Trump is blocking a border deal in the Senate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

Give it up. Everyone on your side has admitted they’re just playing politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Is it? Their bonehead losers don’t care about things like consistency. In the GOP brain the border can simultaneously be the most important issue but also irrelevant and something that doesn’t need legislation. A few sometime-GOP voters will probably shake themselves out of their stupor to realize the problem here, but not all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

Give it up. Everyone on your side has admitted they’re just playing politics.

They can’t! I love watching their little heads explode!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

Give it up. Everyone on your side has admitted they’re just playing politics.

Nope. We know Biden has the tools he needs... and has had them all along.... to do his damn job.

My statement on President Biden's endorsement of the Senate border deal:

President Biden falsely claimed yesterday he needs Congress to pass a new law to allow him to close the southern border, but he knows that is untrue.

As I explained to him in a letter late last year, and have specifically reiterated to him on multiple occasions since, he can and must take executive action immediately to reverse the catastrophe he has created.

The Immigration and Nationality Act coupled with recent Supreme Court precedent give him ‘ample authority’ to ‘suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’

As my letter stated, President Biden can begin to secure the border by ending catch-and-release, ceasing exploitation of parole authority, reinstating the Remain in Mexico program, expanding the use of expedited removal authority, and renewing construction of the border wall. The President must start by using the broad legal authority he already possesses to reclaim our nation's sovereignty and end the mass release of illegal aliens into our country.

According to reports, the Senate's pending proposal would expressly allow as many as 150,000 illegal crossings each month (1.8 million per year) before any new ‘shutdown’ authority could be used. At that point, America will have already been surrendered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

Give it up. Everyone on your side has admitted they’re just playing politics.

Why is he waiting for a deal? He can just start enforcing the border. He doesn't need anyone's permission to allow the border patrol to do what they've always done.

No one is this stupid, believing that the Rs are somehow holding Biden back. Biden is trying to offer a deal where he agrees to a tiny amount of border security activity in exchange for $ for Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Democrats believe in the rule of law. If Congress wants to beef up the capacity of our immigration system, it’s free to do so. Republicans just want to complain. They don’t want to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats believe in the rule of law. If Congress wants to beef up the capacity of our immigration system, it’s free to do so. Republicans just want to complain. They don’t want to work.

lol, they’re not enforcing the law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attempting to suggest Christianity requires open borders is absurd. The rule of law matters.

Jesus was not a man's rule follower. He was a rule breaker, which is part of why the Pharisees hated Him. He followed God's rules, not man's rules. Borders are man made.


And yes, Jesus would've been for open borders; He was a socialist. He told people to take care of children, and to love your neighbor. That doesn't mean Joe from next door. It means people; love people. He said to welcome the foreigners.

https://www.borderperspective.org/blog/what-does-the-bible-say-about-welcoming-immigrants

Having stated that, I am not for open borders. But, that doesn't mean that I want children to be separated from their parents or kids to drown on a perilous journey. How horrible must their lives be for the parents to risk their lives trying to cross that border. I also don't malign them as being all rapists and murderers, or that they are poisoning the blood of this country. You forget that this country is made up of immigrants, legal or otherwise.

Jesus didn’t tell people to give their money to the government so the government could redistribute it.

Jesus had no political party and only cared about His Father’s kingdom.

Bullshit. Jesus was part of the Jewish zealot movement.

In the New Testament, one of the disciples of Jesus Christ was named Simon the Zealot (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).

The Zealots were members of a first-century political movement among Judean Jews who sought to overthrow the occupying Roman government. The word zealot derives from the Greek zelotes, meaning “emulator or (zealous) follower.”

According to the Jewish historian Josephus, three main Jewish groups existed at the time of Christ—the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. He also mentions a fourth group called the Zealots who were founded by Judas of Galilee and Zadok the Pharisee. Josephus notes that the Zealots “agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord" (Antiquities 18.1.6).

Of importance in New Testament history, the Zealots led a rebellion when Rome introduced imperial cult worship. The Great Jewish Revolt began in A.D. 66. The Zealots successfully overtook Jerusalem, but their revolt was ultimately unsuccessful. In A.D. 70, the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the temple. A remnant of the Zealots then took refuge in Masada.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Zealots-Bible.html

You are factually incorrect and an utter moron.

Nothing you’ve written contradicts what I said. Judas was kicking around Galilee at about the time Jesus was born there.

Or maybe you believe that nonsense about Jesus being born in Bethlehem because of some Rube Goldberg Roman tax scheme that Luke & Matthew invented to shoe horn him into a King David prophecy.

Zealots were violent. Jesus is the Prince of Peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats believe in the rule of law. If Congress wants to beef up the capacity of our immigration system, it’s free to do so. Republicans just want to complain. They don’t want to work.

lol, they’re not enforcing the law

]

Sure they are. The "law" isn't as black and white as you would want. That's partially what's on the table and the GOP is blocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

Give it up. Everyone on your side has admitted they’re just playing politics.

Nope. We know Biden has the tools he needs... and has had them all along.... to do his damn job.

My statement on President Biden's endorsement of the Senate border deal:

President Biden falsely claimed yesterday he needs Congress to pass a new law to allow him to close the southern border, but he knows that is untrue.

As I explained to him in a letter late last year, and have specifically reiterated to him on multiple occasions since, he can and must take executive action immediately to reverse the catastrophe he has created.

The Immigration and Nationality Act coupled with recent Supreme Court precedent give him ‘ample authority’ to ‘suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’

As my letter stated, President Biden can begin to secure the border by ending catch-and-release, ceasing exploitation of parole authority, reinstating the Remain in Mexico program, expanding the use of expedited removal authority, and renewing construction of the border wall. The President must start by using the broad legal authority he already possesses to reclaim our nation's sovereignty and end the mass release of illegal aliens into our country.

According to reports, the Senate's pending proposal would expressly allow as many as 150,000 illegal crossings each month (1.8 million per year) before any new ‘shutdown’ authority could be used. At that point, America will have already been surrendered.

Oh, yeah, Speaker Johnson is SUPER impartial, pandering to his base of lunatics.

Additionally, many people prefer the law to be changed in . . . the law. Not some reliance on ever changing whims of SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

Why would we need to compromise on numbers of illegal entries? That seems weird. That lends itself to the idea that the Biden admin wants up to 1.5 million illegal entries every year based on the proposed deal. Isn’t that strange to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is immigration bad? A lot of the people coming here from other places are better than a lot of the people born here.

One thing’s sure for sure. They’re harder workers.

Don’t know yet. Pay Americans proper wages and you may get harder workers.

Keep exploiting migrants and it seems worth it. Legalize these people and you will have to pay them more which then brings us back to paying Americans proper wages. So let’s close the border and skip to the part where we pay people appropriately.

Hmm, which party has been promoting the wage increases and higher minimum wage?

But then why would that same party continue to allow exploited migrants that subvert any of those efforts.

They’re trying to improve the immigration system but the GOP is sitting on its hands while screaming about a crisis.

Their current deal is trying to enshrine illegal immigration into policy. Sorry no thanks.

As confirmed by Republican Senator Lankford, this talking point is total BS.

Have you seen the reporting on this deal?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/politics/senate-deal-shutdown-border/index.html

“Under the soon-to-be-released package, the Department of Homeland Security would be granted new emergency authority to shut down the border if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS would be required to close the border to migrants crossing illegally not entering at ports of entry. Certain migrants would be allowed to stay if they prove to be fleeing torture or persecution in their countries.”

Yes, I’ve seen it. And it’s consistent with what Lankford is saying. It gives new emergency removal authorities for when migrant numbers surge. It doesn’t take away the other authorities or normalize anything. That’s just a dumb talking point. Republicans have been arguing for immediate removals for a long time and now when it’s on the table they say no. That’s bad faith and even super conservative republicans like Lankford recognize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

No, I don't live in the DMV, but you damn well better believe it impacts me. Maybe not you. Perhaps your kids don't go to a school that has been impacted by an influx of migrant children who don't speak English and some who are illiterate in their home language. Perhaps your neighborhood hasn't been impacted by migrants crowded into single family homes. Perhaps the hospitals in your area haven't been impacted by the migrants seeking medical care on the dime of American taxpayers.

And, let's not forget that we have hundreds of people on the terror watch list streaming across our border. Hopefully, your city won't be impacted by any would-be terrorists coming here to cause destruction.

Don't be naive.

And, no - I will not move. This is my home. My country. Why should Americans MOVE because millions of illegal migrants have invaded? Explain your thinking there.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

No, I don't live in the DMV, but you damn well better believe it impacts me. Maybe not you. Perhaps your kids don't go to a school that has been impacted by an influx of migrant children who don't speak English and some who are illiterate in their home language. Perhaps your neighborhood hasn't been impacted by migrants crowded into single family homes. Perhaps the hospitals in your area haven't been impacted by the migrants seeking medical care on the dime of American taxpayers.

And, let's not forget that we have hundreds of people on the terror watch list streaming across our border. Hopefully, your city won't be impacted by any would-be terrorists coming here to cause destruction.

Don't be naive.

And, no - I will not move. This is my home. My country. Why should Americans MOVE because millions of illegal migrants have invaded? Explain your thinking there.......

Too bad the GOP’s playing politics with this issue.