H.R.2 Immigration bill

[Vrenn]

I think it's time to discuss the actual bill. No talking heads, no political plays.

To secure the borders of the United States, and for other purposes.

H.R.2 — 118th Congress (2023-2024)​

 

[Vrenn]

Let's start out with the building or repairing the wall.

SEC. 102. Border wall construction.
(a) In general.—
(1) IMMEDIATE RESUMPTION OF BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION.—Not later than seven days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall resume all activities related to the construction of the border wall along the border between the United States and Mexico that were underway or being planned for prior to January 20, 2021.
(2) USE OF FUNDS.—To carry out this section, the Secretary shall expend all unexpired funds appropriated or explicitly obligated for the construction of the border wall that were appropriated or obligated, as the case may be, for use beginning on October 1, 2019.
(3) USE OF MATERIALS.—Any unused materials purchased before the date of the enactment of this Act for construction of the border wall may be used for activities related to the construction of the border wall in accordance with paragraph (1).
(b) Plan To complete tactical infrastructure and technology.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter until construction of the border wall has been completed, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an implementation plan, including annual benchmarks for the construction of 200 miles of such wall and associated cost estimates for satisfying all requirements of the construction of the border wall, including installation and deployment of tactical infrastructure, technology, and other elements as identified by the Department prior to January 20, 2021, through the expenditure of funds appropriated or explicitly obligated, as the case may be, for use, as well as any future funds appropriated or otherwise made available by Congress.

This is actually a rewording of the bill under President Bush, Jr. The problem with building NEW walls is that the terrain isn't conducive for building. You may be able to build in Texas but when you cross over to New Mexico and Arizona you are not in Mountainous and other really rough ground that the illegals can't get over either. Almost half of all border on those two states really cannot be built on without enacting a few hundred trillion bucks. Yes, some areas can be built and probably should be. But most of those have already been built on and probably need rebuilding. Are you aware that there tiny 2 and 3 foot breaks all along the wall and it's like Grand Central Station. For a couple of thousand, each one of these can be repaired. Here's the bad news, for every repair we make in an outlying area, the Illegals will tear another 2 or 3 foot section. The wall itself only works if it's patrolled.

 

[Vrenn]

This part is badly needed. More E-security and boots on the ground. In War, not once has an enemy surrendered to anyone other than the boots on the ground.



SEC. 104. Border and port security technology investment plan.
(a) In general.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner, in consultation with covered officials and border and port security technology stakeholders, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a strategic 5-year technology investment plan (in this section referred to as the “plan”). The plan may include a classified annex, if appropriate.
(b) Contents of plan.—The plan shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of security risks at and between ports of entry along the northern and southern borders of the United States.
(2) An identification of capability gaps with respect to security at and between such ports of entry to be mitigated in order to—
(A) prevent terrorists and instruments of terror from entering the United States;
(B) combat and reduce cross-border criminal activity, including—
(i) the transport of illegal goods, such as illicit drugs; and
(ii) human smuggling and human trafficking; and
(C) facilitate the flow of legal trade across the southwest border.
(3) An analysis of current and forecast trends relating to the number of aliens who—
(A) unlawfully entered the United States by crossing the northern or southern border of the United States; or
(B) are unlawfully present in the United States.
(4) A description of security-related technology acquisitions, to be listed in order of priority, to address the security risks and capability gaps analyzed and identified pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.
(5) A description of each planned security-related technology program, including objectives, goals, and timelines for each such program.
(6) An identification of each deployed security-related technology that is at or near the end of the life cycle of such technology.
(7) A description of the test, evaluation, modeling, and simulation capabilities, including target methodologies, rationales, and timelines, necessary to support the acquisition of security-related technologies pursuant to paragraph (4).
(8) An identification and assessment of ways to increase opportunities for communication and collaboration with the private sector, small and disadvantaged businesses, intragovernment entities, university centers of excellence, and federal laboratories to ensure CBP is able to engage with the market for security-related technologies that are available to satisfy its mission needs before engaging in an acquisition of a security-related technology.
(9) An assessment of the management of planned security-related technology programs by the acquisition workforce of CBP.
(10) An identification of ways to leverage already-existing acquisition expertise within the Federal Government.
(11) A description of the security resources, including information security resources, required to protect security-related technology from physical or cyber theft, diversion, sabotage, or attack.
(12) A description of initiatives to—
(A) streamline the acquisition process of CBP; and
(B) provide to the private sector greater predictability and transparency with respect to such process, including information relating to the timeline for testing and evaluation of security-related technology.
(13) An assessment of the privacy and security impact on border communities of security-related technology.
(14) In the case of a new acquisition leading to the removal of equipment from a port of entry along the northern or southern border of the United States, a strategy to consult with the private sector and community stakeholders affected by such removal.
(15) A strategy to consult with the private sector and community stakeholders with respect to security impacts at a port of entry described in paragraph (14).
(16) An identification of recent technological advancements in the following:
(A) Manned aircraft sensor, communication, and common operating picture technology.
(B) Unmanned aerial systems and related technology, including counter-unmanned aerial system technology.
(C) Surveillance technology, including the following:
(i) Mobile surveillance vehicles.
(ii) Associated electronics, including cameras, sensor technology, and radar.
(iii) Tower-based surveillance technology.
(iv) Advanced unattended surveillance sensors.
(v) Deployable, lighter-than-air, ground surveillance equipment.
(D) Nonintrusive inspection technology, including non-x-ray devices utilizing muon tomography and other advanced detection technology.
(E) Tunnel detection technology.
(F) Communications equipment, including the following:
(i) Radios.
(ii) Long-term evolution broadband.
(iii) Miniature satellites.
(c) Leveraging the private sector.—To the extent practicable, the plan shall—
(1) leverage emerging technological capabilities, and research and development trends, within the public and private sectors;
(2) incorporate input from the private sector, including from border and port security stakeholders, through requests for information, industry day events, and other innovative means consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
(3) identify security-related technologies that are in development or deployed, with or without adaptation, that may satisfy the mission needs of CBP.
(d) Form.—To the extent practicable, the plan shall be published in unclassified form on the website of the Department.
(e) Disclosure.—The plan shall include an identification of individuals not employed by the Federal Government, and their professional affiliations, who contributed to the development of the plan.
(f) Update and report.—Not later than the date that is two years after the date on which the plan is submitted to the appropriate congressional committees pursuant to subsection (a) and biennially thereafter for ten years, the Commissioner shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees—
(1) an update of the plan, if appropriate; and
(2) a report that includes—
(A) the extent to which each security-related technology acquired by CBP since the initial submission of the plan or most recent update of the plan, as the case may be, is consistent with the planned technology programs and projects described pursuant to subsection (b)(5); and
(B) the type of contract and the reason for acquiring each such security-related technology.

 

[Vrenn]

This is probably one of the most important parts of the bill. It expands the border patrol numbers and raises their pay.


SEC. 107. U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
(a) Retention bonus.—To carry out this section, there is authorized to be appropriated up to $100,000,000 to the Commissioner to provide a retention bonus to any front-line U.S. Border Patrol law enforcement agent—
(1) whose position is equal to or below level GS-12 of the General Schedule;
(2) who has five years or more of service with the U.S. Border Patrol; and
(3) who commits to two years of additional service with the U.S. Border Patrol upon acceptance of such bonus.
(b) Border Patrol agents.—Not later than September 30, 2025, the Commissioner shall hire, train, and assign a sufficient number of Border Patrol agents to maintain an active duty presence of not fewer than 22,000 full-time equivalent Border Patrol agents, who may not perform the duties of processing coordinators.
(c) Prohibition against alien travel.—No personnel or equipment of Air and Marine Operations may be used for the transportation of non-detained aliens, or detained aliens expected to be administratively released upon arrival, from the southwest border to destinations within the United States.
(d) GAO report.—If the staffing level required under this section is not achieved by the date associated with such level, the Comptroller General of the United States shall—
(1) conduct a review of the reasons why such level was not so achieved; and
(2) not later than September 30, 2027, publish on a publicly available website of the Government Accountability Office a report relating thereto.

 

[Mac-7]

This is probably one of the most important parts of the bill. It expands the border patrol numbers and raises their pay.


SEC. 107. U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
(a) Retention bonus.—To carry out this section, there is authorized to be appropriated up to $100,000,000 to the Commissioner to provide a retention bonus to any front-line U.S. Border Patrol law enforcement agent—
(1) whose position is equal to or below level GS-12 of the General Schedule;
(2) who has five years or more of service with the U.S. Border Patrol; and
(3) who commits to two years of additional service with the U.S. Border Patrol upon acceptance of such bonus.
(b) Border Patrol agents.—Not later than September 30, 2025, the Commissioner shall hire, train, and assign a sufficient number of Border Patrol agents to maintain an active duty presence of not fewer than 22,000 full-time equivalent Border Patrol agents, who may not perform the duties of processing coordinators.
(c) Prohibition against alien travel.—No personnel or equipment of Air and Marine Operations may be used for the transportation of non-detained aliens, or detained aliens expected to be administratively released upon arrival, from the southwest border to destinations within the United States.
(d) GAO report.—If the staffing level required under this section is not achieved by the date associated with such level, the Comptroller General of the United States shall—
(1) conduct a review of the reasons why such level was not so achieved; and
(2) not later than September 30, 2027, publish on a publicly available website of the Government Accountability Office a report relating thereto.

You are confusing HR 2 with the biden approved senate bill that had no border security at all

You have been duped by the libs

‘Amnesty’ or border crackdown? What’s in the Senate’s $20 billion immigration deal? - Washington Examiner

Senate leadership released the text of a bipartisan compromise on the border Sunday evening, the product of four months of painstaking negotiations. Elements of the deal, brokered by a bipartisan working group, had been teased in the days leading up to its release. However, the granular details...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Vrenn]

I can on and on but let's just hit the other highpoints.

Background Checks on all immigrants both legal and illegal'
There is just too much to put into this area. I hit some highpoints but left out a bunch. If you decide to read it, You can go to

H.R.2 - Secure the Border Act of 2023​

 

[Vrenn]

SEC. 107. Rules for determining asylum eligibility.
SEC. 107. Rules for determining asylum eligibility.
Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158) is amended by adding at the end the following:


“(f) Rules for determining asylum eligibility.—In making a determination under subsection (b)(1)(A) with respect to whether an alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A), the following shall apply:

“(1) PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP.—The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General shall not determine that an alien is a member of a particular social group unless the alien articulates on the record, or provides a basis on the record for determining, the definition and boundaries of the alleged particular social group, establishes that the particular social group exists independently from the alleged persecution, and establishes that the alien’s claim of membership in a particular social group does not involve—

“(A) past or present criminal activity or association (including gang membership);

“(B) presence in a country with generalized violence or a high crime rate;
“(C) being the subject of a recruitment effort by criminal, terrorist, or persecutory groups;
“(D) the targeting of the applicant for criminal activity for financial gain based on perceptions of wealth or affluence;
“(E) interpersonal disputes of which governmental authorities in the relevant society or region were unaware or uninvolved;
“(F) private criminal acts of which governmental authorities in the relevant society or region were unaware or uninvolved;
“(G) past or present terrorist activity or association;
“(H) past or present persecutory activity or association; or
“(I) status as an alien returning from the United States.
“(2) POLITICAL OPINION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may not determine that an alien holds a political opinion with respect to which the alien is subject to persecution if the political opinion is constituted solely by generalized disapproval of, disagreement with, or opposition to criminal, terrorist, gang, guerilla, or other non-state organizations and does not include expressive behavior in furtherance of a cause against such organizations related to efforts by the State to control such organizations or behavior that is antithetical to or otherwise opposes the ruling legal entity of the State or a unit thereof.
“(3) PERSECUTION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may not determine that an alien has been subject to persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution based only on—
“(A) the existence of laws or government policies that are unenforced or infrequently enforced, unless there is credible evidence that such a law or policy has been or would be applied to the applicant personally; or
“(B) the conduct of rogue foreign government officials acting outside the scope of their official capacity.
“(4) DISCRETIONARY DETERMINATION.—
“(A) ADVERSE DISCRETIONARY FACTORS.—The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may only grant asylum to an alien if the alien establishes that he or she warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. In making such a determination, the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security shall consider, if applicable, an alien’s use of fraudulent documents to enter the United States, unless the alien arrived in the United States by air, sea, or land directly from the applicant’s home country without transiting through any other country.
“(B) FAVORABLE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION NOT PERMITTED.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security shall not favorably exercise discretion under this section for any alien who—
“(i) has accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States, as defined in sections 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) and (iii), prior to filing an application for asylum;
“(ii) at the time the asylum application is filed with the immigration court or is referred from the Department of Homeland Security, has—
“(I) failed to timely file (or timely file a request for an extension of time to file) any required Federal, State, or local income tax returns;
“(II) failed to satisfy any outstanding Federal, State, or local tax obligations; or
“(III) income that would result in tax liability under section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that was not reported to the Internal Revenue Service;
“(iii) has had two or more prior asylum applications denied for any reason;
“(iv) has withdrawn a prior asylum application with prejudice or been found to have abandoned a prior asylum application;
“(v) failed to attend an interview regarding his or her asylum application with the Department of Homeland Security, unless the alien shows by a preponderance of the evidence that—
“(I) exceptional circumstances prevented the alien from attending the interview; or
“(II) the interview notice was not mailed to the last address provided by the alien or the alien’s representative and neither the alien nor the alien’s representative received notice of the interview; or
“(vi) was subject to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion and did not file a motion to reopen to seek asylum based on changed country conditions within one year of the change in country conditions.
“(C) EXCEPTIONS.—If one or more of the adverse discretionary factors set forth in subparagraph (B) are present, the Attorney General or the Secretary, may, notwithstanding such subparagraph (B), favorably exercise discretion under section 208—
“(i) in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations; or
“(ii) if the alien, by clear and convincing evidence, demonstrates that the denial of the application for asylum would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien.
“(5) LIMITATION.—If the Secretary or the Attorney General determines that an alien fails to satisfy the requirement under paragraph (1), the alien may not be granted asylum based on membership in a particular social group, and may not appeal the determination of the Secretary or Attorney General, as applicable. A determination under this paragraph shall not serve as the basis for any motion to reopen or reconsider an application for asylum or withholding of removal for any reason, including a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the alien complies with the procedural requirements for such a motion and demonstrates that counsel’s failure to define, or provide a basis for defining, a formulation of a particular social group was both not a strategic choice and constituted egregious conduct.
“(6) STEREOTYPES.—Evidence offered in support of an application for asylum that promotes cultural stereotypes about a country, its inhabitants, or an alleged persecutor, including stereotypes based on race, religion, nationality, or gender, shall not be admissible in adjudicating that application, except that evidence that an alleged persecutor holds stereotypical views of the applicant shall be admissible.
“(7) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
“(A) The term ‘membership in a particular social group’ means membership in a group that is—
“(i) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic;
“(ii) defined with particularity; and
“(iii) socially distinct within the society in question.
“(B) The term ‘political opinion’ means an ideal or conviction in support of the furtherance of a discrete cause related to political control of a state or a unit thereof.
“(C) The term ‘persecution’ means the infliction of a severe level of harm constituting an exigent threat by the government of a country or by persons or an organization that the government was unable or unwilling to control. Such term does not include—
“(i) generalized harm or violence that arises out of civil, criminal, or military strife in a country;
“(ii) all treatment that the United States regards as unfair, offensive, unjust, unlawful, or unconstitutional;
“(iii) intermittent harassment, including brief detentions;
“(iv) threats with no actual effort to carry out the threats, except that particularized threats of severe harm of an immediate and menacing nature made by an identified entity may constitute persecution; or
“(v) non-severe economic harm or property damage.”.

 

[Vrenn]

SEC. 111. Requirement for procedures relating to certain asylum applications.
(a) In general.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish procedures to expedite the adjudication of asylum applications for aliens—
(1) who are subject to removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a); and
(2) who are nationals of a Western Hemisphere country sanctioned by the United States, as described in subsection (b), as of January 1, 2023.
(b) Western Hemisphere country sanctioned by the United States described.—Subsection (a) shall apply only to an asylum application filed by an alien who is a national of a Western Hemisphere country subject to sanctions pursuant to—
(1) the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6021 note);
(2) the Reinforcing Nicaragua's Adherence to Conditions for Electoral Reform Act of 2021 or the RENACER Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); or
(3) Executive Order 13692 (80 Fed. Reg. 12747; declaring a national emergency with respect to the situation in Venezuela).
(c) Applicability.—This section shall only apply to an alien who files an application for asylum after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

[Vrenn]

You are confusing HR 2 with the biden approved senate bill that had no border security at all

You have been duped by the libs

‘Amnesty’ or border crackdown? What’s in the Senate’s $20 billion immigration deal? - Washington Examiner

Senate leadership released the text of a bipartisan compromise on the border Sunday evening, the product of four months of painstaking negotiations. Elements of the deal, brokered by a bipartisan working group, had been teased in the days leading up to its release. However, the granular details...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I posted where it covered border security in H.R.2. You are just gaslighting once again.

 

[Mac-7]

SEC. 107. Rules for determining asylum eligibility.
SEC. 107. Rules for determining asylum eligibility.
Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158) is amended by adding at the end the following:


“(f) Rules for determining asylum eligibility.—In making a determination under subsection (b)(1)(A) with respect to whether an alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A), the following shall apply:

“(1) PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP.—The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General shall not determine that an alien is a member of a particular social group unless the alien articulates on the record, or provides a basis on the record for determining, the definition and boundaries of the alleged particular social group, establishes that the particular social group exists independently from the alleged persecution, and establishes that the alien’s claim of membership in a particular social group does not involve—

“(A) past or present criminal activity or association (including gang membership);

“(B) presence in a country with generalized violence or a high crime rate;
“(C) being the subject of a recruitment effort by criminal, terrorist, or persecutory groups;
“(D) the targeting of the applicant for criminal activity for financial gain based on perceptions of wealth or affluence;
“(E) interpersonal disputes of which governmental authorities in the relevant society or region were unaware or uninvolved;
“(F) private criminal acts of which governmental authorities in the relevant society or region were unaware or uninvolved;
“(G) past or present terrorist activity or association;
“(H) past or present persecutory activity or association; or
“(I) status as an alien returning from the United States.
“(2) POLITICAL OPINION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may not determine that an alien holds a political opinion with respect to which the alien is subject to persecution if the political opinion is constituted solely by generalized disapproval of, disagreement with, or opposition to criminal, terrorist, gang, guerilla, or other non-state organizations and does not include expressive behavior in furtherance of a cause against such organizations related to efforts by the State to control such organizations or behavior that is antithetical to or otherwise opposes the ruling legal entity of the State or a unit thereof.
“(3) PERSECUTION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may not determine that an alien has been subject to persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution based only on—
“(A) the existence of laws or government policies that are unenforced or infrequently enforced, unless there is credible evidence that such a law or policy has been or would be applied to the applicant personally; or
“(B) the conduct of rogue foreign government officials acting outside the scope of their official capacity.
“(4) DISCRETIONARY DETERMINATION.—
“(A) ADVERSE DISCRETIONARY FACTORS.—The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may only grant asylum to an alien if the alien establishes that he or she warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. In making such a determination, the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security shall consider, if applicable, an alien’s use of fraudulent documents to enter the United States, unless the alien arrived in the United States by air, sea, or land directly from the applicant’s home country without transiting through any other country.
“(B) FAVORABLE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION NOT PERMITTED.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security shall not favorably exercise discretion under this section for any alien who—
“(i) has accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States, as defined in sections 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) and (iii), prior to filing an application for asylum;
“(ii) at the time the asylum application is filed with the immigration court or is referred from the Department of Homeland Security, has—
“(I) failed to timely file (or timely file a request for an extension of time to file) any required Federal, State, or local income tax returns;
“(II) failed to satisfy any outstanding Federal, State, or local tax obligations; or
“(III) income that would result in tax liability under section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that was not reported to the Internal Revenue Service;
“(iii) has had two or more prior asylum applications denied for any reason;
“(iv) has withdrawn a prior asylum application with prejudice or been found to have abandoned a prior asylum application;
“(v) failed to attend an interview regarding his or her asylum application with the Department of Homeland Security, unless the alien shows by a preponderance of the evidence that—
“(I) exceptional circumstances prevented the alien from attending the interview; or
“(II) the interview notice was not mailed to the last address provided by the alien or the alien’s representative and neither the alien nor the alien’s representative received notice of the interview; or
“(vi) was subject to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion and did not file a motion to reopen to seek asylum based on changed country conditions within one year of the change in country conditions.
“(C) EXCEPTIONS.—If one or more of the adverse discretionary factors set forth in subparagraph (B) are present, the Attorney General or the Secretary, may, notwithstanding such subparagraph (B), favorably exercise discretion under section 208—
“(i) in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations; or
“(ii) if the alien, by clear and convincing evidence, demonstrates that the denial of the application for asylum would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien.
“(5) LIMITATION.—If the Secretary or the Attorney General determines that an alien fails to satisfy the requirement under paragraph (1), the alien may not be granted asylum based on membership in a particular social group, and may not appeal the determination of the Secretary or Attorney General, as applicable. A determination under this paragraph shall not serve as the basis for any motion to reopen or reconsider an application for asylum or withholding of removal for any reason, including a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the alien complies with the procedural requirements for such a motion and demonstrates that counsel’s failure to define, or provide a basis for defining, a formulation of a particular social group was both not a strategic choice and constituted egregious conduct.
“(6) STEREOTYPES.—Evidence offered in support of an application for asylum that promotes cultural stereotypes about a country, its inhabitants, or an alleged persecutor, including stereotypes based on race, religion, nationality, or gender, shall not be admissible in adjudicating that application, except that evidence that an alleged persecutor holds stereotypical views of the applicant shall be admissible.
“(7) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
“(A) The term ‘membership in a particular social group’ means membership in a group that is—
“(i) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic;
“(ii) defined with particularity; and
“(iii) socially distinct within the society in question.
“(B) The term ‘political opinion’ means an ideal or conviction in support of the furtherance of a discrete cause related to political control of a state or a unit thereof.
“(C) The term ‘persecution’ means the infliction of a severe level of harm constituting an exigent threat by the government of a country or by persons or an organization that the government was unable or unwilling to control. Such term does not include—
“(i) generalized harm or violence that arises out of civil, criminal, or military strife in a country;
“(ii) all treatment that the United States regards as unfair, offensive, unjust, unlawful, or unconstitutional;
“(iii) intermittent harassment, including brief detentions;
“(iv) threats with no actual effort to carry out the threats, except that particularized threats of severe harm of an immediate and menacing nature made by an identified entity may constitute persecution; or
“(v) non-severe economic harm or property damage.”.

The biden/senate bill that MAGAs rejected had no border wall and no way of preventing illegal aliens from sneaking across the border

It also enshrined allowing biden to legally admit over 5,000 migrants a day into the US

 

[Mac-7]

I posted where it covered border security in H.R.2. You are just gaslighting once again.

You confuse HR2 which biden does not support with his senate compromise bill

HR2 is good, but its not supported by biden/harris

 

[Vrenn]

The biden/senate bill that MAGAs rejected had no border wall and no way of preventing illegal aliens from sneaking across the border

It also enshrined allowing biden to legally admit over 5,000 migrants a day into the US

H.R.2 covers preventing illegals from entering in very good detail Until you read the actual bill, you are just gaslighting.

And in H.R.2, there is nothing about allowing up to 5000 per day. This isn't gaslighting, it's lying.

 

[Mac-7]

H.R.2 covers preventing illegals from entering in very good detail Until you read the actual bill, you are just gaslighting.

And in H.R.2, there is nothing about allowing up to 5000 per day. This isn't gaslighting, it's lying.

Biden does not support and refuses to sign HR2

 

[Vrenn]

You confuse HR2 which biden does not support with his senate compromise bill

HR2 is good, but its not supported by biden/harris

BTW, in 2023 the House did, in fact, vote it into their H.R.2 and presented it to the Senate.

05/16/2023	Senate	Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 71.
05/15/2023	Senate	Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

How about giving a link to the bill you keep hammering with. I would like to read it. And the H.R.2 was written by the House and presented to the Senate. In case you don't know, a bill may go back and forth between the Senate and House numerous times until it's killed or both agree to the writing and then it passes both the senate and the house or just gets tabled. So let's have that H.R. number so I can research it and read it.

From what I can see, not one single bitching from you isn't covered in H.R.2.

Now about the support of the Administration for H.R.2, you are correct. Biden doesn't support it as written. A Bill is also written with the input of a Administration as well as the House and Senate. It's a good bill but needs to go a few more step.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY H.R. 2 – Secure the Border Act of 2023 (Rep. Diaz-Balart, R-FL, and 15 cosponsors) May 8, 2023

The Administration strongly supports productive efforts to reform the Nation’s immigration system but opposes H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, which makes elements of our immigration system worse. A successful border management strategy must include robust enforcement at the border of illegal crossings, deterrence to discourage illegal immigration, and legal pathways to ensure that those in need of protection are not turned away to face death or serious harm. The Biden-Harris Administration’s approach to border management is grounded in this strategy – expanding legal pathways while increasing consequences for illegal pathways, which helps maintain safe, orderly, and humane border processing. However, the Administration is limited in what it can achieve by an outdated statutory framework and inadequate resources, particularly in this time of unprecedented global movement. H.R. 2 does nothing to address the root causes of migration, reduces humanitarian protections, and restricts lawful pathways, which are critical alternatives to unlawful entry. The bill would cut off nearly all access to humanitarian protections in ways that are inconsistent with our Nation’s values and international obligations. In addition, the bill would make processing less efficient by prohibiting the use of the CBP One mobile application to process noncitizens and restricting DHS’s parole authority, such that successful programs, like “Uniting for Ukraine,” would be prohibited. The bill would also reduce authorized funding for essential programs including the Shelter and Services Program that provides a critical source of funds for state and local governments and reduces pressure at the border. While we welcome Congress’ engagement on meaningful steps to address immigration and the challenges at the border, this bill would make things worse, not better. Because this bill does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the Nation’s core values and international obligations, it should be rejected. If the President were presented with H.R. 2, he would veto it.

 

[Vrenn]

Biden does not support and refuses to sign HR2

Until it's confirmed by both the House and the Senate (it hasn't gotten that far) and it's discussed with the Administration, the President will not be able to sign it or veto it. Biden doesn't support it as written because he feels there are some parts left out that should be in there.

 

[Mac-7]

BTW, in 2023 the House did, in fact, vote it into their H.R.2 and presented it to the Senate.

05/16/2023	Senate	Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 71.
05/15/2023	Senate	Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

How about giving a link to the bill you keep hammering with. I would like to read it. And the H.R.2 was written by the House and presented to the Senate. In case you don't know, a bill may go back and forth between the Senate and House numerous times until it's killed or both agree to the writing and then it passes both the senate and the house or just gets tabled. So let's have that H.R. number so I can research it and read it.

From what I can see, not one single bitching from you isn't covered in H.R.2.

Now about the support of the Administration for H.R.2, you are correct. Biden doesn't support it as written. A Bill is also written with the input of a Administration as well as the House and Senate. It's a good bill but needs to go a few more step.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY H.R. 2 – Secure the Border Act of 2023 (Rep. Diaz-Balart, R-FL, and 15 cosponsors) May 8, 2023

The Administration strongly supports productive efforts to reform the Nation’s immigration system but opposes H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, which makes elements of our immigration system worse. A successful border management strategy must include robust enforcement at the border of illegal crossings, deterrence to discourage illegal immigration, and legal pathways to ensure that those in need of protection are not turned away to face death or serious harm. The Biden-Harris Administration’s approach to border management is grounded in this strategy – expanding legal pathways while increasing consequences for illegal pathways, which helps maintain safe, orderly, and humane border processing. However, the Administration is limited in what it can achieve by an outdated statutory framework and inadequate resources, particularly in this time of unprecedented global movement. H.R. 2 does nothing to address the root causes of migration, reduces humanitarian protections, and restricts lawful pathways, which are critical alternatives to unlawful entry. The bill would cut off nearly all access to humanitarian protections in ways that are inconsistent with our Nation’s values and international obligations. In addition, the bill would make processing less efficient by prohibiting the use of the CBP One mobile application to process noncitizens and restricting DHS’s parole authority, such that successful programs, like “Uniting for Ukraine,” would be prohibited. The bill would also reduce authorized funding for essential programs including the Shelter and Services Program that provides a critical source of funds for state and local governments and reduces pressure at the border. While we welcome Congress’ engagement on meaningful steps to address immigration and the challenges at the border, this bill would make things worse, not better. Because this bill does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the Nation’s core values and international obligations, it should be rejected. If the President were presented with H.R. 2, he would veto it.

HR2 was not voted on in the senate because dems have a senate majority and biden would not sign HR2 anyway

This is the bill that biden supported

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2824/text

 

[wamose]

I don't think that any law matters simply because Democrats WILL NOT enforce any law or provision they don't like. They're doing that right now. This dangerous open border is exactly what they want. MAGA

 

[Vrenn]

HR2 was not voted on in the senate because dems have a senate majority and biden would not sign HR2 anyway

This is the bill that biden supported

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2824/text

Here is the summary of your senate bill. It's not a bill at all therefore it carries no S. denoting it is a bill. It never made it out of committee.

01/11/2024	Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held.
09/14/2023	Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Action By: Senate

It has never gotten out of committee.

And once again, no mention of the number 5000 in any part of the supplemental. That's just a gaslight.

 

[Vrenn]

I don't think that any law matters simply because Democrats WILL NOT enforce any law or provision they don't like. They're doing that right now. This dangerous open border is exactly what they want. MAGA

Actually, if HR2 were to be rewritten with the inputs of both the congress and the administration it would take care of many of the problems. Instead, held up in committee and not being worked on at all.

 

[wamose]

Actually, if HR2 were to be rewritten with the inputs of both the congress and the administration it would take care of many of the problems. Instead, held up in committee and not being worked on at all.

If our current immigration laws were being enforced, we would be just fine. What we have today is a welcoming and disbursement committee, not a serious border control force. And that is not because of our Border Patrol, who have their hands tied. It's because the Democrat Marxists want it that way. MAGA