Re: Nex Benedict

On 3/11/2024 8:26 AM, FPP wrote:

On 3/10/24 3:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uskd6v$300lk$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/8/24 9:40 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
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
our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
an unreasonable thing for us to want.

>

Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
it meant no American lives would have been lost?

>
What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
>
Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
to any of it. Again.
>
Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
>

Because your excuses are BULLSHIT.

>
Nothing I wrote above is an excuse. It's a description of what's
actually in the bill. You won't address it because you know you can't
defend it.
>

YOU fuckers crafted the fucking bill. If it blows, it blows because
YOU fuckers made it blow.

>
Oh, I'm sorry. You seem to be under the impression I've been in
Washington DC lately writing legislation. *I* didn't do anything and
since I'm not a partisan simp like you, I can criticize politicians when
they do stupid shit even when they're on my 'side'.
>
I don't care who wrote the damn thing or who was bribed to say it's a
good thing when they know it's not. Legalize the flow of millions of
unvetted illegals per year into the country is objectively *not* a good
thing and this Orwellian shit where we pretend the border is secure
merely because we passed a bill to legalize the chaos is the height of
absurdity.
>

You asked for what you wanted.  Dems said yes.

>
No, they didn't or the border would be secure. The Dems sure as shit
didn't give me what *I* wanted.
>

  Republicans wrote the bill.  YOU clowns WROTE THE BILL.
It's YOUR wishlist.
 Then you clowns killed it because you were TOLD to by a Reality TV Show Host.
 How fucking pathetic is that?

It's not hard there to hear echoes of "Job One is to make Obama a one-term president!"  The Left occasionally drifts into trying to benefit the public, while the Right has always got eyes on the prize...