If you can stand to watch

Unfortunately there’s a lot of emotion about this border deal and no analysis of the facts by people who should know better. Many people (who are apparently very fast readers!) have already tweeted completely false statements about the legislation.

Gonna be a great week, lol!…

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) February 5, 2024

Dan is so arrogant when dealing with conservatives. Every time.

Hey District 2. Primary this asshat next time around, please.

Of course he would say this. Clearly, there was something that was going to line his pockets in that bill. Oh well, back to fighting United for your wife, Dan.

Slicer97 said:

---

Hey District 2. Primary this asshat next time around, please.

---

Ditto. What a fast fall from grace. Talk about bait and switch from Crenshaw the candidate to Crenshaw the congress critter.

Geez…that wasn't expected…

What a loser and a POS.

District 2 please make this thief go away.

The video pieces of an Interview from last week before anything was released. He said he has no strong opinion because he doesn't know what's in it and he's not going to undermine an effort to produce a bill that may be an improvement.

Just another WEF stooge.

He wants Cornyn's seat. He's showing his future masters that he is RINO senator material.

Crenshaw is a globalist swamp puppet.might as well be a lib.

he was bought and paid for long ago.

never seen a quicker 180 in my life. the right people must have some pretty good dirt on him…

One well placed "eye infection" and we could be done with this *******.

Crenshaw just wants to be ousted?

Dan Scott said:

---

The video pieces of an Interview from last week before anything was released. He said he has no strong opinion because he doesn't know what's in it and he's not going to undermine an effort to produce a bill that may be an improvement.

---

If you don't have a strong opinion because you have not read the bill, then why attack "the right" of you party on CNN with inflammatory language?

Regardless, his tweets are recent.

Dan Scott said:

---

The video pieces of an Interview from last week before anything was released. He said he has no strong opinion because he doesn't know what's in it and he's not going to undermine an effort to produce a bill that may be an improvement.

---

NOPE.

the tweet is from yesterday. didn't watch the video. didn't need to. tweet says it all

wait, he hadn't even read the bill yet spouted that nonsense?

I'm in his district and can't wait to support his primary challenger.

Dan Scott said:

---

The video pieces of an Interview from last week before anything was released. He said he has no strong opinion because he doesn't know what's in it and he's not going to undermine an effort to produce a bill that may be an improvement.

---

If he doesn't know that no additional legislation even needs to be talked about - the STANCE should be to enforce what's already there - then he is either an idiot or he's compromised. Or both.

To be fair, the tweet basically says he hasn't analyzed the final bill yet and doesn't make judgement on it.

But why is a "deal " necessary for the executive branch to do their effing constitutionally mandated job in the first place? It's all bs.

Any dereliction of duty is clearly on the part of the executive administration. It absolutely should be an impeachable offense.

TresPuertas said:

---

he was bought and paid for long ago.

never seen a quicker 180 in my life. the right people must have some pretty good dirt on him…

---

He's a politician - it takes a special kind of POS to want to be a politician nowadays. They are all full of crap. Yet we continue to vote for the status quo on both sides.

His response to that question.

It’s important to address some of the more bizarre concerns right away.

“Why do we need new laws? Isn’t current law enough?”

Obviously we do need new laws. That’s why Republicans passed HR2, which was mostly new immigration law. Those advocating for HR2 can’t also claim we…

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) February 5, 2024

Embarrassed this guy is now my rep.

So without a deal the border must be left totally open? What a crock.

I appreciate that he has exposed himself as a Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Liz Cheney republican.

**** him.

That's current law. Come to America and claim asylum. That part at very least needs to be changed to claimed in own country at US embassy and adjudicated there by a judge assigned to that embassy that would have more knowledge of if it's a legit claim than some random judge at the border.

Maybe he should explain why an immigration bill has a bunch of money for other countries in it, and why omnibus is the way to go?

I'll hang up and listen.

So is that also why the Feds are doing everything they can to prevent Texas from doing the job the Feds are supposed to do? To try to claim this is the way it has to be until new laws are passed …. Not buying it. Its purposeful circumvention wrapped up in supposed legalities … legalities that have never before allowed for this level of nonsense.

Everyone knows a huge % of these illegals don't meet the standards for political asylum.

Exactly that's the loophole that needs to be changed to claim it in own country. Even if feds built a wall, military on border, super impenetrable wall, people would still be able to flood the port of entries claim asylum and wait for a hearing in next few years.

Title 42 basically said F U and your asylum but I think was part of emergency health order. It need to be permanent law but even then Mexico has to agree so I don't like it and the migrants would be in more danger back in hands of cartel.

Most humane safest way is to claim at US embassy in foreign country.

Dan Scott said:

---

His response to that question.

It’s important to address some of the more bizarre concerns right away.

“Why do we need new laws? Isn’t current law enough?”

Obviously we do need new laws. That’s why Republicans passed HR2, which was mostly new immigration law. Those advocating for HR2 can’t also claim we…

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) February 5, 2024

---

This part is just absolute nonsense and a very dangerous philosophy imo.

Quote:

---

This bill isn't HR2, but my simple standard will be "does it decrease illegal immigration or not?"

---

This type of approach could seriously destroy any country over time. "100 Billion to foreign countries that don't matter to us, but $10 Billion to baaaarely minimize our current behemoth of a problem...well it "decreases illegal immigration", albeit marginally, so sign me up!"

Dan Scott said:

---

That's current lawfare. Come to America and claim asylum. That part at very least needs to be changed to claimed in own country at US embassy and adjudicated there by a judge assigned to that embassy that would have more knowledge of if it's a legit claim than some random judge at the border.

---

Fify and brought to us by Democrats.

Ok. As long as they stay outside the country until they are actually granted asylum that could work because it's a sensible way to do it but explain why the floodgates haven't always been open before now since this heretofore has not been the law?

Quote:

---

This bill isn't HR2, but my simple standard will be "does it decrease illegal immigration or not?"

---

As long as Mike Tyson is pummeling you slower, you're cool with the beating?

This Border Bill is so damaging to our country, you would think that Democrat House Members in swing districts and Senators in Swing States up for re-election will think twice about supporting it.

Desert Fox said:

---

One well placed "eye infection" and we could be done with this *******.

---

Are you sure he can see out of his good eye now?

That I cant do. There's a loophole and now it's being exploited. WHO and why I don't know can only speculate.