The word is that Johnson won’t bring it to the floor. I say send him a clean bill and see what happens
James Lankford and those sissy liberals from the Okie state hate America.
- Thread starter UTFO
- Start date
Democrats reject Johnson’s border demands as part of Ukraine aid package
House Democrats wasted no time this week rejecting Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) demands for strict new border security measures in return for Ukraine aid, posing the latest obstacle in Congress’s…
www.google.com
Democrats reject Johnson’s border demands as part of Ukraine aid package
House Democrats wasted no time this week rejecting Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) demands for strict new border security measures in return for Ukraine aid, posing the latest obstacle in Congress’s…
Johnson obviously can't control Republicans, as evidenced by the defeated impeachment of Mayorkas.Democrats reject Johnson’s border demands as part of Ukraine aid package
House Democrats wasted no time this week rejecting Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) demands for strict new border security measures in return for Ukraine aid, posing the latest obstacle in Congress’s…
Democrats vote as lemmings. Republicans don't.
He can't control the Freedom Caucus who are willing to burn the country down over Ukraine. It would appease Vlad.
It’s an invasion!!! It’s a crisis!!!
Yeah, let’s wait a year.
The commercials Dems can use are almost writing themselves.
Keep waiting.
Sorry, Marvin, I have no time for you, with that Vlad comment.
Hey, the Freedom Caucus are screwing us. I don't give a damn when you guys make fun of the squad. I'm sorry you think those Russian apologists deserve your support
It’s an invasion!!! It’s a crisis!!!
This is what Joe wanted but now it’s an election year and it turns out people REALLY don’t like it.
The commercials pubs can use are almost writing themselves.
I can see one now: Trump looks into the camera and says "I told them 7 years ago to build a wall and they finally agree, now that it's an election year. Don't be fooled"
My guess is the Senate will pass a Ukraine/Israel supplemental soon enough.
What happens after that with the House is the big unknown. MTG already promised to bring a motion to vacate the chair if Johnson brings an Ukraine bill to the floor. It would obviously pass by a huge margin. But that's not really the question.
If Ukrainian aid would pass and tighter border security is something republicans actually want then the 2 combined should easily pass.
I would respect sending help without authorization, but I am a radical at heart. The New Republicans will die on this issue as the consequences play out.
Can't really do that... Not to a significant extent. The funds from a supplemental appropriation will go to the Pentagon to buy more arms. Then we transfer arms out of current stock to Ukraine and use the funds from the supplemental to replenish
The question is, will Republicans that want aid stand up for a discharge petition. It puts them square in the spotlight of MTG and the rest.
I can't help but think Spartz would. But in August she demanded it be in a normal appropriations bill and not a stand alone bill. So who knows.
If you spent less time posting endlessly you would have time to read the bill.
Damn you have to be up early. Must suck.
Of course you like it. Circle cuck. Leader of the lefty tranny parade. Shocker
If you’ll notice circle cuck posted nothing about the bill only triggered personal. As he does to coh. He never posts anything on the subject only the poster bc he gets triggered by the right so attacks the poster and never with info re the topic at issue. I’ve posted extensively on the bill
Who gives a shit what Trump did or didn’t do. He sucks, & everyone measuring Biden’s effectiveness by what Trump did or didn’t do is failing to base Biden’s actions on what we need today, not when Trump was President 4 years ago. Biden can close the border now but doesn’t want to & is negligent in his duties as the head of the Executive Branch. Reform is needed, but not required to address today. A bill that is better than awful can still be terrible…A Border Security Bill Worth Passing
The Senate bill has reforms Trump never came close to getting.
By
The Editorial Board
Do Republicans want to better secure the U.S. border, or do they want to keep what has become an open sore festering for another year as an election issue? That’s the choice presented to Congress this week with the rollout of the Senate’s bipartisan border security bill, and we’ll soon learn what the GOP really wants.
By any honest reckoning, this is the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades. Previous immigration talks have involved trading security measures for legalizing more immigration. There is little of the latter in this bill—nothing for nearly all of the Dreamers who were brought here illegally as children, no general pathway to citizenship or green cards for most illegal immigrants already in the U.S.
This is almost entirely a border security bill, and its provisions include long-time GOP priorities that the party’s restrictionists could never have passed only a few months ago. Republicans demanded border measures last year as the price for passing military aid for Ukraine, Israel and Pacific allies. Democrats resisted at first but later agreed to negotiate and have made concessions that are infuriating the open-borders left. Will Republicans now abandon what they claimed to want?
The “all or nothing” fallacy. Deterrence is an important word. Besides, you don’t want 100% kept out, right? The tit for tat you’re advocating is bad for the country, but good for party.😞
This strategy is reprehensible. One has nothing to do with the other, shame on Johnson…Democrats reject Johnson’s border demands as part of Ukraine aid package
House Democrats wasted no time this week rejecting Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) demands for strict new border security measures in return for Ukraine aid, posing the latest obstacle in Congress’s…
That is simply not true.
Chip Roy (R-TX) yesterday:
"No, we’re not just going to pass the buck and say that, ‘Oh, any president can walk in and secure the border,’” Roy said, referring to Trump’s post. “All a president has to do is declare the border’s closed, and it’s closed. Well, with all due respect, that didn’t happen in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. There were millions of people that came in the United States during those four years."
Quick question.
If Biden were to wake up tomorrow and "close the border", does anybody here actually know what that means. I have to assume the border hasn't been "closed" since after 9/11, if it even was then.
Does "close the border" include Canada? Are we rescinding visas already set to begin in the coming weeks? Are we closing the border for asylum seekers only?
Methinks the adminstrative hell that closing the border would introduce is lost on a great many discussing htis topic.
I think they mean that during that period processing would only occur at the ports of entry. That alone seems a bargaining measure.
So really just shutting down asylum seekers. Border jumpers gonna border jump anyway. Those overstaying visas will continue to do so.
In a closed border scenario they just wouldn't be able to claim asylum upon capture nor do so at the port of entry.
I tend to agree that letting almost 2 million people a year into the country isn't tenable long term. I imagine the violence at the border would explode if we close the border though.
Well, 1400 is the new number "allowed" into the country. I'm not certain the overall number coming into the country will significantly decrease. A little but not by 20-30% or anything close to that.
Maybe we're better at handling the administrative/judicial hell of dealing with them once captured instead of at the border or through asylum claims. Just seems like we're shifting adminstrative hell from one group to another.
You tell me how to keep 100% out? Russia couldn't do it in Berlin with guards ordered to shoot to kill. People still made it to the west.
With everything we build systems to a tolerance. We do not build bridges to handle a billion tons of weight because we know there will never be a billion tons on them. We have a military built to fight two moderate-sized wars at the same time because we don't find it cost-effective to build a military to invade every nation on earth simultaneously. There is no way building a system to 0 is going to be cost-effective.
Without landmines and shoot-to-kill, 100% ain't going to happen. Trump achieved that on 0 days in his four years. We need to whittle the number down to manageable.
BTW, we hammer nations all the time to take more refugees. Ask Poland about Ukrainians.
I've said I'd lower the 5000 number, but no one has given me the dictatorial powers I requested. But under current law, a person walks up to any port of entry and says "asylum" has to be let in. I've linked that law, ask Mc if you don't believe me because I asked his opinion of my interpretation. That is also true of anyone who enters illegally, as long as they present themselves to authorities. This law changed that, for people after 5000. That number could be lower, I agree. But 5000 is less than 8000 which was our December average.
The bill that is dead would have also made it harder to win cases to get in. I'm not sure why that's bad either. If the bill had passed the Senate, the House could have amended and we could have something.
I don't think I am the "all or nothing" person. The House passed a bill with ONLY Republican talking points. No Democratic input was accepted. THAT is all or nothing. This bill is a compromise, Republicans and Democrats gave and took. That isn't all or nothing. And as I've said a million times, this would end up in a conference committee where it would be further negotiated. That isn't all or nothing. At no point have I said the House had to pass this bill exactly as written.
It’s dead. Rand Paul on the committee says it’s bad from top to bottom and should have never been presented
To clarify, the “all or nothing” is reference to your assertion that a wall wouldn’t be 100% effective & is therefore not worthwhile. Doesn’t need to be 100% effective, which is seemingly ok when it comes to the bill proposed, however.🤔
Thanks.
I disagree with walls, watched Patton often, “Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man.”
Shouldn’t be the first option, but unfortunately the millions coming across aren’t going to abide by the law & ask our permission first. There’s a fence around the White House too…
With regards to Patton, brilliant general, but a whacko…
Exactly. The wall is a force multiplier for the border patrol. That’s all it ever was.
Total whacko, but one of our better ones.
I like mobility. Many more agents, SUV's, all equipped with drones. They go out, surveil the area around them, move to where where there are groups.
But we need to get rid of the incentive. I saw that under Remain in Mexico almost no one won their case, far lower than the people who made it in. That doesn't incentivize not trying to get in. We actually need to make it easier to get in if you apply elsewhere. Maybe increase criteria for people who come in, reduce it for people applying outside.
Oh, for God's sake. Comparing the few each year who got out of East Germany to our southern border? You're not serious when you use that comparison.
No one is saying 100%, but building a barrier and enforcing it can keep things to a manageable level. As will escorting them back across the border immediately.
I have quoted the law, say asylum and we cannot escort them out. Read the law I posted, tell me where I am wrong.
