Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
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: <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>
References: <qvYCN.453199$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>
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: <atropos-186B51.09450506032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11168

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
> 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 ==========