Remember that in the 60s and 70s all that was needed to cross the border (North or South) in either direction was to say you were a citizen of the destination, if driving produce a drivers license and respond to "Do you have anything to declare?"
A solution to the overcrowding at ICE detention facilities will require Trump and Congress to work together, which is unlikely to happen. Democrats want to rein in ICE's recent enthusiasm for arresting law-abiding illegals with deep community ties and for holding asylum applicants, but they have only blunt tools for influencing Trump, who has ultimate control over ICE. The House does have control over the number of ICE beds through funding, so that's what the House is doing by refusing to expand ICE bed funding.
But the overcrowding at ICE detention facilities is not the fault of Congress. Trump caused the overcrowding by forcing reductions on "apprehension and release." Applicants for asylum used to be released on their own recognizance after a hearing date had been set. According to ICE statistics, the vast majority of asylum applicants show up for their hearings. But now ICE is trying to hold as many asylum applicants as it can, and that's what is causing the overcrowding.
Congress does have a say on immigration, both through law and funding. If Trump wants to change the way immigration laws are enforced then he will have to work with Congress. But Trump has been reluctant to work with even a Republican Congress, which it was until January of this year when the Democrats gained control of the House. The overcrowding at ICE facilities caused by Trump policies existed long before that and could not possibly be the fault of Democrats. Even the formerly Republican House did not provide more ICE bed funding.
Yuck, what sickening Trump bashing. If there's one thing Trump does well it's negotiating. You think Mexico would be easily bullied? Well, if they are then Trump succeeded by bullying. That's successful negotiating too, to know your target well enough to know what they'll accept.
The article describes the continuing vulernability of US elections to foreign interference, the (Democratic) House's attempts to pass legislation to remedy this, and the (Republican) Senate's utter lack of action to deal with the issue.
Some Senate Republicans would like to take up this issue, and there is bipartisan support in the Senate for some legislation:
The bills include a Democratic measure that would send more than $1 billion to state and local governments to tighten election security, but would also demand a national strategy to protect American democratic institutions against cyberattacks and require that states spend federal funds only on federally certified â€œelection infrastructure vendors.â€ A bipartisan measure in both chambers would require internet companies like Facebook to disclose the purchasers of political ads.
Another bipartisan Senate proposal would codify cyberinformation-sharing initiatives between federal intelligence services and state election officials, speed up the granting of security clearances to state officials and provide federal incentives for states to adopt paper ballots.
The problem is Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's intransigence on refusing to deal with this issue. Given the Republicans' alleged concern over election security, why would McConnell not want to allow legislation to be enacted? Because he's a complete fuck, but you already knew that. More detailed:
Mr. McConnell has long been an implacable foe of legislation that mandates disclosure or limits on political donors. Critics charge that he may have another reason to stay on the sidelines: not wanting to enrage President Trump, who views almost any talk of Russiaâ€™s success as questioning the legitimacy of his 2016 victory.
This isn't limited to just election security, though. Friday's New York Times describes how little is being done in the Senate at all.
Re: Republican Senate: Roadblock to good government
In related news a security researcher discovered that North Carolinaâ€™s board of Election placed sensitive data into Amazonâ€™s cloud - and left it publicly visible on the internet. This is not even a default setting - someone had to grant access to â€œeveryoneâ€. At best this is a hideous mistake which should never have been made.