Imagining a different kind of presidency.

Most everything you believe is a lie.

The bill allowed up to 5,000 illegal lowlifes to stream across our borders EVERY DAY (as had been happening) before an additional security measure could be taken to stop them.

Why should 5,000 a day continue to be allowed in with their bogus claims of asylum before any new steps would be taken? All the bill did was allow the problem of illegals to continue at the same rate.

What Americans (who care more about citizens than foreign scofflaws) wanted was to STOP the influx entirely. Biden claimed it couldn’t be done. Trump proved him wrong. We are now down to ZERO illegals a day - and that’s a good thing.

Does Not ‘Accept’ 5,000 Illegal Immigrants a Day​

Leading up to the vote, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise on social media said the bill “accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day.” Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn added her voice to the opposition, posting that she would “never vote to make illegal immigration legal.”

Those comments misrepresented the bill.

The bill stated that temporary border emergency authority would be automatically activated by the Department of Homeland Security secretary if there is an average of 5,000 or more migrant encounters a day over seven consecutive days — or if there are 8,500 or more such encounters on any single day. In December — according to the latest data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection — there was an average of more than 8,000 encounters a day of migrants who crossed the border illegally between points of entry.


Border-insert.png
Migrants attempting to cross into the U.S. from Mexico are detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on May 5, 2023, in San Luis, Arizona. Photo by Nick Ut/Getty Images.
“It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous,” Lankford said on the Senate floor. “The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.”

In a social media post on Feb. 5, Trump wrote, “Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill, which only gives Shutdown Authority after 5000 Encounters a day.”

He’s wrong about the 5,000 encounters threshold. Although that is the threshold for mandatory activation of the emergency authority, the bill also would have extended “discretionary activation” to the Homeland Security secretary once there is an average of 4,000 or more encounters over seven consecutive days. Customs and Border Protection provides only monthly data, and looking at data during the Trump administration the number of encounters would have reached that threshold in May 2019, when encounters averaged 4,286 per day.

“The reason we’re doing that [providing emergency authority] is because we want to be able to shut down the system when it gets overloaded, so we have enough time to process those asylum claims,” Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who helped craft the bill, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Feb. 4.

“So we have placed provisions in the law that mandate the enforcement of each of these provisions of our law and require the Biden administration and any future administration to actually implement this,” Sinema, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said. “So, we’re requiring it, not permitting it.”

In other words, while President Joe Biden had said that if the bill passed he would have exercised that emergency authority immediately, it would not have been a choice at this time — it would have been mandatory.

As for claims that the bill would allow or accept 5,000 illegal crossings a day, that’s a distortion of what’s in the bill.

“That authority would be mandated when arrivals exceed an average over the previous seven days of 5,000,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior adviser on immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told us via email. “This is not a number that is ‘allowed in.’ It is a threshold of ARRIVALS that triggers a new authority.”

“We already have more than 5,000 illegal crossings happening,” Brown said. “We aren’t ‘allowing it’; it is happening, and we then have to deal with it.”

“There is this idea that we control how many migrants attempt illegal crossings. We do not. The migrants (and smugglers) control that,” Brown said. “We control what happens once we encounter someone who has already crossed the border illegally.”
 
That sort of thing may look good on a message board, but you don't actually believe trump is unpopular, that the majority oppose what he's doing, because people don't understand what he's doing.........do you?
Yes….he’s bringing down crime that the pro-criminal Democrats have enabled, has stopped the illegal invasion from the South, has blocked the Iranian Terrorist Regime from getting nukes, and has taken action against liberal universities that support antisemitic actions.

These were the most critical elements of the failed Biden Regime that I wanted Trump to correct. He promised he would, and he has.
 
The bill raises the legal standard to pass initial asylum screenings, expedites the asylum process and funds additional detention space. It also compels the Homeland Security secretary to use an emergency authority to bar people from requesting asylum if officials record 5,000 encounters a day over seven consecutive days. But that’s not the same as accepting 5,000 people into the U.S. daily.
Expedites the asylum process? Gives more money to house the illegals while they wait to be welcomed in?

The bill just made it easier for the Dems to flood the country with illegals.
 
Factually speaking, it failed because the original orange man, Boehner, refused to bring the bill to the floor of the House for a vote.
Which he had strong popular support not to do

We were burned in 1986 by promises not kept and wete not going to be fooled again
 
Both political party's are a mess.
No reasonable Answer available.
Guess its just a 2 party cat fight.
 
Which he had strong popular support not to do
AI Overview

Polls from 2013 and 2014 show that the public largely supported the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate, with some variations in support depending on how specific details were presented
.
Specific findings on public support
  • Path to citizenship: A consistent majority of Americans supported allowing undocumented immigrants to gain a path to citizenship, provided they met certain requirements.
    • An April 2013 poll from ABC News/The Washington Post found 57% of Americans supported a path to citizenship.
    • A poll conducted in March and again in November 2013 by PRRI showed consistent support, with 63% of Americans favoring a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
 
The idea that because a plurality of voters checked the box for lower inflation and better border security it means they approve of trump's agenda is intellectually bankrupt.
Another mind-reading liberal... :rolleyes:
 
AI Overview

...
Anyone who can't be bothered to post their own thoughts, ought not waste everyone's time cutting and pasting AI, retweeting, or linking to stupid tiktok nonsense.

Lazy shits.
 
AI Overview

Polls from 2013 and 2014 show that the public largely supported the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate, with some variations in support depending on how specific details were presented
.
Specific findings on public support
  • Path to citizenship:A consistent majority of Americans supported allowing undocumented immigrants to gain a path to citizenship, provided they met certain requirements.
    • An April 2013 poll from ABC News/The Washington Post found 57% of Americans supported a path to citizenship.
    • A poll conducted in March and again in November 2013 by PRRI showed consistent support, with 63% of Americans favoring a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Lib polls are always rigged to say what libs want them to

If the public wanted the Gang of Eight amnesty bill they would have gotten it

The Speaker could not have stopped it on his own
 
AI Overview

Polls from 2013 and 2014 show that the public largely supported the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate, with some variations in support depending on how specific details were presented
.
Specific findings on public support
  • Path to citizenship:A consistent majority of Americans supported allowing undocumented immigrants to gain a path to citizenship, provided they met certain requirements.
    • An April 2013 poll from ABC News/The Washington Post found 57% of Americans supported a path to citizenship.
    • A poll conducted in March and again in November 2013 by PRRI showed consistent support, with 63% of Americans favoring a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
2013?! That was before Biden and the Dems imported tens of millions of lowlife illegals.
 
You may have hired him to do those things but the majority of voters didn't.

Wow ... liberal math skills are really in decline these days ... now "226" is larger than "312" ...

I know there's sour grapes right now but we did vote for this ... blame Democrats for putting a senile old man in diapers on their ticket ...

 

ICE Is Arresting 1,100 Percent More Noncriminals on the Streets Than in 2017​

Last week, the Cato Institute published new, nonpublic data showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is mostly detaining noncriminals and that most arrested immigrants with criminal convictions are not violent offenders. Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request by DeportationData.org, a group that gathers FOIA data on ICE arrests, another dataset has become available, confirming ICE’s unprecedented crackdown on peaceful people.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. You never have before, no point in starting now.


Nothing that contradicted anything I said.
 

Does Not ‘Accept’ 5,000 Illegal Immigrants a Day​

Leading up to the vote, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise on social media said the bill “accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day.” Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn added her voice to the opposition, posting that she would “never vote to make illegal immigration legal.”

Those comments misrepresented the bill.

The bill stated that temporary border emergency authority would be automatically activated by the Department of Homeland Security secretary if there is an average of 5,000 or more migrant encounters a day over seven consecutive days — or if there are 8,500 or more such encounters on any single day. In December — according to the latest data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection — there was an average of more than 8,000 encounters a day of migrants who crossed the border illegally between points of entry.


Border-insert.png
Migrants attempting to cross into the U.S. from Mexico are detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on May 5, 2023, in San Luis, Arizona. Photo by Nick Ut/Getty Images.
“It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous,” Lankford said on the Senate floor. “The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.”

In a social media post on Feb. 5, Trump wrote, “Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill, which only gives Shutdown Authority after 5000 Encounters a day.”

He’s wrong about the 5,000 encounters threshold. Although that is the threshold for mandatory activation of the emergency authority, the bill also would have extended “discretionary activation” to the Homeland Security secretary once there is an average of 4,000 or more encounters over seven consecutive days. Customs and Border Protection provides only monthly data, and looking at data during the Trump administration the number of encounters would have reached that threshold in May 2019, when encounters averaged 4,286 per day.

“The reason we’re doing that [providing emergency authority] is because we want to be able to shut down the system when it gets overloaded, so we have enough time to process those asylum claims,” Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who helped craft the bill, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Feb. 4.

“So we have placed provisions in the law that mandate the enforcement of each of these provisions of our law and require the Biden administration and any future administration to actually implement this,” Sinema, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said. “So, we’re requiring it, not permitting it.”

In other words, while President Joe Biden had said that if the bill passed he would have exercised that emergency authority immediately, it would not have been a choice at this time — it would have been mandatory.

As for claims that the bill would allow or accept 5,000 illegal crossings a day, that’s a distortion of what’s in the bill.

“That authority would be mandated when arrivals exceed an average over the previous seven days of 5,000,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior adviser on immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told us via email. “This is not a number that is ‘allowed in.’ It is a threshold of ARRIVALS that triggers a new authority.”

“We already have more than 5,000 illegal crossings happening,” Brown said. “We aren’t ‘allowing it’; it is happening, and we then have to deal with it.”

“There is this idea that we control how many migrants attempt illegal crossings. We do not. The migrants (and smugglers) control that,” Brown said. “We control what happens once we encounter someone who has already crossed the border illegally.”
Yeah.

Uh-huh.

Those arguments made good filler when the Democrat and "not Democrats" were embarassed that Trump caught them trying to allow five to eight thousand per day illegals before lifting a finger to stop it.

When Trump was elected, the Democrats (and "not Democrats") smugly waited for Trump to fail in securing the border. They thought the flood of illegals was an unstoppable fact of nature, and that the American people would then believe that the "bi-partisan" bill (meaning that both Democrats and "not Democrats" supported it) was the only way we could have alleviated the problem or at least maintained at no more than eight thousand per day.

Now we see the truth: enforcement of existing laws was what was needed, not some bizarre new law that definitely allowed thousands of illegals while vaguely suggesting ways to slow it down after a certain point was reached.

So, berg80, what say you? Did Trump's policies lead to fewer illegal crossings, or was than yet another co-inky-dink?
 
15th post
The irony here being the people lying to you are the only ones you believe. I call it the Faux Effect. They convinced trumples only Faux can be believed..........making lying to you folks so much more effective.
Faux News is just another AP/Reuters outlet. I don't listen to them. I know what's what.
If I do see them, I notice their spins on the garbage propaganda.
ABC and CBS scored higher in accuracy than Fox News. C-Span is #1.
Whatever happened to that "Scripps"? It coulda been a contenda!
 
Faux News is just another AP/Reuters outlet.
Few things are further from the truth. It essentially acts as a propaganda arm of the POT and always has. The "news" dept. was created by Roger Ailes, a former GOP operative, to misinform its audience for the political benefit of Repubs.
 
Few things are further from the truth. It essentially acts as a propaganda arm of the POT and always has. The "news" dept. was created by Roger Ailes, a former GOP operative, to misinform its audience for the political benefit of Repubs.
ron-white-you-can%E2%80%99t-fix-stupid.gif

Ask yourself where FOX gets its news stories from. Dumbass.
It's all spins on the same propaganda. Putting a little right English on a turdball makes it still a turdball.
:itsok:
 
Back
Top Bottom