Re: Biden Botches Laken Riley's Name During SOTU Shouting Match With MTG

On 3/10/24 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uskemr$307pd$8@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 3/9/24 3:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <usies3$153kf$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/9/2024 10:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <usi7nd$2elne$1@dont-email.me>,
    "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
Let's provide the proper citation that plagiarizer Ubi the shithead
didn't.
>
Biden Botches Laken Riley's Name During SOTU Shouting Match With MTG
By Daily Wire News
Mar 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-botches-laken-rileys-name-during-sot
u-
sho
uting-match-with-mtg
>

President Joe Biden botched the name of the young woman who was
allegedly murdered by an illegal alien in Georgia late last month
during a shouting match with a Republican member of Congress on
Thursday night during his State of the Union speech.

>

"I'd, be, a winner--, not really," Biden said at the start of the
awkward
clip.

>

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) shouted at Biden to say the name of
Laken Riley, the young Georgia nursing student who was allegedly
murdered late last month by a Venezuelan national.

>

"Lincoln Riley!" Biden said. "An innocent young woman who was killed
by
an
illegal. That's right. But how many of the thousands of people being
killed
by illegals? To her parents, I say, my heart goes out to you having
lost
children myself. I understand."

>

There are 27 posts from Biden on Twitter about George Floyd.

>

There are 0 posts from Biden about Laken Riley.

>
Biden was criticized for calling Jose Ibarra, the prime suspect in the
murder of Laken Riley, "an illegal", over the semantic concern that use
of the word has denied the foreign nationals in the country illegally
his humanity. It's always so much easier to use language to thwart
communication in order to distract from discussion so that the
underlying
problem isn't addressed.
>
Ibarra was in the country illegally but it wasn't just because he had
crossed the international border illegally. He entered with a
23-year-old
woman (who claimed to be his wife) and a five-year-old child.
>
Apparently they thought he was lying as he was processed as a single
adult male. Border patrol arrested him in El Paso. He was later paroled
and released for further processing due to lack of detention space.
>
https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/university-of-georgia-killing-timelin
e/
>
He was released on parole that he didn't qualify for and therefore in
the country illegally.
>
Based on tatoos, his older brother Diego, arrested on the University of
Georgia campus for green card fraud, is accused of being affiliated with
a dangerous Venezualan gang, Tren de Aragua, committing violent crimes
in New York and elsewhere.
>
Riley's corpse was discovered on the UGA campus. She had recently
transferred to the nursing program at Augustana University. The two
campuses are near each other.

>

Why didn't Jose qualify for parole? Because Border Patrol isn't given
the necessary time to perform background checks.

>
How does DHS perform background checks on people from other countries?
>
I couldn't do our normal vetting as a Secret Service agent when we were
in another country. Best I could do was hope the host country would do
it for me and trust their results, so we had to adjust our security plan
accordingly.
>
If the foreign country isn't even minimally cooperative, like El
Salvador, which is using Biden's gross negligence as an opportunity to
relieve itself of hundreds of its worst criminals and isn't telling
us which ones are good and which ones are pure evil, what is DHS
supposed to check? Border Patrol can make the guy strip and check for
gang tattoos but that's the depth and breadth of the background check
they can perform. And that's assuming he isn't one of the millions of
"got-aways" that never even encounter BP in the first place.
>
Again, this wouldn't even be an issue if the president would just do his
legally mandated duty and SECURE THE BORDER.
>

And how's he supposed to do that when the Rs in the House are not
willing to work with him

>
In his first month in office, Biden issued 94 executive orders
facilitating mass illegal alien entry into the country and prohibiting
the Border Patrol from preventing any illegal from entering the U.S.
>
He could start with rescinding every one of those executive orders. He
didn't need any Republican cooperation to issue those EOs in the first
place and he doesn't need any Republican cooperation to rescind them now.
>
Second, under existing law, including the Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the authority to
turn every single foreign national away at the border if he determines
it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees. There is
no requirement in law or in the Constitution 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.
>
No new 'bipartisan bill' is required. No Republican cooperation is
required. Biden could rescind those executive orders and lock the border
down today if he wanted to.
>
He. Doesn't. Want. To.
>
He hasn't wanted to for the last three years. What makes you think he
suddenly wants to now? He only wants to *look* like he does because this
is an election year and he knows the American people-- to include a
not-insignificant number of his fellow Democrats-- are *extremely*
pissed about the border.
>

on a bill written by them and would have authorized more money for border
issues.

>
That money was only going to be allocated to hire more personnel to help
process illegals into the country faster. It was not going to fund
policies, procedures, or personnel to secure the border or to keep
illegals out, and it sure as hell wouldn't have somehow given the Border
Patrol the ability to conduct background checks on foreign nationals
from uncooperative home countries.
>

And even if he issued a presidential order, how is it going to be
enforced?

>
It would be enforced by ICE and the Border Patrol. You know, the folks
he told to stand down when he took office. He can stand them back up
again. Remove them from desk duty at processing centers and put them
back out patrolling the border. Have them start actually kicking people
out of the country again, like they're supposed to.
>
He could also stop suing to stop every state that builds a barrier or
otherwise inhibits illegal alien border crossings. If states are willing
to do that out of their own funds, let them. That relieves Biden of the
need to ask Congress for the money to do it.
>
But he again: He. Doesn't. Want. To.

 

No. YOU don't want to fix it.

 This is what you're going with now? You're just going to keep repeating
the bald-faced lie that I've suddenly become an open borders advocate?
 You ain't got nothing on Goebbels, I'll give you that.
 

I'm going to keep repeating exactly what happened.  You insist you want the border secured, but refuse to see that's what this bill would do.
Would it prevent everything you want?  No, nothing CAN do that, but this bill gives the government more tools and much more money for border enforcement that ever before.
Until you admit that, I'll keep hammering away at you with the truth.
This bill absolutely improves border security... something you keep pretending is important to you.
If it was, you'd jump at the chance to enact this legislation - because I guarantee when this election is over, this package will be DOA with the new congress.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0
Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0