Border crossings plummeted below 100,000 in July, the first time this has happened since 2020:
Out of this total, 56,000 were caught trying to cross the border illegally. The rest were asylum seekers who presented themselves at border stations.
It's maybe worth noting that this decline is due to President Biden's new policy of immediately turning away asylum seekers who cross the border illegally. This is almost certainly not legal and will be overturned in court. Normally, that means Republicans would chastise him for "unlawful" actions, but not this time. Funny, isn't it?
One should use "crossings" and "encounters" accurately, and just in case I am reading this wrong.
1. The "immigration issue" is not how many "encounters" there are, if 100% of encounters are turned back. So the real chart isn't "encounters" at the border, its how many people were allowed in.
2. As long as I am bitching, what is the causal connection between 56K trying to cross the border illegally (which were turned back, and thus are an "encounter" not a "crossing" -- I daresay "crossing" implies they actually got into the country). Is the assumption that if Biden did not have the policy of turning away asylum seekers who enter illegally that there would have been what, 100k more "encounters/turn aways?"
3. Which illustrates the whole problem with these charts. Yes, possible asylum seekers clearly know something about US policy. However, not a word about the situations in the countries they are fleeing.
Well, the "encounter" happened in the US, so they did cross the border. Currently, if they did not cross legally (using the app, crossing at a border station), any claims of asylum, etc., will not be heard--they will just be deported. I'm not sure if they are just put back into Mexico with instructions to use the app, or if they are deported back to their home country.
The encounter number includes all of those that "using the app, crossing at a border station" and applying for asylum.
You're confused on the meaning of the words crossing and encounter. Encounter includes people who apply for asylum at the border, whether successful or not, and those that illegally cross and are apprehended, either than being returned or being allowed to stay while an asylum claim is processed. "I daresay "crossing" implies they actually got into the country)" No, crossings is anyone caught illegally crossing the border since the ones successfully evading capture can't be counted. They are typically labelled "got-aways".
I'm sure the details as to what is actually happening on the border is complex, but in the next 80 days, a nuanced and thoughtful response by Harris is useless. Just blame Trump for killing the bipartisan border bill being worked on in the Senate earlier this year (regardless that it had zero chance of passage in the House).
It is better optics to have less encounters at the border and less migrants being bussed to battleground states by those shit heads in Texas. And optics seems to be the only thing that counts these days.
bingo
"regardless that it had zero chance of passage in the House)." It would have easily passed the house if Trump had endorsed it or simply stayed silent. It had significant republican backing.
"It's maybe worth noting that this decline is due to President Biden's new policy of immediately turning away asylum seekers who cross the border illegally. ..."
So what you are saying is that Biden could have reduced illegal crossings at any time but chose not to.
Biden could have illegally ("This is almost certainly not legal and will be overturned in court.") reduced illegal crossings at any time but chose to follow the law until the pressure got too great.
You're ignoring that the tactics used to temporarily suppress the problem are blatantly illegal and the courts will soon order him to stop using them. So Biden employed them at the most appropriate time, soon enough that the problem is suppressed at the election but not so soon that the problem is back in full force at the election.
What makes you (and Kevin) think the Supreme Court will nullify a policy simply because it is illegal? They have long shown tag they don't care unless legal is their preferred outcome in a case. Legality is woke!