Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Nex Benedict Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:45:47 -0500 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 191 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:45:47 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="680b125beb5e3c92aee45ac7c92a6837"; logging-data="2090191"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18naEgdE657s7AGgt7pgaDH" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:RdJ8X0Luzp4ev0Cxm7qU2Ub/69s= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 11168 On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" wrote: > >>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and >>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years. >>> >>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the >>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law. >>> >>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to >>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies. > >> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad? > > I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks > ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting > Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore > it again? > > Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here > goes: > >> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't >> good enough > > Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring > to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got > next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And > that's being generous. > > Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every > month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison > in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit > their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to > secure the border. > > First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in > the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and > Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the > authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he > determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees. > There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum > claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be. > > There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into > this country. Period. > > All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the > United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to > start using the power that he *already* legitimately and > constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to > start enforcing existing laws as they stand. > > But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward > solution, two things would happen: > > (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters > once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to > citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be > described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which > can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding > plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied. > > (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions > of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that. > > So here we are. > > The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion > dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We > already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with > that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on > their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the > borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20 > billion for U.S. border security. > > So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are > proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two > other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own > country. > > And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for > our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry > of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill > allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry > assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified > organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and > linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and > legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management > assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two > billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist > principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as > possible. > > By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to > come here in the first place. > > One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive > Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of > illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day. > > Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this > emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it > will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively > just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed. > > The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other > than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings. > In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba, > Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000 > of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count. > > And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even > if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the > bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a > requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of > entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes > but claims must be processed at the ports." > > So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border > never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers > where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by > design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the > bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get > re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do > crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this > never-ending firehose of illegals. > > In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the > already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right > now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility > that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of > race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It > doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims. > Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've > rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would > lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a > "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable" > possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying > 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can > clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned > away if that's the standard. > > The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it > already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined > was even possible. > > Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But > it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was > anything here that could possibly be considered good for America. > > It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own > citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other > countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it. > > When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they > don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist > for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that > would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people, > Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's > going on at the border. There's no support for it. > > Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly > $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as > basic as enforcing the law here in America. > > Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries > vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction > of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========