Biden’s Border Action - An Objective, Nuanced Explainer
Added 2024-06-06 21:25:47 +0000 UTCOA1039
Trump’s prosecution for election interference in Georgia was just stayed by the Court of Appeals, leaving no chance that this trial will proceed before November. What happened, and how unexpected was this delay? We investigate.
We then turn to our main story: Biden administration’s executive actions to “shut down the border” and close the door to asylum for many people who would otherwise be eligible. Matt explains what’s actually going on here and how much of it was already in place before we consider the practical and political consequences of Joe Biden effectively carrying out the border bill which Trump bullied Republicans not to pass.
We end by spending a few minutes discussing a recent opinion from Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, who has very strong--and extremely appropriate--opinions about fonts.
“A Proclamation on Securing the Border” (June 4, 2024)
Interim Final Rule (“Securing the Border”)(June 4, 2024)
Comments
KWilt!
Apprentice57
2024-06-09 03:21:51 +0000 UTCHey guys. Venmo wants the last four digits of Taylor K Levy’s, phone number.
Defrocked Secular Cleric
2024-06-08 19:15:04 +0000 UTCActual lol @ "the house of leaves of law documents"! That book was a trip in several different directions. But it does say something about the relative thrills of reading caselaw that page 4 is the wildest thing i've seen in a judicial opinion. It's the legal equivalent of a hawaiian shirt at a funeral!
Matt Cameron
2024-06-08 00:47:56 +0000 UTCIt puts the Biden on its skin or else it gets the Trump again.
SlightlyAskewSince1982
2024-06-07 20:10:34 +0000 UTCOh! thank you Matt for bringing our spirits back up dorking out on fonts!! I needed the laugh and all the legal drama around fonts is just up my (graphic designer’s) alley🥹
Reese
2024-06-07 19:28:29 +0000 UTCLol, based on Matt's amusement I was expecting the House of Leaves of law documents. Just scanning through it I didn't even notice at first.
Jon C
2024-06-07 18:47:33 +0000 UTCHello fellow constituent of Fetterman! I'm extremely disappointed in him for many reasons, including his recent, strong support of Israel.
can I get a CHEE-HOOOOO
2024-06-07 15:59:14 +0000 UTChttps://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zjpqyjdglpx/ASYMADESIGN%20v%20CBL%20Associates%20-%20CA7%20-%2020240603.pdf easterbrook's font manifesto, er, ruling. edit: uh oh. fighting words: 'faces in the Bookman and Century families are preferable to faces in the Garamond and Times families'
lauren
2024-06-07 13:28:56 +0000 UTCI would love to hear an episode where Matt outlines what his ideal immigration system is. (That might sound like I'm being sarcastic or something. I'm not. I really would like to know what a good immigration system would be. I'm Australian and ours is rubbish. We pioneered offshore detention and that's not a thing anyone should be proud of. Trump loved it so much he wanted to borrow the idea. :( ) When I'm talking to others, including politicians, I get a little stumped on what it *should* be. So I'd love for Matt to outline his thoughts on the topic. Any maybe others too. A panel of immigration experts of something. That would be fantastic.
Kaetrin Allen
2024-06-07 07:23:58 +0000 UTCSad to learn nothing new I hadn't already been hearing from the non-lawyers I know who are routinely down at the border, but I can't blame Matt for not finding the silver lining in the legalese if it's really not there. I think what frustrates me the most about this policy is something twofold that doesn't sit right with me. On the one side, there are the people that are saying this is going to obviously be overturned and Biden's just doing it to prove that point, but I find that to be an entirely uncompelling case to do such a thing. As Matt very plainly stated, this order is going to kill people, and that number is going to be magnitudes higher than we'll ever know because we're effectively telling these people that we don't want to track them, so the stats will never been anything concrete. If Biden is willing to sacrifice the lives and safety of human beings just to be proven wrong, then I'm sorry, he's nothing but a barbaric man. On top of that blood sacrifice, if the Biden administration really didn't give a damn about a policy decision being shot down in the courts if it was for just political points, why isn't he doing the same for his actual campaign promises? It's infuriating that rather than embolden his base, making sure those 2020 voters show up again, he's seemingly trying to cater to other outliers instead, while championing a policy that's almost just as barbaric as one he himself called 'dangerous' and 'inhumane'. In effect, I'd go so far as to say this policy is no different than the Remain in Mexico policy, only you're making the asylum seeker have to unnecessarily wait in Mexico before they make their asylum request, rather than after. On the other side, there are the people who are saying that these regulations might actually be okay, the courts might find them legal, and Biden can voluntarily repeal them later. To which I ask, as Matt also pointed out, what happens when the next Republican President decides to use this decision as justification to do even more heinous things? I've seen people say that maybe there's a chance he'll just retract the order after the election, but what happens if he loses? This point me drives me mad, because we've been told for three and a half years that the number one reason why the courts shouldn't be packed is that if a Democratic president does it and it's allowed, Republicans will just turn around and do the same but worse. Replace 'pack the courts' with 'restrict the asylum process', and you'd think the same argument would apply here, but for some reason, it doesn't! And since Thomas brought up John Fetterman, as a constituent of his, I feel it needs to be pointed out that his own wife was once an undocumented migrant who would've been subject to this exact system. It's honestly disheartening that he'd rather join hands and attempt this bipartisan effort with Republicans to restrict entrance to asylum seekers for political posturing, when his own wife was one of those very asylum seekers 35 years ago.
Mr. Wilt
2024-06-07 04:08:34 +0000 UTCImmigration is one of those blackpills for me, everything about this is cruel institutions filled with cruel people applying policy set by cruel political hacks and made to appease a huge chunk of the American people who see the cruelty and approve of it. I'll admit to being a delusional leftist lib commie who has utopian visions of near unlimited freedom of movement but I really can't understand how so many of us can't see that people from another arbitrary patch of land are as human as we are. Anyway, Matt, I have so much respect for you and other immigration lawyers who try to make the world a little bit better for those fellow humans and try to counter that cruelty as much as you can.
Apple Ventus
2024-06-06 23:58:32 +0000 UTCNew OA early two Thursdays in a row? It must be Christmas, I'm sure there's not some terrible news causing the emergency post
ToddTheOdd
2024-06-06 21:32:38 +0000 UTCThis should be interesting. I expect Matt both understands exactly what Biden is doing at the same time this is an area so central. I have seen and heard a lot of takes. Not sure I like the gamesmenship but I understand this will be enjoined immediately and will demonstrate conclusively the lie that the border issue can just be solved with executive order. Still I worry someone will get hurt in the fog of it. Now to hear Matt's more informed take
John of the bankruptcy pirates
2024-06-06 21:31:46 +0000 UTC
