In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
> >> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
> >
> > The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
> > border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
> >
> > Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
> > address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.

> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?

I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
it again?

Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
goes:

> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
> good enough

Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
that's being generous.

Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
secure the border.

First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.

There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
this country. Period.

All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
start enforcing existing laws as they stand.

But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
solution, two things would happen:

(1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.

(2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.

So here we are.

The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
billion for U.S. border security.

So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
country.

And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
possible.

By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
come here in the first place.

One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.

Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.

The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.

And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
but claims must be processed at the ports."

So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
never-ending firehose of illegals.

In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
"significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
away if that's the standard.

The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
was even possible.

Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.

It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.

When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
going on at the border. There's no support for it.

Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
$100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
basic as enforcing the law here in America.

Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
an unreasonable thing for us to want.

In article <ryCFN.666133$p%Mb.661332@fx15.iad>, gmsingh@email.com wrote:
> On 3/4/24 3:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2024 at 10:08:34 PM PST, atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 2024 at 1:22:56 PM PST, "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/24 1:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>> But... the only reason this rape happened was because the boy put on a
>>>>> dress and all the female students were told that boys in dresses are now
>>>>> allowed to be in your restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and
>>>>> showers, your rights to privacy be damned.
>>>>
>>>> And yet a representative sampling of one still isn't statistically
>>>> significant.
>>>
>>> Weird you seemed to have forgotten about that when you posted about Nex
>>> Benedict, Hutt.
>>>
>>> You post about one anecdotal incident and it's supposed to have far-reaching
>>> implications. I post one in response and you vomit out your usual "a
>>> representative sampling of one still isn't statistically significant" tripe.
>>>
>>> Double standards. If you didn't have them, you'd have no standards at all.
>>
>> And "trotsky" has suddenly broken his compulsion to post a followup to
>> everything you post to RAT-U....
>
>Is that why I have the most posts in this thread?

Yes.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 3/4/24 12:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/24 1:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/24 12:46 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2024 11:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2024 at 1:05:42 AM PST, "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/after-nex-benedicts-death-lgbtq-oklahomans-vow-to-not-let-the-hate-take-over
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After Nex Benedict’s death, LGBTQ+ Oklahomans vow to 'not let the hate
>>>>>>> take over'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another low point in American history courtesy of Republicans.  This
>>>>>>> non-binary kid was beaten so severely in school that he died from his
>>>>>>> injuries. There should be a warning cry throughout the country from
>>>>>>> this but only one political party will have the balls to talk about it.
>>>>>>> Cowardice, ignorance, and no balls, that sums up the Republican side of
>>>>>>> the equation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another demographic you're curiously unconcerned about Hutt...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the last week alone, illegal aliens have been arrested for:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --⁠Murdering a college student in Georgia
>>>>>> --⁠Murdering a 2-year-old boy in Maryland
>>>>>> --⁠Raping a minor in Virginia
>>>>>> --Raping a minor at knifepoint in Louisiana
>>>>>> --Shooting three DC police officers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that's all down to Joe Biden's border policies. No Republicans to
>>>>>> blame so
>>>>>> Hutt doesn't care.
>>>>> Make you wonder what last week's top-five rap sheet would look like for
>>>>> any other demographic.  Well, maybe not Rhodes scholars...
>>>>>
>>>> Biden and the Dems HAVE a border solution, and it has enough votes to
>>>> pass both houses.
>>>
>>> That bill will allow 3000-5000 illegals per day to continue to flow
>>> unvetted into America. That's not a 'solution', that's merely codifying the
>>> chaos into law and it was rightly rejected.
>>>>
>>>> Republicans don't want a border solution, they want an issue to run on.
>>>
>>> And after three years of an absolute Dem-induced free-for-all at the border
>>> where more illegals than the population of Wisconsin were allowed to enter
>>> unchecked and unvetted, Dems suddenly decide to pretend they want to do
>>> something about it so that issue isn't available for Republicans to use
>>> against them.
>>>
>>> But even their 'solution' is no solution at all. Just more of the same but
>>> now the free-for-all would be legalized.
>>>
>> THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN SOLUTION, MORON.
>>
>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>
> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the border
> and stand down enforcement of immigration law.

When will the proof of this be extricated from your rectum?

> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to address
> illegal immigration are nothing but lies.

Yep, full MAGA mode: if you say it it has "credibility." Always has
been horseshit and always will be.

On 3/6/24 11:45 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>
>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>
>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>
>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>
> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
> ago,

Wow, really? What's the message ID, or is that stuck up your anus too?

which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
> it again?
>
> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
> goes:
>
>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>> good enough
>
> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
> that's being generous.
>
> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
> secure the border.
>
> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>
> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
> this country. Period.
>
> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>
> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
> solution, two things would happen:
>
> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>
> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>
> So here we are.
>
> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
> billion for U.S. border security.
>
> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
> country.
>
> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
> possible.
>
> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
> come here in the first place.
>
> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>
> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>
> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>
> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>
> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>
> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
> away if that's the standard.
>
> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
> was even possible.
>
> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>
> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>
> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>
> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>
> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
> an unreasonable thing for us to want.

On 3/6/24 9:32 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 3/5/24 5:33 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 3/4/24 3:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 2024 at 10:08:34 PM PST, atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 2024 at 1:22:56 PM PST, "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/24 1:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>   But... the only reason this rape happened was because the boy
>>>>>> put on a
>>>>>>   dress and all the female students were told that boys in dresses
>>>>>> are now
>>>>>>   allowed to be in your restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and
>>>>>>   showers, your rights to privacy be damned.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet a representative sampling of one still isn't statistically
>>>>> significant.
>>>>
>>>> Weird you seemed to have forgotten about that when you posted about Nex
>>>> Benedict, Hutt.
>>>>
>>>> You post about one anecdotal incident and it's supposed to have
>>>> far-reaching
>>>> implications. I post one in response and you vomit out your usual "a
>>>> representative sampling of one still isn't statistically
>>>> significant" tripe.
>>>>
>>>> Double standards. If you didn't have them, you'd have no standards
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>> And "trotsky" has suddenly broken his compulsion to post a followup to
>>> everything you post to RAT-U....
>>
>>
>> Fucked in the head as ever Pubie.  Is that why I have the most posts
>> in this thread?
>>
>
> Fuck, how is he still alive?

That guy has been posting since HAL the computer was invented.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:32:29 -0000 (UTC), "Moviepig"
<never@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 3/2/2024 2:16 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:37:32 -0500, moviePig <never@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *MY* plan might first determine whether transvestite men are actually
>>> *less* likely to be rapists than the male population as a whole.
>>
>> Surely it's completely obvious that one is too many....
>
>One in ten, yes. One in ten million, we should be so lucky...

OK, groomer.

On 3/6/24 10:49 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/4/2024 11:43 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/1/24 1:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/24 12:46 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 11:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2024 at 1:05:42 AM PST, "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/after-nex-benedicts-death-lgbtq-oklahomans-vow-to-not-let-the-hate-take-over
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After Nex Benedict’s death, LGBTQ+ Oklahomans vow to 'not let
>>>>>>>> the hate
>>>>>>>> take over'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another low point in American history courtesy of Republicans.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> non-binary kid was beaten so severely in school that he died
>>>>>>>> from his
>>>>>>>> injuries. There should be a warning cry throughout the country from
>>>>>>>> this but only one political party will have the balls to talk
>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>> Cowardice, ignorance, and no balls, that sums up the Republican
>>>>>>>> side of
>>>>>>>> the equation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another demographic you're curiously unconcerned about Hutt...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the last week alone, illegal aliens have been arrested for:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --⁠Murdering a college student in Georgia
>>>>>>> --⁠Murdering a 2-year-old boy in Maryland
>>>>>>> --⁠Raping a minor in Virginia
>>>>>>> --Raping a minor at knifepoint in Louisiana
>>>>>>> --Shooting three DC police officers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that's all down to Joe Biden's border policies. No
>>>>>>> Republicans to
>>>>>>> blame so
>>>>>>> Hutt doesn't care.
>>>>>> Make you wonder what last week's top-five rap sheet would look
>>>>>> like for
>>>>>> any other demographic.  Well, maybe not Rhodes scholars...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Biden and the Dems HAVE a border solution, and it has enough votes to
>>>>> pass both houses.
>>>>
>>>> That bill will allow 3000-5000 illegals per day to continue to flow
>>>> unvetted into America. That's not a 'solution', that's merely
>>>> codifying the
>>>> chaos into law and it was rightly rejected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Republicans don't want a border solution, they want an issue to run
>>>>> on.
>>>>
>>>> And after three years of an absolute Dem-induced free-for-all at the
>>>> border
>>>> where more illegals than the population of Wisconsin were allowed to
>>>> enter
>>>> unchecked and unvetted, Dems suddenly decide to pretend they want to do
>>>> something about it so that issue isn't available for Republicans to use
>>>> against them.
>>>>
>>>> But even their 'solution' is no solution at all. Just more of the
>>>> same but
>>>> now the free-for-all would be legalized.
>>>>
>>>
>>> THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN SOLUTION, MORON.
>>>
>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>
>> And those Republicans are lying just as much as the Dems are if they're
>> saying this bill actually secured the border and stops the firehose of
>> illegal aliens.
>
> The only clear lie here would be pretending that the bill was scuttled
> for any reason other than Trump's yearning for a campaign issue.
>
>

Some of the MOST conservative Republicans crafted this bill. Then they
voted against it when told to. Yes, by Trump.

Republicans won't pass ANYTHING because they don't have any other issues
to run on.

It's just THAT simple.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>
>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>
>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>
>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>
> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
> it again?
>
> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
> goes:
>
>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>> good enough
>
> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
> that's being generous.
>
> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
> secure the border.
>
> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>
> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
> this country. Period.
>
> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>
> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
> solution, two things would happen:
>
> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>
> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>
> So here we are.
>
> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
> billion for U.S. border security.
>
> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
> country.
>
> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
> possible.
>
> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
> come here in the first place.
>
> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>
> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>
> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>
> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>
> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>
> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
> away if that's the standard.
>
> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
> was even possible.
>
> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>
> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>
> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>
> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>
> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>

On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>
>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>
>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>
>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>
> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
> it again?
>
> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
> goes:
>
>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>> good enough
>
> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
> that's being generous.
>
> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
> secure the border.
>
> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>
> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
> this country. Period.
>
> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>
> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
> solution, two things would happen:
>
> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>
> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>
> So here we are.
>
> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
> billion for U.S. border security.
>
> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
> country.
>
> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
> possible.
>
> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
> come here in the first place.
>
> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>
> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>
> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>
> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>
> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>
> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
> away if that's the standard.
>
> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
> was even possible.
>
> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>
> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>
> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>
> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>
> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>

In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
> >>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
> >>>
> >>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
> >>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
> >>>
> >>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
> >>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
> >
> >> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
> >
> > I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
> > ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
> > Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
> > it again?
> >
> > Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
> > goes:
> >
> >> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
> >> good enough
> >
> > Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
> > to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
> > next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
> > that's being generous.
> >
> > Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
> > month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
> > in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
> > their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
> > secure the border.
> >
> > First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
> > the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
> > Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
> > authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
> > determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
> > There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
> > claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
> >
> > There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
> > this country. Period.
> >
> > All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
> > United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
> > start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
> > constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
> > start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
> >
> > But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
> > solution, two things would happen:
> >
> > (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
> > once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
> > citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
> > described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
> > can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
> > plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
> >
> > (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
> > of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
> >
> > So here we are.
> >
> > The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
> > dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
> > already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
> > that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
> > their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
> > borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
> > billion for U.S. border security.
> >
> > So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
> > proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
> > other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
> > country.
> >
> > And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
> > our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
> > of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
> > allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
> > assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
> > organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
> > linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
> > legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
> > assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
> > billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
> > principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
> > possible.
> >
> > By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
> > come here in the first place.
> >
> > One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
> > Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
> > illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
> >
> > Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
> > emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
> > will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
> > just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
> >
> > The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
> > than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
> > In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
> > Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
> > of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
> >
> > And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
> > if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
> > bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
> > requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
> > entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
> > but claims must be processed at the ports."
> >
> > So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
> > never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
> > where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
> > design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
> > bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
> > re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
> > crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
> > never-ending firehose of illegals.
> >
> > In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
> > already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
> > now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
> > that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
> > race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
> > doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
> > Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
> > rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
> > lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
> > "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
> > possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
> > 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
> > clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
> > away if that's the standard.
> >
> > The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
> > already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
> > was even possible.
> >
> > Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
> > it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
> > anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
> >
> > It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
> > citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
> > countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
> >
> > When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
> > don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
> > for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
> > would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
> > Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
> > going on at the border. There's no support for it.
> >
> > Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
> > $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
> > basic as enforcing the law here in America.
> >
> > Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
> > vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
> > of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
> > our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
> > an unreasonable thing for us to want.

On 3/8/2024 7:42 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 3/6/24 10:49 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 3/4/2024 11:43 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/24 1:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/24 12:46 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 11:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2024 at 1:05:42 AM PST, "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/after-nex-benedicts-death-lgbtq-oklahomans-vow-to-not-let-the-hate-take-over
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After Nex Benedict’s death, LGBTQ+ Oklahomans vow to 'not let
>>>>>>>>> the hate
>>>>>>>>> take over'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another low point in American history courtesy of Republicans.
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> non-binary kid was beaten so severely in school that he died
>>>>>>>>> from his
>>>>>>>>> injuries. There should be a warning cry throughout the country
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> this but only one political party will have the balls to talk
>>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>>> Cowardice, ignorance, and no balls, that sums up the Republican
>>>>>>>>> side of
>>>>>>>>> the equation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another demographic you're curiously unconcerned about Hutt...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the last week alone, illegal aliens have been arrested for:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --⁠Murdering a college student in Georgia
>>>>>>>> --⁠Murdering a 2-year-old boy in Maryland
>>>>>>>> --⁠Raping a minor in Virginia
>>>>>>>> --Raping a minor at knifepoint in Louisiana
>>>>>>>> --Shooting three DC police officers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that's all down to Joe Biden's border policies. No
>>>>>>>> Republicans to
>>>>>>>> blame so
>>>>>>>> Hutt doesn't care.
>>>>>>> Make you wonder what last week's top-five rap sheet would look
>>>>>>> like for
>>>>>>> any other demographic.  Well, maybe not Rhodes scholars...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Biden and the Dems HAVE a border solution, and it has enough votes to
>>>>>> pass both houses.
>>>>>
>>>>> That bill will allow 3000-5000 illegals per day to continue to flow
>>>>> unvetted into America. That's not a 'solution', that's merely
>>>>> codifying the
>>>>> chaos into law and it was rightly rejected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Republicans don't want a border solution, they want an issue to
>>>>>> run on.
>>>>>
>>>>> And after three years of an absolute Dem-induced free-for-all at
>>>>> the border
>>>>> where more illegals than the population of Wisconsin were allowed
>>>>> to enter
>>>>> unchecked and unvetted, Dems suddenly decide to pretend they want
>>>>> to do
>>>>> something about it so that issue isn't available for Republicans to
>>>>> use
>>>>> against them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But even their 'solution' is no solution at all. Just more of the
>>>>> same but
>>>>> now the free-for-all would be legalized.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN SOLUTION, MORON.
>>>>
>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>
>>> And those Republicans are lying just as much as the Dems are if they're
>>> saying this bill actually secured the border and stops the firehose of
>>> illegal aliens.
>>
>> The only clear lie here would be pretending that the bill was scuttled
>> for any reason other than Trump's yearning for a campaign issue.
>>
>>
>
> Some of the MOST conservative Republicans crafted this bill.  Then they
> voted against it when told to.  Yes, by Trump.
>
> Republicans won't pass ANYTHING because they don't have any other issues
> to run on.
>
> It's just THAT simple.

I'm especially nervous when someone who want that kind of power gets it.

On 3/8/24 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>>>
>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>>>
>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
>>> it again?
>>>
>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
>>> goes:
>>>
>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>>>> good enough
>>>
>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
>>> that's being generous.
>>>
>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
>>> secure the border.
>>>
>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>>>
>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
>>> this country. Period.
>>>
>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>>>
>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
>>> solution, two things would happen:
>>>
>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>>>
>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>>>
>>> So here we are.
>>>
>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
>>> billion for U.S. border security.
>>>
>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
>>> country.
>>>
>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
>>> come here in the first place.
>>>
>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>>>
>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>>>
>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>>>
>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>>>
>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>>>
>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
>>> away if that's the standard.
>>>
>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
>>> was even possible.
>>>
>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>>>
>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>>>
>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>>>
>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>>>
>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>
>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
>
> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
>
> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
> to any of it. Again.
>
> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.

On 3/6/24 9:32 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 3/5/24 5:33 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 3/4/24 3:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 2024 at 10:08:34 PM PST, atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 2024 at 1:22:56 PM PST, "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/24 1:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>   But... the only reason this rape happened was because the boy
>>>>>> put on a
>>>>>>   dress and all the female students were told that boys in dresses
>>>>>> are now
>>>>>>   allowed to be in your restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and
>>>>>>   showers, your rights to privacy be damned.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet a representative sampling of one still isn't statistically
>>>>> significant.
>>>>
>>>> Weird you seemed to have forgotten about that when you posted about Nex
>>>> Benedict, Hutt.
>>>>
>>>> You post about one anecdotal incident and it's supposed to have
>>>> far-reaching
>>>> implications. I post one in response and you vomit out your usual "a
>>>> representative sampling of one still isn't statistically
>>>> significant" tripe.
>>>>
>>>> Double standards. If you didn't have them, you'd have no standards
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>> And "trotsky" has suddenly broken his compulsion to post a followup to
>>> everything you post to RAT-U....
>>
>>
>> Fucked in the head as ever Pubie.  Is that why I have the most posts
>> in this thread?
>>
>
> Fuck, how is he still alive?

He might not be, it might be Artificial Lack of Intelligence. (ALoI)

On 3/8/24 9:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>>>
>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>>>
>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
>>> it again?
>>>
>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
>>> goes:
>>>
>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>>>> good enough
>>>
>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
>>> that's being generous.
>>>
>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
>>> secure the border.
>>>
>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>>>
>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
>>> this country. Period.
>>>
>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>>>
>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
>>> solution, two things would happen:
>>>
>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>>>
>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>>>
>>> So here we are.
>>>
>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
>>> billion for U.S. border security.
>>>
>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
>>> country.
>>>
>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
>>> come here in the first place.
>>>
>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>>>
>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>>>
>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>>>
>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>>>
>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>>>
>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
>>> away if that's the standard.
>>>
>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
>>> was even possible.
>>>
>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>>>
>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>>>
>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>>>
>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>>>
>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>
>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
>
> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
>
> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
> to any of it. Again.
>
> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
>

On 3/9/24 6:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/8/24 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>>>>
>>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>>>>
>>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
>>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
>>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
>>>> it again?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
>>>> goes:
>>>>
>>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>>>>> good enough
>>>>
>>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
>>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
>>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
>>>> that's being generous.
>>>>
>>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border
>>>> every
>>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of
>>>> prison
>>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
>>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
>>>> secure the border.
>>>>
>>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is
>>>> necessary in
>>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
>>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
>>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
>>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include
>>>> refugees.
>>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
>>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>>>>
>>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
>>>> this country. Period.
>>>>
>>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
>>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
>>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
>>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just
>>>> need to
>>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>>>>
>>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
>>>> solution, two things would happen:
>>>>
>>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal
>>>> voters
>>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
>>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
>>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society
>>>> which
>>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
>>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
>>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>>>>
>>>> So here we are.
>>>>
>>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
>>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
>>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing
>>>> with
>>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion
>>>> more on
>>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure
>>>> the
>>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
>>>> billion for U.S. border security.
>>>>
>>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders
>>>> are
>>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
>>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
>>>> country.
>>>>
>>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
>>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
>>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
>>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
>>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
>>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
>>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
>>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
>>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
>>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
>>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
>>>> come here in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
>>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
>>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>>>>
>>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
>>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
>>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
>>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>>>>
>>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
>>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
>>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
>>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have
>>>> 20,000
>>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>>>>
>>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
>>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
>>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
>>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land
>>>> ports of
>>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never
>>>> closes
>>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>>>>
>>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
>>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
>>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
>>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
>>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
>>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
>>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
>>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>>>>
>>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
>>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
>>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
>>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
>>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
>>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
>>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
>>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
>>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
>>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
>>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of
>>>> saying
>>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
>>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
>>>> away if that's the standard.
>>>>
>>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
>>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people
>>>> imagined
>>>> was even possible.
>>>>
>>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
>>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
>>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>>>>
>>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
>>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
>>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>>>>
>>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border,
>>>> they
>>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
>>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
>>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
>>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
>>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>>>>
>>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
>>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
>>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
>>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
>>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
>>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
>>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>>
>>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
>>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
>>
>> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
>> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
>>
>> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
>> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
>> to any of it. Again.
>>
>> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
>> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
>
>
> You sound very butthurt.  "Bad for America" in one portion doesn't
> equate to "kill the entire bill."  Do you have anything to report that
> isn't horseshit?

On 3/8/24 10:24 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/8/2024 7:42 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 10:49 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2024 11:43 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/24 1:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/29/24 12:46 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 11:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2024 at 1:05:42 AM PST, "trotsky"
>>>>>>>>> <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/after-nex-benedicts-death-lgbtq-oklahomans-vow-to-not-let-the-hate-take-over
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After Nex Benedict’s death, LGBTQ+ Oklahomans vow to 'not let
>>>>>>>>>> the hate
>>>>>>>>>> take over'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Another low point in American history courtesy of Republicans.
>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>> non-binary kid was beaten so severely in school that he died
>>>>>>>>>> from his
>>>>>>>>>> injuries. There should be a warning cry throughout the country
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> this but only one political party will have the balls to talk
>>>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>>>> Cowardice, ignorance, and no balls, that sums up the
>>>>>>>>>> Republican side of
>>>>>>>>>> the equation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another demographic you're curiously unconcerned about Hutt...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the last week alone, illegal aliens have been arrested for:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --⁠Murdering a college student in Georgia
>>>>>>>>> --⁠Murdering a 2-year-old boy in Maryland
>>>>>>>>> --⁠Raping a minor in Virginia
>>>>>>>>> --Raping a minor at knifepoint in Louisiana
>>>>>>>>> --Shooting three DC police officers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that's all down to Joe Biden's border policies. No
>>>>>>>>> Republicans to
>>>>>>>>> blame so
>>>>>>>>> Hutt doesn't care.
>>>>>>>> Make you wonder what last week's top-five rap sheet would look
>>>>>>>> like for
>>>>>>>> any other demographic.  Well, maybe not Rhodes scholars...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Biden and the Dems HAVE a border solution, and it has enough
>>>>>>> votes to
>>>>>>> pass both houses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That bill will allow 3000-5000 illegals per day to continue to flow
>>>>>> unvetted into America. That's not a 'solution', that's merely
>>>>>> codifying the
>>>>>> chaos into law and it was rightly rejected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Republicans don't want a border solution, they want an issue to
>>>>>>> run on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And after three years of an absolute Dem-induced free-for-all at
>>>>>> the border
>>>>>> where more illegals than the population of Wisconsin were allowed
>>>>>> to enter
>>>>>> unchecked and unvetted, Dems suddenly decide to pretend they want
>>>>>> to do
>>>>>> something about it so that issue isn't available for Republicans
>>>>>> to use
>>>>>> against them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even their 'solution' is no solution at all. Just more of the
>>>>>> same but
>>>>>> now the free-for-all would be legalized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN SOLUTION, MORON.
>>>>>
>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>>
>>>> And those Republicans are lying just as much as the Dems are if they're
>>>> saying this bill actually secured the border and stops the firehose of
>>>> illegal aliens.
>>>
>>> The only clear lie here would be pretending that the bill was
>>> scuttled for any reason other than Trump's yearning for a campaign
>>> issue.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Some of the MOST conservative Republicans crafted this bill.  Then
>> they voted against it when told to.  Yes, by Trump.
>>
>> Republicans won't pass ANYTHING because they don't have any other
>> issues to run on.
>>
>> It's just THAT simple.
>
> I'm especially nervous when someone who want that kind of power gets it.

Don't be, pig. You KNOW what they're going to do because they TOLD you
exactly what that was.

Dingus wants to be a dictator. He's said it over and over and over again.

He's going to use the DOJ to persecute anybody that doesn't agree with
him. He's said it over and over and over again.

He's going to put the military into our streets to suppress groups that
oppose him. He's said it over and over and over again.

And he's never fucking leaving. He's said that too.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

In article <uskdb8$300lk$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > On 3/8/24 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
> >>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
> >>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
> >>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
> >>>>
> >>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
> >>>>
> >>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
> >>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
> >>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
> >>>> it again?
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
> >>>> goes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
> >>>>> good enough
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
> >>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
> >>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
> >>>> that's being generous.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border
> >>>> every
> >>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of
> >>>> prison
> >>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
> >>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
> >>>> secure the border.
> >>>>
> >>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is
> >>>> necessary in
> >>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
> >>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
> >>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
> >>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include
> >>>> refugees.
> >>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
> >>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
> >>>> this country. Period.
> >>>>
> >>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
> >>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
> >>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
> >>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just
> >>>> need to
> >>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
> >>>>
> >>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
> >>>> solution, two things would happen:
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal
> >>>> voters
> >>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
> >>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
> >>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society
> >>>> which
> >>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
> >>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
> >>>>
> >>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
> >>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
> >>>>
> >>>> So here we are.
> >>>>
> >>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
> >>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
> >>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing
> >>>> with
> >>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion
> >>>> more on
> >>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure
> >>>> the
> >>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
> >>>> billion for U.S. border security.
> >>>>
> >>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders
> >>>> are
> >>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
> >>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
> >>>> country.
> >>>>
> >>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
> >>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
> >>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
> >>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
> >>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
> >>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
> >>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
> >>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
> >>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
> >>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
> >>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
> >>>> possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
> >>>> come here in the first place.
> >>>>
> >>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
> >>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
> >>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
> >>>>
> >>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
> >>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
> >>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
> >>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
> >>>>
> >>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
> >>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
> >>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
> >>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have
> >>>> 20,000
> >>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
> >>>>
> >>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
> >>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
> >>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
> >>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land
> >>>> ports of
> >>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never
> >>>> closes
> >>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
> >>>>
> >>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
> >>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
> >>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
> >>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
> >>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
> >>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
> >>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
> >>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
> >>>>
> >>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
> >>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
> >>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
> >>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
> >>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
> >>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
> >>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
> >>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
> >>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
> >>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
> >>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of
> >>>> saying
> >>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
> >>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
> >>>> away if that's the standard.
> >>>>
> >>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
> >>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people
> >>>> imagined
> >>>> was even possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
> >>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
> >>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
> >>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
> >>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
> >>>>
> >>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border,
> >>>> they
> >>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
> >>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
> >>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
> >>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
> >>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
> >>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
> >>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
> >>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
> >>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
> >>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
> >>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
> >>
> >>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
> >>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
> >>
> >> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
> >> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
> >>
> >> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
> >> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
> >> to any of it. Again.
> >>
> >> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
> >> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.

In article <uskd6v$300lk$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3/8/24 9:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
> >>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
> >>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
> >>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
> >>>
> >>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
> >>>
> >>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
> >>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
> >>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
> >>> it again?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
> >>> goes:
> >>>
> >>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
> >>>> good enough
> >>>
> >>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
> >>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
> >>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
> >>> that's being generous.
> >>>
> >>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
> >>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
> >>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
> >>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
> >>> secure the border.
> >>>
> >>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
> >>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
> >>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
> >>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
> >>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
> >>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
> >>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
> >>>
> >>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
> >>> this country. Period.
> >>>
> >>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
> >>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
> >>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
> >>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
> >>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
> >>>
> >>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
> >>> solution, two things would happen:
> >>>
> >>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
> >>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
> >>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
> >>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
> >>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
> >>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
> >>>
> >>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
> >>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
> >>>
> >>> So here we are.
> >>>
> >>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
> >>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
> >>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
> >>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
> >>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
> >>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
> >>> billion for U.S. border security.
> >>>
> >>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
> >>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
> >>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
> >>> country.
> >>>
> >>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
> >>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
> >>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
> >>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
> >>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
> >>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
> >>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
> >>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
> >>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
> >>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
> >>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
> >>> possible.
> >>>
> >>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
> >>> come here in the first place.
> >>>
> >>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
> >>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
> >>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
> >>>
> >>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
> >>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
> >>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
> >>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
> >>>
> >>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
> >>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
> >>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
> >>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
> >>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
> >>>
> >>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
> >>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
> >>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
> >>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
> >>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
> >>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
> >>>
> >>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
> >>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
> >>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
> >>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
> >>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
> >>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
> >>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
> >>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
> >>>
> >>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
> >>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
> >>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
> >>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
> >>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
> >>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
> >>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
> >>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
> >>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
> >>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
> >>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
> >>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
> >>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
> >>> away if that's the standard.
> >>>
> >>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
> >>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
> >>> was even possible.
> >>>
> >>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
> >>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
> >>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
> >>>
> >>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
> >>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
> >>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
> >>>
> >>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
> >>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
> >>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
> >>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
> >>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
> >>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
> >>>
> >>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
> >>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
> >>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
> >>>
> >>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
> >>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
> >>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
> >>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
> >>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
> >
> >> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
> >> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
> >
> > What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
> > before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
> >
> > Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
> > the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
> > to any of it. Again.
> >
> > Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
> > about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
> >
> Because your excuses are BULLSHIT.

On 3/10/24 1:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uskdb8$300lk$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On 3/8/24 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>>>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>>>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
>>>>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
>>>>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
>>>>>> it again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
>>>>>> goes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>>>>>>> good enough
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
>>>>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
>>>>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
>>>>>> that's being generous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of
>>>>>> prison
>>>>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
>>>>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
>>>>>> secure the border.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is
>>>>>> necessary in
>>>>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
>>>>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
>>>>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
>>>>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include
>>>>>> refugees.
>>>>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
>>>>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
>>>>>> this country. Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
>>>>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
>>>>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
>>>>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just
>>>>>> need to
>>>>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
>>>>>> solution, two things would happen:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal
>>>>>> voters
>>>>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
>>>>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
>>>>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
>>>>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
>>>>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So here we are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
>>>>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
>>>>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion
>>>>>> more on
>>>>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
>>>>>> billion for U.S. border security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
>>>>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
>>>>>> country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
>>>>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
>>>>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
>>>>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
>>>>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
>>>>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
>>>>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
>>>>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
>>>>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
>>>>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
>>>>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
>>>>>> come here in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
>>>>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
>>>>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
>>>>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
>>>>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
>>>>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
>>>>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
>>>>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
>>>>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have
>>>>>> 20,000
>>>>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
>>>>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
>>>>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
>>>>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land
>>>>>> ports of
>>>>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never
>>>>>> closes
>>>>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
>>>>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
>>>>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
>>>>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
>>>>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
>>>>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
>>>>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
>>>>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
>>>>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
>>>>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
>>>>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
>>>>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
>>>>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
>>>>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
>>>>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
>>>>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
>>>>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
>>>>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of
>>>>>> saying
>>>>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
>>>>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
>>>>>> away if that's the standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
>>>>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people
>>>>>> imagined
>>>>>> was even possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
>>>>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
>>>>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
>>>>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
>>>>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
>>>>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
>>>>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
>>>>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
>>>>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
>>>>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
>>>>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
>>>>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
>>>>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
>>>>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
>>>>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>>>>
>>>>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
>>>>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
>>>>
>>>> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
>>>> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
>>>> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
>>>> to any of it. Again.
>>>>
>>>> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
>>>> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
>
>> They don't like their own bill because Donald Trump TOLD them not to
>> like it.
>
> Sure. If it wasn't for Trump giving me orders, I'd *love* the idea of
> 8000 unvetted illegals per day streaming into the country.

On 3/10/24 2:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uskd6v$300lk$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/24 9:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>>>>>
>>>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
>>>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
>>>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
>>>>> it again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
>>>>> goes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>>>>>> good enough
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
>>>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
>>>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
>>>>> that's being generous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
>>>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
>>>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
>>>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
>>>>> secure the border.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
>>>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
>>>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
>>>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
>>>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
>>>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
>>>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
>>>>> this country. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
>>>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
>>>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
>>>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
>>>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
>>>>> solution, two things would happen:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
>>>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
>>>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
>>>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
>>>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
>>>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
>>>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So here we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
>>>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
>>>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
>>>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
>>>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
>>>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
>>>>> billion for U.S. border security.
>>>>>
>>>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
>>>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
>>>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
>>>>> country.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
>>>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
>>>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
>>>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
>>>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
>>>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
>>>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
>>>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
>>>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
>>>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
>>>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
>>>>> come here in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
>>>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
>>>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
>>>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
>>>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
>>>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
>>>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
>>>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
>>>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
>>>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>>>>>
>>>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
>>>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
>>>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
>>>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
>>>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
>>>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>>>>>
>>>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
>>>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
>>>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
>>>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
>>>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
>>>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
>>>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
>>>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>>>>>
>>>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
>>>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
>>>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
>>>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
>>>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
>>>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
>>>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
>>>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
>>>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
>>>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
>>>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
>>>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
>>>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
>>>>> away if that's the standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
>>>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
>>>>> was even possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
>>>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
>>>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
>>>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
>>>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
>>>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
>>>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
>>>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
>>>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
>>>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
>>>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
>>>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
>>>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
>>>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
>>>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
>>>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>>>
>>>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
>>>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
>>>
>>> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
>>> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
>>>
>>> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
>>> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
>>> to any of it. Again.
>>>
>>> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
>>> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
>>>
>> Because your excuses are BULLSHIT.
>
> Nothing I wrote above is an excuse. It's a description of what's
> actually in the bill. You won't address it because you know you can't
> defend it.
>
>> YOU fuckers crafted the fucking bill. If it blows, it blows because
>> YOU fuckers made it blow.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry. You seem to be under the impression I've been in
> Washington DC lately writing legislation. *I* didn't do anything and
> since I'm not a partisan simp like you, I can criticize politicians when
> they do stupid shit even when they're on my 'side'.
>
> I don't care who wrote the damn thing or who was bribed to say it's a
> good thing when they know it's not. Legalize the flow of millions of
> unvetted illegals per year into the country is objectively *not* a good
> thing and this Orwellian shit where we pretend the border is secure
> merely because we passed a bill to legalize the chaos is the height of
> absurdity.
>
>> You asked for what you wanted. Dems said yes.
>
> No, they didn't or the border would be secure. The Dems sure as shit
> didn't give me what *I* wanted.

On 3/10/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uskdb8$300lk$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On 3/8/24 8:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>>>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>>>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
>>>>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
>>>>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
>>>>>> it again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
>>>>>> goes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>>>>>>> good enough
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
>>>>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
>>>>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
>>>>>> that's being generous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of
>>>>>> prison
>>>>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
>>>>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
>>>>>> secure the border.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is
>>>>>> necessary in
>>>>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
>>>>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
>>>>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
>>>>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include
>>>>>> refugees.
>>>>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
>>>>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
>>>>>> this country. Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
>>>>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
>>>>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
>>>>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just
>>>>>> need to
>>>>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
>>>>>> solution, two things would happen:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal
>>>>>> voters
>>>>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
>>>>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
>>>>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
>>>>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
>>>>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So here we are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
>>>>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
>>>>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion
>>>>>> more on
>>>>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
>>>>>> billion for U.S. border security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
>>>>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
>>>>>> country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
>>>>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
>>>>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
>>>>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
>>>>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
>>>>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
>>>>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
>>>>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
>>>>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
>>>>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
>>>>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
>>>>>> come here in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
>>>>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
>>>>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
>>>>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
>>>>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
>>>>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
>>>>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
>>>>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
>>>>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have
>>>>>> 20,000
>>>>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
>>>>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
>>>>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
>>>>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land
>>>>>> ports of
>>>>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never
>>>>>> closes
>>>>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
>>>>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
>>>>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
>>>>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
>>>>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
>>>>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
>>>>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
>>>>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
>>>>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
>>>>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
>>>>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
>>>>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
>>>>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
>>>>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
>>>>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
>>>>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
>>>>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
>>>>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of
>>>>>> saying
>>>>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
>>>>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
>>>>>> away if that's the standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
>>>>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people
>>>>>> imagined
>>>>>> was even possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
>>>>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
>>>>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
>>>>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
>>>>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
>>>>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
>>>>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
>>>>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
>>>>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
>>>>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
>>>>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
>>>>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
>>>>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
>>>>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
>>>>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>>>>
>>>>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
>>>>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
>>>>
>>>> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
>>>> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
>>>> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
>>>> to any of it. Again.
>>>>
>>>> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
>>>> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
>
>> They don't like their own bill because Donald Trump TOLD them not to
>> like it.
>
> Sure. If it wasn't for Trump giving me orders, I'd *love* the idea of
> 8000 unvetted illegals per day streaming into the country.
>
> You're a joke.
>

On 3/10/24 3:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uskd6v$300lk$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/24 9:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
>>>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
>>>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
>>>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>>>>>
>>>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
>>>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
>>>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
>>>>> it again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
>>>>> goes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>>>>>> good enough
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
>>>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
>>>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
>>>>> that's being generous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
>>>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
>>>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
>>>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
>>>>> secure the border.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
>>>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
>>>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
>>>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
>>>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
>>>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
>>>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
>>>>> this country. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
>>>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
>>>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
>>>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
>>>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
>>>>> solution, two things would happen:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
>>>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
>>>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
>>>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
>>>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
>>>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
>>>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So here we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
>>>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
>>>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
>>>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
>>>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
>>>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
>>>>> billion for U.S. border security.
>>>>>
>>>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
>>>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
>>>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
>>>>> country.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
>>>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
>>>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
>>>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
>>>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
>>>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
>>>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
>>>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
>>>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
>>>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
>>>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
>>>>> come here in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
>>>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
>>>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
>>>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
>>>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
>>>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
>>>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
>>>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
>>>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
>>>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>>>>>
>>>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
>>>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
>>>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
>>>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
>>>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
>>>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>>>>>
>>>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
>>>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
>>>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
>>>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
>>>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
>>>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
>>>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
>>>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>>>>>
>>>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
>>>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
>>>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
>>>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
>>>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
>>>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
>>>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
>>>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
>>>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
>>>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
>>>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
>>>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
>>>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
>>>>> away if that's the standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
>>>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
>>>>> was even possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
>>>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
>>>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
>>>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
>>>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
>>>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
>>>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
>>>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
>>>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
>>>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
>>>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
>>>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
>>>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
>>>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
>>>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
>>>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>>>
>>>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
>>>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
>>>
>>> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
>>> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
>>>
>>> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
>>> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
>>> to any of it. Again.
>>>
>>> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
>>> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
>>>
>> Because your excuses are BULLSHIT.
>
> Nothing I wrote above is an excuse. It's a description of what's
> actually in the bill. You won't address it because you know you can't
> defend it.
>
>> YOU fuckers crafted the fucking bill. If it blows, it blows because
>> YOU fuckers made it blow.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry. You seem to be under the impression I've been in
> Washington DC lately writing legislation. *I* didn't do anything and
> since I'm not a partisan simp like you, I can criticize politicians when
> they do stupid shit even when they're on my 'side'.
>
> I don't care who wrote the damn thing or who was bribed to say it's a
> good thing when they know it's not. Legalize the flow of millions of
> unvetted illegals per year into the country is objectively *not* a good
> thing and this Orwellian shit where we pretend the border is secure
> merely because we passed a bill to legalize the chaos is the height of
> absurdity.
>
>> You asked for what you wanted. Dems said yes.
>
> No, they didn't or the border would be secure. The Dems sure as shit
> didn't give me what *I* wanted.
>

On 3/11/2024 8:26 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 3/10/24 3:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <uskd6v$300lk$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/8/24 9:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to
>>>>>>>> open the
>>>>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he
>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
>>>>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
>>>>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to
>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>> it again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so
>>>>>> here
>>>>>> goes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
>>>>>>> good enough
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're
>>>>>> referring
>>>>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
>>>>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
>>>>>> that's being generous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of
>>>>>> prison
>>>>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
>>>>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely
>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>> secure the border.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is
>>>>>> necessary in
>>>>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
>>>>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
>>>>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
>>>>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include
>>>>>> refugees.
>>>>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent
>>>>>> asylum
>>>>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
>>>>>> this country. Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
>>>>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
>>>>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
>>>>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just
>>>>>> need to
>>>>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and
>>>>>> straightforward
>>>>>> solution, two things would happen:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal
>>>>>> voters
>>>>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
>>>>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
>>>>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
>>>>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of
>>>>>> millions
>>>>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So here we are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
>>>>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
>>>>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been
>>>>>> doing with
>>>>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion
>>>>>> more on
>>>>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to
>>>>>> secure the
>>>>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates
>>>>>> $20
>>>>>> billion for U.S. border security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our
>>>>>> leaders are
>>>>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
>>>>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of
>>>>>> our own
>>>>>> country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
>>>>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the
>>>>>> entry
>>>>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the
>>>>>> bill
>>>>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
>>>>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
>>>>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
>>>>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
>>>>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
>>>>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
>>>>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that
>>>>>> exist
>>>>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this
>>>>>> country as
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for
>>>>>> illegals to
>>>>>> come here in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
>>>>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
>>>>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
>>>>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
>>>>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could
>>>>>> effectively
>>>>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
>>>>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border
>>>>>> closings.
>>>>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti,
>>>>>> Cuba,
>>>>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have
>>>>>> 20,000
>>>>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border,
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
>>>>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
>>>>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land
>>>>>> ports of
>>>>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never
>>>>>> closes
>>>>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
>>>>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
>>>>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
>>>>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
>>>>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
>>>>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
>>>>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
>>>>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
>>>>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country.
>>>>>> Right
>>>>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant
>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the
>>>>>> basis of
>>>>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high
>>>>>> standard. It
>>>>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
>>>>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which
>>>>>> they've
>>>>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
>>>>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
>>>>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
>>>>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of
>>>>>> saying
>>>>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
>>>>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get
>>>>>> turned
>>>>>> away if that's the standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure
>>>>>> than it
>>>>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people
>>>>>> imagined
>>>>>> was even possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
>>>>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
>>>>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
>>>>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the
>>>>>> border, they
>>>>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a
>>>>>> racist
>>>>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
>>>>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
>>>>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
>>>>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a
>>>>>> nearly
>>>>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do
>>>>>> something as
>>>>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign
>>>>>> countries
>>>>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a
>>>>>> fraction
>>>>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans
>>>>>> want
>>>>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It
>>>>>> is not
>>>>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
>>>>
>>>>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in
>>>>> WWII if
>>>>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
>>>>
>>>> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
>>>> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
>>>> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
>>>> to any of it. Again.
>>>>
>>>> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
>>>> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
>>>>
>>> Because your excuses are BULLSHIT.
>>
>> Nothing I wrote above is an excuse. It's a description of what's
>> actually in the bill. You won't address it because you know you can't
>> defend it.
>>
>>> YOU fuckers crafted the fucking bill. If it blows, it blows because
>>> YOU fuckers made it blow.
>>
>> Oh, I'm sorry. You seem to be under the impression I've been in
>> Washington DC lately writing legislation. *I* didn't do anything and
>> since I'm not a partisan simp like you, I can criticize politicians when
>> they do stupid shit even when they're on my 'side'.
>>
>> I don't care who wrote the damn thing or who was bribed to say it's a
>> good thing when they know it's not. Legalize the flow of millions of
>> unvetted illegals per year into the country is objectively *not* a good
>> thing and this Orwellian shit where we pretend the border is secure
>> merely because we passed a bill to legalize the chaos is the height of
>> absurdity.
>>
>>> You asked for what you wanted.  Dems said yes.
>>
>> No, they didn't or the border would be secure. The Dems sure as shit
>> didn't give me what *I* wanted.
>>
>
>
> Republicans wrote the bill.  YOU clowns WROTE THE BILL.
> It's YOUR wishlist.
>
> Then you clowns killed it because you were TOLD to by a Reality TV Show
> Host.
>
> How fucking pathetic is that?

In article <usmtaj$3ju6f$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3/10/24 3:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <uskd6v$300lk$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/8/24 9:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <usgbfr$1vp6f$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/6/24 12:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <usa2h0$g16c$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/4/24 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2024 at 5:56:21 AM PST, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Republicans themselves said this is the most far reaching bill, and
> >>>>>>>> includes everything they've been asking for for 20 years.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The week Biden took office, he issued 94 executive orders to open the
> >>>>>>> border and stand down enforcement of immigration law.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Until Biden rescinds those EOs, any claims he makes that he wants to
> >>>>>>> address illegal immigration are nothing but lies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So answer his question. What was in the bill that was bad?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I already did an in-depth analysis of this abomination several weeks
> >>>>> ago, which you completely ignored and only responded to by insulting
> >>>>> Trump as per usual. Why should I do it all again just for you to ignore
> >>>>> it again?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, hell, hope springs eternal and it's easy to copy and paste so here
> >>>>> goes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The Republicans got most of what they wanted and that still wasn't
> >>>>>> good enough
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course it wasn't good enough. And I don't know who you're referring
> >>>>> to specifically by 'the Republicans' but anyone who isn't a RINO got
> >>>>> next to nothing from this bill with regard to border security. And
> >>>>> that's being generous.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every
> >>>>> month, including thousands of gang members recently kicked out of prison
> >>>>> in places like El Salvador, looking for a friendlier place to commit
> >>>>> their crimes, this 'border deal' would have done absolutely nothing to
> >>>>> secure the border.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First, it's important to emphasize that no 'border deal' is necessary in
> >>>>> the first place. Under existing law, including the Immigration and
> >>>>> Nationality Act of 1952, the president of the United States has the
> >>>>> authority to turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he
> >>>>> determines it's necessary to safeguard the country, to include refugees.
> >>>>> There is no requirement that we entertain millions of fraudulent asylum
> >>>>> claims-- or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no legal requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into
> >>>>> this country. Period.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All that's necessary to secure the border is for the president of the
> >>>>> United States to start doing his damn job and enforcing the law, to
> >>>>> start using the power that he *already* legitimately and
> >>>>> constitutionally has. It doesn't need to be complicated. We just need to
> >>>>> start enforcing existing laws as they stand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But if the White House actually adopted this simple and straightforward
> >>>>> solution, two things would happen:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (1) The Democrat Party would lose out on millions of future loyal voters
> >>>>> once the next stage of their plan is implemented: the 'path to
> >>>>> citizenship' for all the illegals we let in and who now will be
> >>>>> described as leading an 'unfair' twilight existence in our society which
> >>>>> can only be solved by making them citizens. Democrats' longstanding
> >>>>> plans for demographic replacement at the polls would be stymied.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (2) Congress would miss out on a chance to launder hundreds of millions
> >>>>> of dollars and Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So here we are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The bill proposed in the Senate would allocate another $60 billion
> >>>>> dollars in military aid to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel. (We
> >>>>> already give Israel billions every year-- what have they been doing with
> >>>>> that? Where has that money gone that we need to dump $14 billion more on
> >>>>> their doorstep?) That's a grand total of $74 billion going to secure the
> >>>>> borders of other countries. By comparison, the bill only allocates $20
> >>>>> billion for U.S. border security.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So to restate for the slow kids in the back of the room: Our leaders are
> >>>>> proposing to spend roughly 400% more on securing the borders of two
> >>>>> other foreign countries than they are on securing the border of our own
> >>>>> country.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And it gets worse. Because even the money that's supposedly going for
> >>>>> our border security will actually in practice only facilitate the entry
> >>>>> of millions of more illegal aliens into the U.S. Specifically, the bill
> >>>>> allocates $2.3 billion for something called "refugee and entry
> >>>>> assistance activities" by giving "grants or contracts to qualified
> >>>>> organizations and non-profit entities to provide culturally and
> >>>>> linguistically appropriate services, including housing, medical, and
> >>>>> legal assistance and ease management assistance". (Ease management
> >>>>> assistance? WTF? Why am I paying for that?) So that's more than two
> >>>>> billion dollars to the left-wing 'non-profit' organizations that exist
> >>>>> principally to find ways to sneak as many illegals into this country as
> >>>>> possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By doing so, this bill actually creates more incentives for illegals to
> >>>>> come here in the first place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of the highlights of the bill is that it requires the Executive
> >>>>> Branch to close the border on an emergency basis if the number of
> >>>>> illegal entries exceeds 5000 in one week or 8500 in one day.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except the bill also gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this
> >>>>> emergency requirement at any time at his discretion. So of course it
> >>>>> will never be enforced. He and DHS Secretary Mayorkas could effectively
> >>>>> just ignore this entire section of the law if it were passed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The bill also doesn't count unaccompanied minors from countries other
> >>>>> than Mexico and Canada toward the totals necessary for border closings.
> >>>>> In other words, a significant percentage of illegals from Haiti, Cuba,
> >>>>> Honduras, Pakistan, China, etc. simply don't count. We could have 20,000
> >>>>> of those show up in one day and it wouldn't count.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And on top of that, the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even
> >>>>> if this fraudulent 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the
> >>>>> bill's co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy: "The bill contains a
> >>>>> requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of
> >>>>> entry when more than 5000 people cross in a day. The border never closes
> >>>>> but claims must be processed at the ports."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So basically even if these arbitrary numbers are reached, the border
> >>>>> never closes. The illegals are just re-directed to processing centers
> >>>>> where they are then let into the country. It's a complete scam by
> >>>>> design. And a scam that's designed to last for a long time, given the
> >>>>> bill's 3-year sunset provision. The idea being that if Trump does get
> >>>>> re-elected, he'd be bound by the terms of this deal and couldn't do
> >>>>> crazy things like ACTUALLY shut down the border and stop this
> >>>>> never-ending firehose of illegals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In one key respect, this bill would actually *lessen* the
> >>>>> already-minimal standards for allowing illegals into the country. Right
> >>>>> now, people applying for asylum need to show "a significant possibility
> >>>>> that they can establish a credible fear of persecution on the basis of
> >>>>> race, national origin, political beliefs, etc." Not a high standard. It
> >>>>> doesn't require them to provide any actual evidence of their claims.
> >>>>> Just make a claim, which they've been coached to say and which they've
> >>>>> rehearsed, and then get into the country. But this border bill would
> >>>>> lower that standard even further, if that's possible, from a
> >>>>> "significant" possibility of persecution to merely a "reasonable"
> >>>>> possibility of persecution. And reasonable is just another way of saying
> >>>>> 'plausible'. In other words, it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can
> >>>>> clear. There's no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned
> >>>>> away if that's the standard.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The bill is an abomination that makes the border *less* secure than it
> >>>>> already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined
> >>>>> was even possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank god the House Republicans said the bill was dead on arrival. But
> >>>>> it doesn't begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought there was
> >>>>> anything here that could possibly be considered good for America.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's as if the Senate is made up of politicians who despise their own
> >>>>> citizens and whose top priority is the safety of foreigners in other
> >>>>> countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you confront them on why they've utterly failed at the border, they
> >>>>> don't even try and justify their behavior. They just call you a racist
> >>>>> for even asking the question. There's no political calculation that
> >>>>> would explain their support for this nonsense. The American people,
> >>>>> Democrats and Republicans alike are overwhelmingly upset about what's
> >>>>> going on at the border. There's no support for it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Polls clearly show that no one's buying the idea that we need a nearly
> >>>>> $100 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to do something as
> >>>>> basic as enforcing the law here in America.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries
> >>>>> vast sums of money to secure their borders while we allocate a fraction
> >>>>> of that money to open up our own borders even more. Most Americans want
> >>>>> our leaders to prioritize our country before other countries. It is not
> >>>>> an unreasonable thing for us to want.
> >>>
> >>>> Who wouldn't have given ANY amount of money to defeat Hitler in WWII if
> >>>> it meant no American lives would have been lost?
> >>>
> >>> What sort of a moron thinks paying Hitler would have been necessary
> >>> before we could enforce our own laws here in America?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, and notice how Effa, after demanding I tell him *again* what was in
> >>> the bipartisan bill that was bad for America doesn't bother responding
> >>> to any of it. Again.
> >>>
> >>> Two weeks from now he'll be back to demanding I tell him what's bad
> >>> about the 'bipartisan border bill' again.
> >>>
> >> Because your excuses are BULLSHIT.
> >
> > Nothing I wrote above is an excuse. It's a description of what's
> > actually in the bill. You won't address it because you know you can't
> > defend it.
> >
> >> YOU fuckers crafted the fucking bill. If it blows, it blows because
> >> YOU fuckers made it blow.
> >
> > Oh, I'm sorry. You seem to be under the impression I've been in
> > Washington DC lately writing legislation. *I* didn't do anything and
> > since I'm not a partisan simp like you, I can criticize politicians when
> > they do stupid shit even when they're on my 'side'.
> >
> > I don't care who wrote the damn thing or who was bribed to say it's a
> > good thing when they know it's not. Legalize the flow of millions of
> > unvetted illegals per year into the country is objectively *not* a good
> > thing and this Orwellian shit where we pretend the border is secure
> > merely because we passed a bill to legalize the chaos is the height of
> > absurdity.
> >
> >> You asked for what you wanted. Dems said yes.
> >
> > No, they didn't or the border would be secure. The Dems sure as shit
> > didn't give me what *I* wanted.

In article <usmt6h$3ju6f$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3/10/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <uskdb8$300lk$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

> >> They don't like their own bill because Donald Trump TOLD them not to
> >> like it.
> >
> > Sure. If it wasn't for Trump giving me orders, I'd *love* the idea of
> > 8000 unvetted illegals per day streaming into the country.
> >
> > You're a joke.
> >
> What's not funny is that you're right. You WOULD do it if Trump ordered it.

Well, that's a lie, but then what else have we come to expect from you?