that state’s popular vote, and in our view, this remains unlikely in 2020.

State election rules and law

If election results in one or several states are in question this November, the vast majority of states have basic election safeguards already in place to create an orderly process to determine the legal electoral outcome.

As of October 2020, 20 states have a statutory provision allowing for an automatic recount of votes if the margin between the top two candidates is within certain parameters. Forty-three states have a statutory provision allowing for a requested recount of votes. In our view, it is highly unlikely that statutory requirements for a mandatory or requested recount will be triggered since it is improbable that those states’ results will be so narrow and are relevant to the Electoral College outcome that the country will see widespread vote recanvassing. The biggest hurdle for a contested election would be a few battleground states that have protracted election recounts that could see their results questioned.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that states have been preparing for a highly competitive presidential race and will be certain to ensure the results are accurate and timely. The rules of the road are clear in disputing election (allegations of fraud) results and requesting recounts, and all eyes will be on those states if their results will determine the winner. While it could be a bumpy road over the next several weeks, it’s unlikely Americans will have to go too long before they know who will serve as president for the next four years.

1 Source: Bloomberg, “Election Night Has Paths to a Fast Result—or a Lengthy Slog,” Oct. 14, 2020

Important information

Blog header image: Hill Street Studios / Getty

The opinions referenced above are those of the authors as of Oct. 30, 2020. These comments should not be construed as recommendations, but as an illustration of broader themes. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions; there can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from expectations.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

President Biden Delivers The “Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President”

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through…

Published

on

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through the State of The Union, President Biden can go back to his crypt now.

Whatever 'they' gave Biden, every American man, woman, and the other should be allowed to take it - though it seems the cocktail brings out 'dark Brandon'?

Tl;dw: Biden's Speech tonight ...

  • Fund Ukraine.

  • Trump is threat to democracy and America itself.

  • Abortion is good.

  • American Economy is stronger than ever.

  • Inflation wasn't Biden's fault.

  • Illegals are Americans too.

  • Republicans are responsible for the border crisis.

  • Trump is bad.

  • Biden stands with trans-children.

  • J6 was the worst insurrection since the Civil War.

(h/t @TCDMS99)

Tucker Carlson's response sums it all up perfectly:

"that was possibly the darkest, most un-American speech given by an American president. It wasn't a speech, it was a rant..."

Carlson continued: "The true measure of a nation's greatness lies within its capacity to control borders, yet Bid refuses to do it."

"In a fair election, Joe Biden cannot win"

And concluded:

“There was not a meaningful word for the entire duration about the things that actually matter to people who live here.”

Victor Davis Hanson added some excellent color, but this was probably the best line on Biden:

"he doesn't care... he lives in an alternative reality."

*  *  *

Watch SOTU Live here...

*   *   *

Mises' Connor O'Keeffe, warns: "Be on the Lookout for These Lies in Biden's State of the Union Address." 

On Thursday evening, President Joe Biden is set to give his third State of the Union address. The political press has been buzzing with speculation over what the president will say. That speculation, however, is focused more on how Biden will perform, and which issues he will prioritize. Much of the speech is expected to be familiar.

The story Biden will tell about what he has done as president and where the country finds itself as a result will be the same dishonest story he's been telling since at least the summer.

He'll cite government statistics to say the economy is growing, unemployment is low, and inflation is down.

Something that has been frustrating Biden, his team, and his allies in the media is that the American people do not feel as economically well off as the official data says they are. Despite what the White House and establishment-friendly journalists say, the problem lies with the data, not the American people's ability to perceive their own well-being.

As I wrote back in January, the reason for the discrepancy is the lack of distinction made between private economic activity and government spending in the most frequently cited economic indicators. There is an important difference between the two:

  • Government, unlike any other entity in the economy, can simply take money and resources from others to spend on things and hire people. Whether or not the spending brings people value is irrelevant

  • It's the private sector that's responsible for producing goods and services that actually meet people's needs and wants. So, the private components of the economy have the most significant effect on people's economic well-being.

Recently, government spending and hiring has accounted for a larger than normal share of both economic activity and employment. This means the government is propping up these traditional measures, making the economy appear better than it actually is. Also, many of the jobs Biden and his allies take credit for creating will quickly go away once it becomes clear that consumers don't actually want whatever the government encouraged these companies to produce.

On top of all that, the administration is dealing with the consequences of their chosen inflation rhetoric.

Since its peak in the summer of 2022, the president's team has talked about inflation "coming back down," which can easily give the impression that it's prices that will eventually come back down.

But that's not what that phrase means. It would be more honest to say that price increases are slowing down.

Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the cost of living will not return to prepandemic levels, and they're not happy about it.

The president has made some clumsy attempts at damage control, such as a Super Bowl Sunday video attacking food companies for "shrinkflation"—selling smaller portions at the same price instead of simply raising prices.

In his speech Thursday, Biden is expected to play up his desire to crack down on the "corporate greed" he's blaming for high prices.

In the name of "bringing down costs for Americans," the administration wants to implement targeted price ceilings - something anyone who has taken even a single economics class could tell you does more harm than good. Biden would never place the blame for the dramatic price increases we've experienced during his term where it actually belongs—on all the government spending that he and President Donald Trump oversaw during the pandemic, funded by the creation of $6 trillion out of thin air - because that kind of spending is precisely what he hopes to kick back up in a second term.

If reelected, the president wants to "revive" parts of his so-called Build Back Better agenda, which he tried and failed to pass in his first year. That would bring a significant expansion of domestic spending. And Biden remains committed to the idea that Americans must be forced to continue funding the war in Ukraine. That's another topic Biden is expected to highlight in the State of the Union, likely accompanied by the lie that Ukraine spending is good for the American economy. It isn't.

It's not possible to predict all the ways President Biden will exaggerate, mislead, and outright lie in his speech on Thursday. But we can be sure of two things. The "state of the Union" is not as strong as Biden will say it is. And his policy ambitions risk making it much worse.

*  *  *

The American people will be tuning in on their smartphones, laptops, and televisions on Thursday evening to see if 'sloppy joe' 81-year-old President Joe Biden can coherently put together more than two sentences (even with a teleprompter) as he gives his third State of the Union in front of a divided Congress. 

President Biden will speak on various topics to convince voters why he shouldn't be sent to a retirement home.

According to CNN sources, here are some of the topics Biden will discuss tonight:

  • Economic issues: Biden and his team have been drafting a speech heavy on economic populism, aides said, with calls for higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy – an attempt to draw a sharp contrast with Republicans and their likely presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

  • Health care expenses: Biden will also push for lowering health care costs and discuss his efforts to go after drug manufacturers to lower the cost of prescription medications — all issues his advisers believe can help buoy what have been sagging economic approval ratings.

  • Israel's war with Hamas: Also looming large over Biden's primetime address is the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, which has consumed much of the president's time and attention over the past few months. The president's top national security advisers have been working around the clock to try to finalize a ceasefire-hostages release deal by Ramadan, the Muslim holy month that begins next week.

  • An argument for reelection: Aides view Thursday's speech as a critical opportunity for the president to tout his accomplishments in office and lay out his plans for another four years in the nation's top job. Even though viewership has declined over the years, the yearly speech reliably draws tens of millions of households.

Sources provided more color on Biden's SOTU address: 

The speech is expected to be heavy on economic populism. The president will talk about raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. He'll highlight efforts to cut costs for the American people, including pushing Congress to help make prescription drugs more affordable.

Biden will talk about the need to preserve democracy and freedom, a cornerstone of his re-election bid. That includes protecting and bolstering reproductive rights, an issue Democrats believe will energize voters in November. Biden is also expected to promote his unity agenda, a key feature of each of his addresses to Congress while in office.

Biden is also expected to give remarks on border security while the invasion of illegals has become one of the most heated topics among American voters. A majority of voters are frustrated with radical progressives in the White House facilitating the illegal migrant invasion. 

It is probable that the president will attribute the failure of the Senate border bill to the Republicans, a claim many voters view as unfounded. This is because the White House has the option to issue an executive order to restore border security, yet opts not to do so

Maybe this is why? 

While Biden addresses the nation, the Biden administration will be armed with a social media team to pump propaganda to at least 100 million Americans. 

"The White House hosted about 70 creators, digital publishers, and influencers across three separate events" on Wednesday and Thursday, a White House official told CNN. 

Not a very capable social media team... 

The administration's move to ramp up social media operations comes as users on X are mostly free from government censorship with Elon Musk at the helm. This infuriates Democrats, who can no longer censor their political enemies on X. 

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers tell Axios that the president's SOTU performance will be critical as he tries to dispel voter concerns about his elderly age. The address reached as many as 27 million people in 2023. 

"We are all nervous," said one House Democrat, citing concerns about the president's "ability to speak without blowing things."

The SOTU address comes as Biden's polling data is in the dumps

BetOnline has created several money-making opportunities for gamblers tonight, such as betting on what word Biden mentions the most. 

As well as...

We will update you when Tucker Carlson's live feed of SOTU is published. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 07:44

Read More

Continue Reading

International

What is intersectionality and why does it make feminism more effective?

The social categories that we belong to shape our understanding of the world in different ways.

Published

on

Mary Long/Shutterstock

The way we talk about society and the people and structures in it is constantly changing. One term you may come across this International Women’s Day is “intersectionality”. And specifically, the concept of “intersectional feminism”.

Intersectionality refers to the fact that everyone is part of multiple social categories. These include gender, social class, sexuality, (dis)ability and racialisation (when people are divided into “racial” groups often based on skin colour or features).

These categories are not independent of each other, they intersect. This looks different for every person. For example, a black woman without a disability will have a different experience of society than a white woman without a disability – or a black woman with a disability.

An intersectional approach makes social policy more inclusive and just. Its value was evident in research during the pandemic, when it became clear that women from various groups, those who worked in caring jobs and who lived in crowded circumstances were much more likely to die from COVID.

A long-fought battle

American civil rights leader and scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw first introduced the term intersectionality in a 1989 paper. She argued that focusing on a single form of oppression (such as gender or race) perpetuated discrimination against black women, who are simultaneously subjected to both racism and sexism.

Crenshaw gave a name to ways of thinking and theorising that black and Latina feminists, as well as working-class and lesbian feminists, had argued for decades. The Combahee River Collective of black lesbians was groundbreaking in this work.

They called for strategic alliances with black men to oppose racism, white women to oppose sexism and lesbians to oppose homophobia. This was an example of how an intersectional understanding of identity and social power relations can create more opportunities for action.

These ideas have, through political struggle, come to be accepted in feminist thinking and women’s studies scholarship. An increasing number of feminists now use the term “intersectional feminism”.

The term has moved from academia to feminist activist and social justice circles and beyond in recent years. Its popularity and widespread use means it is subjected to much scrutiny and debate about how and when it should be employed. For example, some argue that it should always include attention to racism and racialisation.

Recognising more issues makes feminism more effective

In writing about intersectionality, Crenshaw argued that singular approaches to social categories made black women’s oppression invisible. Many black feminists have pointed out that white feminists frequently overlook how racial categories shape different women’s experiences.

One example is hair discrimination. It is only in the 2020s that many organisations in South Africa, the UK and US have recognised that it is discriminatory to regulate black women’s hairstyles in ways that render their natural hair unacceptable.

This is an intersectional approach. White women and most black men do not face the same discrimination and pressures to straighten their hair.

View from behind of a young, black woman speaking to female colleagues in an office
Intersectionality can lead to more inclusive organisations, activism and social movements. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

“Abortion on demand” in the 1970s and 1980s in the UK and USA took no account of the fact that black women in these and many other countries needed to campaign against being given abortions against their will. The fight for reproductive justice does not look the same for all women.

Similarly, the experiences of working-class women have frequently been rendered invisible in white, middle class feminist campaigns and writings. Intersectionality means that these issues are recognised and fought for in an inclusive and more powerful way.

In the 35 years since Crenshaw coined the term, feminist scholars have analysed how women are positioned in society, for example, as black, working-class, lesbian or colonial subjects. Intersectionality reminds us that fruitful discussions about discrimination and justice must acknowledge how these different categories affect each other and their associated power relations.

This does not mean that research and policy cannot focus predominantly on one social category, such as race, gender or social class. But it does mean that we cannot, and should not, understand those categories in isolation of each other.

Ann Phoenix does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Biden defends immigration policy during State of the Union, blaming Republicans in Congress for refusing to act

A rising number of Americans say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem. Biden called for Congress to pass a bipartisan border and immigration…

Published

on

By

President Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024. Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images

President Joe Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, casting a wide net on a range of major themes – the economy, abortion rights, threats to democracy, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine – that are preoccupying many Americans heading into the November presidential election.

The president also addressed massive increases in immigration at the southern border and the political battle in Congress over how to manage it. “We can fight about the border, or we can fix it. I’m ready to fix it,” Biden said.

But while Biden stressed that he wants to overcome political division and take action on immigration and the border, he cautioned that he will not “demonize immigrants,” as he said his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, does.

“I will not separate families. I will not ban people from America because of their faith,” Biden said.

Biden’s speech comes as a rising number of American voters say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem.

Immigration law scholar Jean Lantz Reisz answers four questions about why immigration has become a top issue for Americans, and the limits of presidential power when it comes to immigration and border security.

President Joe Biden stands surrounded by people in formal clothing and smiles. One man holds a cell phone camera close up to his face.
President Joe Biden arrives to deliver the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on March 7, 2024. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

1. What is driving all of the attention and concern immigration is receiving?

The unprecedented number of undocumented migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border right now has drawn national concern to the U.S. immigration system and the president’s enforcement policies at the border.

Border security has always been part of the immigration debate about how to stop unlawful immigration.

But in this election, the immigration debate is also fueled by images of large groups of migrants crossing a river and crawling through barbed wire fences. There is also news of standoffs between Texas law enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol agents and cities like New York and Chicago struggling to handle the influx of arriving migrants.

Republicans blame Biden for not taking action on what they say is an “invasion” at the U.S. border. Democrats blame Republicans for refusing to pass laws that would give the president the power to stop the flow of migration at the border.

2. Are Biden’s immigration policies effective?

Confusion about immigration laws may be the reason people believe that Biden is not implementing effective policies at the border.

The U.S. passed a law in 1952 that gives any person arriving at the border or inside the U.S. the right to apply for asylum and the right to legally stay in the country, even if that person crossed the border illegally. That law has not changed.

Courts struck down many of former President Donald Trump’s policies that tried to limit immigration. Trump was able to lawfully deport migrants at the border without processing their asylum claims during the COVID-19 pandemic under a public health law called Title 42. Biden continued that policy until the legal justification for Title 42 – meaning the public health emergency – ended in 2023.

Republicans falsely attribute the surge in undocumented migration to the U.S. over the past three years to something they call Biden’s “open border” policy. There is no such policy.

Multiple factors are driving increased migration to the U.S.

More people are leaving dangerous or difficult situations in their countries, and some people have waited to migrate until after the COVID-19 pandemic ended. People who smuggle migrants are also spreading misinformation to migrants about the ability to enter and stay in the U.S.

Joe Biden wears a black blazer and a black hat as he stands next to a bald white man wearing a green uniform and a white truck that says 'Border Patrol' in green
President Joe Biden walks with Jason Owens, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, as he visits the U.S.-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas, on Feb. 29, 2024. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

3. How much power does the president have over immigration?

The president’s power regarding immigration is limited to enforcing existing immigration laws. But the president has broad authority over how to enforce those laws.

For example, the president can place every single immigrant unlawfully present in the U.S. in deportation proceedings. Because there is not enough money or employees at federal agencies and courts to accomplish that, the president will usually choose to prioritize the deportation of certain immigrants, like those who have committed serious and violent crimes in the U.S.

The federal agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 142,000 immigrants from October 2022 through September 2023, double the number of people it deported the previous fiscal year.

But under current law, the president does not have the power to summarily expel migrants who say they are afraid of returning to their country. The law requires the president to process their claims for asylum.

Biden’s ability to enforce immigration law also depends on a budget approved by Congress. Without congressional approval, the president cannot spend money to build a wall, increase immigration detention facilities’ capacity or send more Border Patrol agents to process undocumented migrants entering the country.

A large group of people are seen sitting and standing along a tall brown fence in an empty area of brown dirt.
Migrants arrive at the border between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, to surrender to American Border Patrol agents on March 5, 2024. Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images

4. How could Biden address the current immigration problems in this country?

In early 2024, Republicans in the Senate refused to pass a bill – developed by a bipartisan team of legislators – that would have made it harder to get asylum and given Biden the power to stop taking asylum applications when migrant crossings reached a certain number.

During his speech, Biden called this bill the “toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen in this country.”

That bill would have also provided more federal money to help immigration agencies and courts quickly review more asylum claims and expedite the asylum process, which remains backlogged with millions of cases, Biden said. Biden said the bipartisan deal would also hire 1,500 more border security agents and officers, as well as 4,300 more asylum officers.

Removing this backlog in immigration courts could mean that some undocumented migrants, who now might wait six to eight years for an asylum hearing, would instead only wait six weeks, Biden said. That means it would be “highly unlikely” migrants would pay a large amount to be smuggled into the country, only to be “kicked out quickly,” Biden said.

“My Republican friends, you owe it to the American people to get this bill done. We need to act,” Biden said.

Biden’s remarks calling for Congress to pass the bill drew jeers from some in the audience. Biden quickly responded, saying that it was a bipartisan effort: “What are you against?” he asked.

Biden is now considering using section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to get more control over immigration. This sweeping law allows the president to temporarily suspend or restrict the entry of all foreigners if their arrival is detrimental to the U.S.

This obscure law gained attention when Trump used it in January 2017 to implement a travel ban on foreigners from mainly Muslim countries. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in 2018.

Trump again also signed an executive order in April 2020 that blocked foreigners who were seeking lawful permanent residency from entering the country for 60 days, citing this same section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Biden did not mention any possible use of section 212(f) during his State of the Union speech. If the president uses this, it would likely be challenged in court. It is not clear that 212(f) would apply to people already in the U.S., and it conflicts with existing asylum law that gives people within the U.S. the right to seek asylum.

Jean Lantz Reisz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending