"CRISIS?" Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year LOW.

[Faun]

Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.

/----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.

The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading (and any other initial readings) in the House of Commons before being sent to the House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.

This clause was part of the Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.

My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots.

I say, ”It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.”

... to which you idiotically respond with, ”You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong? The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives...”

You literally just said I was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” ... but then repeated exactly what I said.

Spoiler

/---/ Nice deflection.
View attachment 239703

LOLOLOLOLOL

I rightard who said I was wrong, but then agreed with me, calls me pointing out he's a rightard for doing so, a "deflection."

Imbecile.... like I said, "It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House."

... and you said I was, "wrong, wrong, wrong," for saying that.

So am I wrong? Or are you an idiot for saying I was wrong? Which is it.

/----/ You stuck on stupid again? I said Originates in the House, not the Senate.

So? I said, "It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House."

... and you said I was, "wrong, wrong, wrong," for saying that.

So am I wrong? Or are you an idiot for saying I was wrong? Which is it.

 

[sartre play]

Maters not if the count is up or down this year, the fighting needs to stop & the grownups need to look at each area of the problem & address them. to many special permits being given to big business.? do we want to address the large number of illegals that are from China? what can we do to help people stay in there own country? what can we do to reduce the flow of drugs & the criminals that bring them? how do we build walls, fences, patrols, but not halt the legal commerce that flows both ways across the borders? what additional problems does the river cause? how do we stop or slow the fake SS cards? will a raise in min wage slow down the illegals? will large fines slow down those who hire illegals? lots of questions. do you really think there is only one answer & a wall is that answer?

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.

The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading (and any other initial readings) in the House of Commons before being sent to the House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.

This clause was part of the Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.

My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots.

I say, ”It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.”

... to which you idiotically respond with, ”You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong? The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives...”

You literally just said I was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” ... but then repeated exactly what I said.

Spoiler

/---/ Nice deflection.
View attachment 239703

LOLOLOLOLOL

I rightard who said I was wrong, but then agreed with me, calls me pointing out he's a rightard for doing so, a "deflection."

Imbecile.... like I said, "It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House."

... and you said I was, "wrong, wrong, wrong," for saying that.

So am I wrong? Or are you an idiot for saying I was wrong? Which is it.

/----/ You stuck on stupid again? I said Originates in the House, not the Senate.

So? I said, "It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House."

... and you said I was, "wrong, wrong, wrong," for saying that.

So am I wrong? Or are you an idiot for saying I was wrong? Which is it.

/---- / Sorry you're still confused. Any legislation that originates in the senate is a senate bill, and will be designated with SB.A bill that originates in the house will be designated as a house resolution, or HR. All bills dealing with government spending originate in the house.The senate can not put forth a spending bill.

 

[Faun]

My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots.

I say, ”It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.”

... to which you idiotically respond with, ”You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong? The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives...”

You literally just said I was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” ... but then repeated exactly what I said.

Spoiler

/---/ Nice deflection.
View attachment 239703

LOLOLOLOLOL

I rightard who said I was wrong, but then agreed with me, calls me pointing out he's a rightard for doing so, a "deflection."

Imbecile.... like I said, "It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House."

... and you said I was, "wrong, wrong, wrong," for saying that.

So am I wrong? Or are you an idiot for saying I was wrong? Which is it.

/----/ You stuck on stupid again? I said Originates in the House, not the Senate.

So? I said, "It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House."

... and you said I was, "wrong, wrong, wrong," for saying that.

So am I wrong? Or are you an idiot for saying I was wrong? Which is it.

/---- / Sorry you're still confused. Any legislation that originates in the senate is a senate bill, and will be designated with SB.A bill that originates in the house will be designated as a house resolution, or HR. All bills dealing with government spending originate in the house.The senate can not put forth a spending bill.

Dumbfuck, you said I was, "wrong, wrong wrong," for posting, "it’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House."

Then you posted, "all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives"

So was I wrong? Or are you an idiot for saying I was wrong? Which is it. I can't help but note you're avoiding answering that question.

 

[flacaltenn]

Senate doesn't ORIGINATE funding bills.. The House does.

Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.

Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.

Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...

Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.

/----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.

The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading (and any other initial readings) in the House of Commons before being sent to the House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.

This clause was part of the Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.

My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots.

I say, ”It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.”

... to which you idiotically respond with, ”You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong? The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives...”

You literally just said I was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” ... but then repeated exactly what I said.

Spoiler

But you're still wrong. Because any budget approval process is a "revenue" process.. No distinction between the original wording of revenue and your "funding".. Every budget bill whether it's a full blown budget bill or a Continuing Resolution (autopilot) INCREASES govt spending. No agency EVER gets cuts. So it's an approving process for revenue..

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The fact that we have so many illegals in the country makes it a national emergency.

With all these horses running loose it's imperative we close the barn door!

 

[flacaltenn]

Senate doesn't ORIGINATE funding bills.. The House does.

Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.

Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.

Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...

Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.

/----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.

The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading (and any other initial readings) in the House of Commons before being sent to the House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.

This clause was part of the Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.

My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots.

I say, ”It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.”

... to which you idiotically respond with, ”You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong? The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives...”

You literally just said I was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” ... but then repeated exactly what I said.

Spoiler

If you read down the Wiki article that Cellblock posted, you get an example of the HORSESHIT that goes on with claims of which Bill they have voted for or are dealing with...

n 2013, during the United States federal government shutdown of 2013 and the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2013, the Republican-led House of Representativescould not agree on or pass an originating resolution to end the government crisis, as had been agreed, so the Democratic-led Senate used bill H.R. 2775 to resolve the impasse by using the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, an insignificant bill that originated in the House, which it amended all the tax and appropriation measures so to satisfy the formal requirements of the Originating Clause.

That's why intelligent people can't discuss congress critters claims WITHOUT A SPECIFIC bill number to look up on the Congressional Record. But again, you can take a DEAD carcass HOUSE appropropriations bill and have the Senate AMEND it and pass it back. But the BILL DOES have to originate in the HOUSE..

 

[Norman]

The fact that we have so many illegals in the country makes it a national emergency.

With all these horses running loose it's imperative we close the barn door!

If you didn't realize yet... they are not running OUT the country, but INTO the country.

If you had not watched so much CNN, you might have got it. Close the border, then deport them. Crisis handled.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The fact that we have so many illegals in the country makes it a national emergency.

With all these horses running loose it's imperative we close the barn door!

If you didn't realize yet... they are not running OUT the country, but INTO the country.

If you had not watched so much CNN, you might have got it. Close the border, then deport them. Crisis handled.

That's what you took from that?...Is this kind of stupidity natural for you, or do you have to work at it?

 

[Norman]

The fact that we have so many illegals in the country makes it a national emergency.

With all these horses running loose it's imperative we close the barn door!

If you didn't realize yet... they are not running OUT the country, but INTO the country.

If you had not watched so much CNN, you might have got it. Close the border, then deport them. Crisis handled.

That's what you took from that?...Is this kind of stupidity natural for you, or do you have to work at it?

I got precisely the stupidity that you boasted and nothing more.

Build the wall, close the border, avert a bigger crisis and save American lives.

 

[Godboy]

Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low
December 5, 2017
JOHN BURNETT
Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low

....Border officers apprehended 310,531 people for being in the country illegally in fiscal 2017, a 25% Decrease from the year before.

Arrests of people trying to cross illegally into the U.S. from Mexico PLUNGED to the Lowest level since 1971, as Fewer people attempted the trek, the Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday......​

`

Of course, Trump has set a strong precedent, and he isn't stopping until the issue is solved. There are over 10 million illegals in the country and we need that wall.

We already have walls and fences. That's why the numbers have fallen to record lows.

And exactly how is it a national emergency when we are at a 46 year low?

Trump is the heartless Nazi who puts illegals in prison camps and takes their children away, remember? THAT is why the crossings have diminished. Once a democrat gets into power, everything will go back to normal and millions will be crossing again. Thats why we need a wall.

 

[Faun]

Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.

Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.

Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...

Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.

/----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.

The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading (and any other initial readings) in the House of Commons before being sent to the House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.

This clause was part of the Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.

My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots.

I say, ”It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.”

... to which you idiotically respond with, ”You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong? The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives...”

You literally just said I was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” ... but then repeated exactly what I said.

Spoiler

But you're still wrong. Because any budget approval process is a "revenue" process.. No distinction between the original wording of revenue and your "funding".. Every budget bill whether it's a full blown budget bill or a Continuing Resolution (autopilot) INCREASES govt spending. No agency EVER gets cuts. So it's an approving process for revenue..

Nonsense. Here’s just one example of a funding bill which originated in the Senate...

S.1 - Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019

To make improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions and to authorize the appropriation of funds to Israel, to reauthorize the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act of 2015, and to halt the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people, and for other purposes.​

Spending bills can originate in the Senate. It’s bills which raise revenue that can’t.

 

[LilOlLady]

Fewer crossing and fewer apprehended does not mean the border is secure. Fewer people breaking into your home does not mean you are safe. Unknown number crossed into the US at the end of 2018 in the guise of "Asylum Seekers" which is the new excuse because they know the Dumcrates like to hear that and it sounds more humanitarian. If Dumcrates were sympathizers with shit eaters they would enter claiming to be shit eaters. In November 2018 Mexico deported 500 attempting to cross into the US.

 

[LilOlLady]

Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low
December 5, 2017
JOHN BURNETT
Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low

....Border officers apprehended 310,531 people for being in the country illegally in fiscal 2017, a 25% Decrease from the year before.

Arrests of people trying to cross illegally into the U.S. from Mexico PLUNGED to the Lowest level since 1971, as Fewer people attempted the trek, the Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday......​

`

Of course, Trump has set a strong precedent, and he isn't stopping until the issue is solved. There are over 10 million illegals in the country and we need that wall.

We already have walls and fences. That's why the numbers have fallen to record lows.

And exactly how is it a national emergency when we are at a 46 year low?

Trump is the heartless Nazi who puts illegals in prison camps and takes their children away, remember? THAT is why the crossings have diminished. Once a democrat gets into power, everything will go back to normal and millions will be crossing again. Thats why we need a wall.

That is because Dumcrates under Clinton and Obama had open borders and promise of amnesty in the guise of DACA and path to citizenship. Do you understand that apprehension of 310,531 people is 310,531 too many? How many got in undetected? Dumcrates are blind and they have the blind leading them. Trump did not have the resources to process the caravan because under the Dumcrates they were caught and released to go into the shadows. NO MAS of this shit under Trump.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh my goodness. Talk about cherry-picking information and taking it out of context. You might want to read DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's recent briefing on the border situation:

Remarks by Vice President Pence, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and OMB Deputy Director Russell Vought in Press Briefing on Border Security | The White House

The Crisis at the Southern Border Is Too Urgent to Ignore | The White House

A few highlights:

• Newly released data shows that December was a record-breaking month for family unit aliens apprehended at the border.
  • 27,518 family unit aliens were apprehended illegally crossing the border last month.
  • So far in fiscal year (FY) 2019, there have been more family unit apprehensions through December—75,794—than the FY totals in 5 of the last 7 years.
• For the last three months, an average of 2,000 inadmissible migrants have arrived at our border every day.
• A monthly average of more than 31,000 family units and unaccompanied minors are being apprehended at the border or deemed inadmissible at ports of entry in FY 2019.
  • This marks a 136 percent increase from FY 2017.
• There has been a sharp increase in the number of aliens claiming a fear of return at the southern border over the past several years.
  • This allows illegal aliens to remain in the United States while their claims are processed.
  • These instances have spiked by over 1,700 percent since 2010.
• This flood of migrants to our border has overwhelmed our immigration system.
  • There are currently not enough resources to hold those apprehended for the duration of their immigration proceedings.
  • Loopholes in our immigration laws hamper authorities from promptly sending family units and unaccompanied minors back to their home countries.
  • Immigration courts are severely backlogged—with over 800,000 cases pending.

GANGS AND DRUGS DESTROYING COMMUNITIES: Criminal gangs exploit our weak border in order to deliver violence and drugs to American communities.

• Gangs like MS-13 use our weak borders to gain entry into the country and target unaccompanied minors for recruitment.

• 300 Americans die every week from heroin and 90 percent of all heroin originates from south of the border.
• The amount of fentanyl seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in FY 2017 (2,370 pounds) was enough to kill every American citizen by overdose.
• The southern border is the main entry point for cocaine entering the United States.
• The border is also used to smuggle firearms, weaponry, and other dangerous materials into the United States.

WOMEN AND CHILDREN AT RISK: Human traffickers exploit our border and immigration system for profit, putting women and children at risk.

• Human traffickers use our porous border and loopholes in our immigration system for their own gain, while preying on those who make the dangerous journey north.
• More than 30 percent of women are sexually assaulted on the trek to the border.
• Nearly 70 percent of migrants are victims of violence on the journey.
• Border Patrol refers an average of 50 cases a day to medical providers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

if the USA lasts long enough i can envision bus loads of 'screwl chilren' being bused to the Border to view that Trump WALL ..

Just like there are trips to view Frances Maginot line.

-------------------------------------- i think that the Germans attacked the 'maginot line' with weapons , tanks , bombs , explosives and MANY Soldiers and i'd love seeing the 'mex' do the same exact thing RichS .

They didn't attack it at all. It was useless.
That was the point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you understand that apprehension of 310,531 people is 310,531 too many? How many got in undetected?

The Department of Homeland Security says the estimates are impossible, but their research shows between 55% and 85% are apprehended.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Do you understand that apprehension of 310,531 people is 310,531 too many? How many got in undetected?

The Department of Homeland Security says the estimates are impossible, but their research shows between 55% and 85% are apprehended.

/——-/ Estimates are impossible but research shows??? WTF does that mean?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you understand that apprehension of 310,531 people is 310,531 too many? How many got in undetected?

The Department of Homeland Security says the estimates are impossible, but their research shows between 55% and 85% are apprehended.

/——-/ Estimates are impossible but research shows??? WTF does that mean?

Actually they use several methods. I'll post the link so you can examine it yourself. Saves me the time to repost everything:

Does Border Patrol catch 90 percent of immigrants at border?

 

[Nova78]

NPR news ----