Is it possible to get an unbiased source explaining the border bill that was not passed.

I've assumed it was bull**** extortion and meant to give dems a talking point. I've watched so many videos and stories but it's possible the algorithm is feeding me heavy to reinforce my opinion.

I was having a discussion with someone that said congress didn't to its job. I replied that the border seems willfully open and that we have laws already on the books....why is a new bill required to control things.

Any help appreciated.

coupland boy said:

---

Is it possible to get an unbiased source explaining the border bill that was not passed.

I've assumed it was bull**** extortion and meant to give dems a talking point. I've watched so many videos and stories but it's possible the algorithm is feeding me heavy to reinforce my opinion.

I was having a discussion with someone that said congress didn't to its job. I replied that the border seems willfully open and that we have laws already on the books....why is a new bill required to control things.

Any help appreciated.

---

A new bill is not required to enforce things. Anyone who says differently is lying.

It didn't pass because a large part of the bill involved sending money to Ukraine so FJB and others could get a kickback once the money was laundered.

Pretty sure I've seen the Border Patrol Union Chief giving an interview saying, "We don't need a bill, we don't need more funding. We need the White House to get out of our way and let us do our jobs and enforce the law." It was the Union Chief saying this because if the boots on the ground said it, they'd be canned for insubordination.

The Bill was fodder for the Democrats and nothing more.

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

---

This

The bill would codify a number of illegals that could enter daily (I think 5000 was correct). No specifics on how that would actually be enforced. And with a dem in the WH everyone knows it wouldn't be enforced.

This bill was a complete joke, well before the additional Uke funding was piled on.

Thanks. I appreciate not jumping down my throat about it. Good answers.

It was also full of loopholes that allowed even more days of basically wide open no limits immigration as time passed, and this would be hard codified to be legal entries, effectively, so a future administration would have to get another law passed to undo it.

It was an utterly horrible "deal" between cheap labor conservatives and demographics for political manipulation Dems.

And as said above, completely legally unnecessary to increase border enforcement, which any administration has fairly wide latitude to do under current law.

It was your typical Democrat strategy:

• introduce a ridiculous bill that doesn't fix the problem and instead makes it worse (as one poster said "codifies" illegal immigration),
• get a couple of sucker RINOs to sign on so they can say its "bipartisan",
• all the while knowing the likelihood of failure is 100%,
• then when it inevitably fails, blame MAGA Republicans and Trump for not caring about the border,
• and then watch your media henchmen run with that narrative in an election year

I don't know a lot about the bill, but I understand how they are playing the game. They put it up there hoping it would be voted down. That way the dems could say they want border control and the Republicans don't because they voted it down. I'm betting it was full of all kinds of pork crap that way the dims win either way the bill goes.

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

---

Rude and uncalled for. STAFF, ban this person who identifies as a man.

Urban Ag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

---

This

The bill would codify a number of illegals that could enter daily (I think 5000 was correct). No specifics on how that would actually be enforced. And with a dem in the WH everyone knows it wouldn't be enforced.

This bill was a complete joke, well before the additional Uke funding was piled on.

---

I think it was more insidious than that. The 5,000 was the limit before the President could do anything. So it just handcuffs a President that wants to protect the border and doesn't require a democrat president to actually do anything to stop the influx.

Here is the whole bill.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_bill_text.pdf

Appropriation's summary
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_section-by-section.pdf

Bipartisan Negotiators' summaries
=============================

Lankford's (R-OK) summary
https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf

Murphy's (D-CT) summary
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/natsecsupp_one_pager.pdf

Sinema's (I-AZ) summary
https://www.sinema.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bipartisan-Border-Security-Package-Summary.pdf

Cru said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

---

Rude and uncalled for. STAFF, ban this person who identifies as a man.

---

Dude, you really think a dude that wears speedos in public can hurt my feelings?

Slicer97 said:

---

Cru said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

---

Rude and uncalled for. STAFF, ban this person who identifies as a man.

---

Dude, you really think a dude that wears speedos in public can hurt my feelings?

---

You'd have to have feelings first.

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

---

That was part of it too. But do you really think if it had passed there wouldn't be several (D) politicians along with Joe Biden being enriched by Ukraine?

CDUB98 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Cru said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

---

Rude and uncalled for. STAFF, ban this person who identifies as a man.

---

Dude, you really think a dude that wears speedos in public can hurt my feelings?

---

You'd have to have feelings first.

---

Well, that's fair, I reckon.

Slicer97 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

---

That was part of it too. But do you really think if it had passed there wouldn't be several (D) politicians along with Joe Biden being enriched by Ukraine?

---

There absolutely would be, but also Republicans too, which is why so many raised a stink about the MAGA types torching the bill.

While Ukraine is its own set of issues, the security of our own border was more important in this bill and there absolutely was none.

Well, that goes back to the original point: No new legislation is necessary. And the legislation proposed benefitted no one but politicians.

coupland boy said:

---

Is it possible to get an unbiased source explaining the border bill that was not passed.

I've assumed it was bull**** extortion and meant to give dems a talking point. I've watched so many videos and stories but it's possible the algorithm is feeding me heavy to reinforce my opinion.

I was having a discussion with someone that said congress didn't to its job. I replied that the border seems willfully open and that we have laws already on the books....why is a new bill required to control things.

Any help appreciated.

---

You can read the old bill, it did NOTHING to endorce the border, it was a fund Ukraine bill.

coupland boy said:

---

Thanks. I appreciate not jumping down my throat about it. Good answers.

---

Also, they dont enforce the laws now, why should they be trusted to enforce a new law? That's besides the fact the "border bill" aka fund Ukraine bill, did not stop anything.

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree with my folicularly challenged friend, Slicer.

The bill didn't get passed because of the effective enshrinement of open borders. It specifically stated how many would be allowed in daily (5000) before "closure." Yet. no mention on how it would actually be done.

It guaranteed the flood of illegals just keep coming.

---

The 5,000 only included citizens of Canada and Mexico. It didn't limit any other countries and Biden could let in more than 5,000 from Canada and Mexico at his discretion.

The whole thing was a lie.

Another big one is it would have required all challenges to the bill, including implemented policies, guidelines, and procedures be heard exclusively by the federal district court in DC. Stripping power from federal district courts.

coupland boy said:

---

Is it possible to get an unbiased source explaining the border bill that was not passed.

I've assumed it was bull**** extortion and meant to give dems a talking point. I've watched so many videos and stories but it's possible the algorithm is feeding me heavy to reinforce my opinion.

I was having a discussion with someone that said congress didn't to its job. I replied that the border seems willfully open and that we have laws already on the books....why is a new bill required to control things.

Any help appreciated.

---

It would codify into law that 2M illegals can walk in every year and it'd take another law to be passed to stop it.

JG88 said:

---

Another big one is it would have required all challenges to the bill, including implemented policies, guidelines, and procedures be heard exclusively by the federal district court in DC. Stripping power from federal district courts.

---

Thanks. Sounds like a number of poison pills

coupland boy said:

---

JG88 said:

---

Another big one is it would have required all challenges to the bill, including implemented policies, guidelines, and procedures be heard exclusively by the federal district court in DC. Stripping power from federal district courts.

---

Thanks. Sounds like a number of poison pills

---

That number would be…a lot.

hoopla said:

---

Here is the whole bill.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_bill_text.pdf

Appropriation's summary
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_section-by-section.pdf

Bipartisan Negotiators' summaries
=============================

Lankford's (R-OK) summary
https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf

Murphy's (D-CT) summary
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/natsecsupp_one_pager.pdf

Sinema's (I-AZ) summary
https://www.sinema.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bipartisan-Border-Security-Package-Summary.pdf

---

Perfect hoopla. Thank you.

I'm seeing a provision in there for "closing" the border when encounters exceed 5000 per week NOT daily.

I'll just have to read it so as not to be set up for failure in an argument.