Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.26.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 17:48:29 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Nex Benedict
References: <qvYCN.453199$Wp_8.439750@fx17.iad> <urss0g$1a0cd$1@dont-email.me> <nwudnYV6RatBvX_4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> <us4ju5$35v5d$4@dont-email.me> <JQKdnXarD8AnhHv4nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me> <atropos-186B51.09450506032024@news.giganews.com> <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me> <atropos-72A6BE.18402808032024@news.giganews.com> <17bb14f739538d3c$1982$3078224$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <uskdb8$300lk$2@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 10:55:17 -0800
Message-ID: <atropos-E91960.10551710032024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 220
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vhqNRA4JiZUqm4pTR/6g9fehblxtbw/JDN8dcP+iMkiYA0QixllKD5mM+/Qd6y56THEtxgkyL6FJvRX!L/pYK2NJHyPgwTJck+hzlR8Xu263JAvH3dp7sSVfe+k1miTlwHgUqjSKvNkYXyi0tZ4s/gjjNnHy!taw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 13004
X-Original-Bytes: 12746

In article <uskdb8$300lk$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> > On 3/8/24 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========