Who killed the "Border Bill"?

[Magnus]

Read the OP again.

I did. Learn to back up any claims your retarded brain comes up with.

 

[struth]

The Inflation Reduction Act is a great example, and today's bills often include pork that is unrelated to the title. In fact, the IRA had nothing to do with lowering inflation and was primarily focused on green energy investments and tax credits and establishing a process for CMS to essentially 'force' negotiate lower drug prices with huge penalties for non-compliance.

Right! And all it did was jack up inflation

 

[struth]

I did. Learn to back up any claims your retarded brain comes up with.

You have to be a real POS to refer to people as “retarded” -

 

[Magnus]

You have to be a real POS to refer to people as “retarded” -

If the shoe fits, retard...

 

[struth]

If the shoe fits, retard...

This reminds me why you dembot brownshirts are evil

 

[konradv]

Trump, or Senate Democrats?

Take yer time, do yer research.

It doesn’t matter what we say, MAGA will lie about it.

#VOTEHARRIS

 

[Foxfyre]

Trump, or Senate Democrats?

Take yer time, do yer research.

I am pretty sure more Democrats voted against it than Republicans voted for it. At least in the Senate.

 

[Rawley]

The immigration "Bill" was just part of a very large aid bill, mostly for the defense of Taiwan, Ukraine, and Israel. It was a Senate bill, where the Democrats hold the majority.

The $118 billion bill, called the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act only contained $22Billion for the border, so it really wasn't a 'border bill' at all. And, the border provisions weren't the main reason the bill failed.

After they stripped out the foreign aid it was defeated more soundly 43-50

 

[konradv]

I know more Democrats voted against it than Republicans voted for it.

That’s because MAGA are good robots, when the master speaks.

#VOTEHARRIS

 

[Foxfyre]

That’s because MAGA are good robots, when the master speaks.

#VOTEHARRIS

People who have absolutely nothing to contribute spew nonsense like you did here.

 

[konradv]

People who have absolutely nothing to contribute spew nonsense like you did here.

Just throwing MAGA’s rhetoric back in their faces!

#SNOWFLAKES

 

[Magnus]

This reminds me why you dembot brownshirts are evil

Awww... did the Nazi get triggered? Awww

 

[Doc7505]

You want us to do your research for you? Sure, bud. We will drop everything to fix your ignorance.

~~~~~~
No need. Democrat Neo Narxists filled the bill with so much Pork that the sausage it oinked and walked off the table.
Rather than discuss a Bill in Congress that did not pass muster, you have to wonder why Schumer shelved HR-2 the Secure the Border Bill..
That should make even you blush...

Summary of H.R. 2 (118th): Secure the Border Act of 2023 - GovTrack.us

Summary of H.R. 2 (118th): Secure the Border Act of 2023

www.govtrack.us

 

[Doc7505]

Awww... did the Nazi get triggered? Awww

~~~~~~
Indeed, that is why your TDS is so high...

 

[struth]

Awww... did the Nazi get triggered? Awww

National socialist?

 

[konradv]

~~~~~~
No need. Democrat Neo Narxists filled the bill with so much Pork that the sausage it oinked and walked off the table.
Rather than discuss a Bill in Congress that did not pass muster, you have to wonder why Schumer shelved HR-2 the Secure the Border Bill..
That should make even you blush...

Summary of H.R. 2 (118th): Secure the Border Act of 2023 - GovTrack.us

Summary of H.R. 2 (118th): Secure the Border Act of 2023

www.govtrack.us

Excuses, excuses!

#THEBORDERISMAGAS

 

[Doc7505]

Excuses, excuses!

#THEBORDERISMAGAS

Bill Analysis: The Secure the Border Act of 2023​

Bill Analysis: The Secure the Border Act of 2023 - National Immigration Forum

This bill analysis includes key takeaways from the Secure the Border Act of 2023.

immigrationforum.org

The Bill would:
1. The Secure the Border Act of 2023 would restart border wall construction and defund NGOs that provide services to migrants

• Reestablish Trump-era border policy, including restarting construction on the border wall and requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create a plan to meet benchmarks for 200 miles of construction each year;
• Reinforce the unrealistically narrow definition of “operational control” as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband”(emphasis added);
• Require the DHS secretary to incorporate physical barriers, infrastructures, and technologies to “achieve situational awareness and operational control” at the U.S.-Mexico border;
• Increase the number of full-time Border Patrol agents to at least 22,000;
• Prohibit the use of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine Operations resources to transport noncitizens who will not be detained into the country’s interior;
• Build on Operation Stonegarden to appropriate $110 million per fiscal year — from 2024 through 2028 — for grants to law enforcement agencies working with U.S. immigration authorities near the U.S.’s land and maritime borders;
• Require the U.S. Border Patrol to pull together a strategic plan based in part on information provided by “border community stakeholders” such as hospitals, farmers, ranchers, property owners, victims of crimes done by undocumented immigrants, and others “negatively impacted by illegal immigration;”
• Pull funding for processing noncitizens who have entered the U.S. between ports of entry;
• Bar funds from being disbursed to NGOs that “facilitate[ ] or encourage[ ] unlawful activity,” defined to include unlawful entry, or that facilitate transportation, lodging, or immigration legal services for people who are inadmissible;
• Restrict the use of documents provided by DHS, such as notices to appear and work authorizations, as valid IDs at airport security checkpoints;
• Limit the CBP One phone application and other similar platforms to only be used for the inspection of perishable cargo, barring its use for the scheduling of immigration interviews for people at ports of entry;
• Mandate government reporting on migration-related economic and security ramifications to states and municipalities along the U.S.-Mexico border, including to law enforcement, school districts, healthcare providers, and farmers and ranchers; and
• Defund an alternatives to detention case management program and CBP’s shelter services program.

2. The bill would significantly limit asylum in the U.S.
H.R.2 would restrict both access to and eligibility for asylum. In particular, the bill would:

• Raise the initial screening standard so that a noncitizen would have to prove they were “more likely than not” to ultimately qualify for asylum in order to continue pursuing their protection claim and not be quickly removed from the U.S.;
• Ban the vast majority of asylum seekers from requesting protection at a U.S. border if they traveled through a third country en route to the U.S. and had not already been denied asylum there;
• Generally restrict asylum claims to only those migrants who arrive in the U.S. at an official port of entry;
• Add exclusions to asylum eligibility, including by enacting restrictions against those who unlawfully received a federal public benefit or could reasonably avoid persecution by relocating to a safer area within their home country;
• Deny employment authorization if an asylum seeker entered or tried to enter the U.S. at a place other than a port of entry;
• Impose a fee of not less than $50 to apply for asylum, which might make it harder to afford to make a protection claim;
• Narrow who qualifies for asylum based on their political opinion or membership in a particular social group, in ways that would curtail protection claims by generally excluding cases related to interpersonal violence, gang-related activity, or crime;
• Allow the DHS secretary to indefinitely suspend access to a land or maritime border for migrants who enter without admission or parole, misrepresent themselves to enter, or do not have valid documentation to enter, if doing so would help achieve “operational control;”
• Require the DHS secretary to expand detention capacity, including by potentially reopening detention facilities that have been closed or whose use has been altered during the Biden administration;
• Limit release from detention for asylum seekers with positive credible fear determinations, requiring immigration detention for the duration of their asylum adjudication process. With some cases taking multiple years, this provision would mean that some asylum seekers with credible claims could face lengthy periods of detention;
• Expand the use of programs modeled after the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), so that migrants are returned to Mexico or Canada pending their removal proceedings or reviews;
• Require the U.S. to negotiate an international agreement where the Mexican government would accept the continued presence of non-Mexican asylum seekers during their adjudications for asylum in the U.S., like under MPP; and
• Make other changes to current asylum procedures.

 

[konradv]

Bill Analysis: The Secure the Border Act of 2023​

Bill Analysis: The Secure the Border Act of 2023 - National Immigration Forum

This bill analysis includes key takeaways from the Secure the Border Act of 2023.

immigrationforum.org

The Bill would:
1. The Secure the Border Act of 2023 would restart border wall construction and defund NGOs that provide services to migrants

• Reestablish Trump-era border policy, including restarting construction on the border wall and requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create a plan to meet benchmarks for 200 miles of construction each year;
• Reinforce the unrealistically narrow definition of “operational control” as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband”(emphasis added);
• Require the DHS secretary to incorporate physical barriers, infrastructures, and technologies to “achieve situational awareness and operational control” at the U.S.-Mexico border;
• Increase the number of full-time Border Patrol agents to at least 22,000;
• Prohibit the use of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine Operations resources to transport noncitizens who will not be detained into the country’s interior;
• Build on Operation Stonegarden to appropriate $110 million per fiscal year — from 2024 through 2028 — for grants to law enforcement agencies working with U.S. immigration authorities near the U.S.’s land and maritime borders;
• Require the U.S. Border Patrol to pull together a strategic plan based in part on information provided by “border community stakeholders” such as hospitals, farmers, ranchers, property owners, victims of crimes done by undocumented immigrants, and others “negatively impacted by illegal immigration;”
• Pull funding for processing noncitizens who have entered the U.S. between ports of entry;
• Bar funds from being disbursed to NGOs that “facilitate[ ] or encourage[ ] unlawful activity,” defined to include unlawful entry, or that facilitate transportation, lodging, or immigration legal services for people who are inadmissible;
• Restrict the use of documents provided by DHS, such as notices to appear and work authorizations, as valid IDs at airport security checkpoints;
• Limit the CBP One phone application and other similar platforms to only be used for the inspection of perishable cargo, barring its use for the scheduling of immigration interviews for people at ports of entry;
• Mandate government reporting on migration-related economic and security ramifications to states and municipalities along the U.S.-Mexico border, including to law enforcement, school districts, healthcare providers, and farmers and ranchers; and
• Defund an alternatives to detention case management program and CBP’s shelter services program.

2. The bill would significantly limit asylum in the U.S.
H.R.2 would restrict both access to and eligibility for asylum. In particular, the bill would:

• Raise the initial screening standard so that a noncitizen would have to prove they were “more likely than not” to ultimately qualify for asylum in order to continue pursuing their protection claim and not be quickly removed from the U.S.;
• Ban the vast majority of asylum seekers from requesting protection at a U.S. border if they traveled through a third country en route to the U.S. and had not already been denied asylum there;
• Generally restrict asylum claims to only those migrants who arrive in the U.S. at an official port of entry;
• Add exclusions to asylum eligibility, including by enacting restrictions against those who unlawfully received a federal public benefit or could reasonably avoid persecution by relocating to a safer area within their home country;
• Deny employment authorization if an asylum seeker entered or tried to enter the U.S. at a place other than a port of entry;
• Impose a fee of not less than $50 to apply for asylum, which might make it harder to afford to make a protection claim;
• Narrow who qualifies for asylum based on their political opinion or membership in a particular social group, in ways that would curtail protection claims by generally excluding cases related to interpersonal violence, gang-related activity, or crime;
• Allow the DHS secretary to indefinitely suspend access to a land or maritime border for migrants who enter without admission or parole, misrepresent themselves to enter, or do not have valid documentation to enter, if doing so would help achieve “operational control;”
• Require the DHS secretary to expand detention capacity, including by potentially reopening detention facilities that have been closed or whose use has been altered during the Biden administration;
• Limit release from detention for asylum seekers with positive credible fear determinations, requiring immigration detention for the duration of their asylum adjudication process. With some cases taking multiple years, this provision would mean that some asylum seekers with credible claims could face lengthy periods of detention;
• Expand the use of programs modeled after the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), so that migrants are returned to Mexico or Canada pending their removal proceedings or reviews;
• Require the U.S. to negotiate an international agreement where the Mexican government would accept the continued presence of non-Mexican asylum seekers during their adjudications for asylum in the U.S., like under MPP; and
• Make other changes to current asylum procedures.

#THEBORDERISONMAGA

 

[Woodznutz]

I did. Learn to back up any claims your retarded brain comes up with.

I didn't make a claim, I asked a question.

 

[Magnus]

~~~~~~
No need. Democrat Neo Narxists filled the bill with so much Pork that the sausage it oinked and walked off the table.
Rather than discuss a Bill in Congress that did not pass muster, you have to wonder why Schumer shelved HR-2 the Secure the Border Bill..
That should make even you blush...

Summary of H.R. 2 (118th): Secure the Border Act of 2023 - GovTrack.us

Summary of H.R. 2 (118th): Secure the Border Act of 2023

www.govtrack.us

Retard. That isn't the Border Bill we are talking about. Try to keep up.