Why isn’t Trump being tried in court for the invasion of the Southern Border?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Councilman Josh McBroom of Naperville, Illinois wants to start a program where by residents can sign up to house migrants. This is where the migrant crisis is headed.


https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/na...house-migrants

Wow. The proposed ideas of a city councilman in Napierville, IL has you frothing?

Better count your lucky stars you don’t live in a town like that. Trump will only send his illegals to big blue shithole cities. But without their children, of course.

Hunker down. They’re coming to gitcha.

hahahahahahahahahahahsh

[eyecu2]

The simplest reason that this will never be a bill passed, is that it has NO input from across the aisle. I don't think that the bill is really got anything that's un-reasonable, but any house bill, will need to have atleast one person from across the aisle on it to get through the senate, and be signed by POTUS. It's moronic to think that actually would be ok to pass in today's political climate. Just as a purely Democrat sourced bill would see the light of day by the SOH.

The lines of party are far more important than the laws. Sadly

[Yssup Rider]

And it’s a city council proposal. Holds sway over ordinances created by lesser governmental bodies … and none outside the city of Naperville. And a proposal, not even a bill..

Rage on MAGAs.

[Tiny]

I'm back eating crow, kind of. This bill sucks.

First, the bill throws $14.1 billion Israel's way. Israel is a wealthy country. Its GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, is close to the EU's, the UK's and Japan's. Furthermore, its nominal GDP is around 500 billion, so we're giving them aid worth around 3% of their annual GDP. That's a drop in the bucket. American taxpayers shouldn't pay for Israel's security. We've got our own problems.

Then there's the $60 billion for Ukraine with no strings attached. Putin has sent out feelers about ending the war in a way that would cede territory to Russia that the country occupies, and guarantee security for the rest of Ukraine with a pathway to membership in NATO. That would be a reasonable way to end the carnage, given that polls after Russia's takeover of Crimea and before 2022 indicated the majority of people in occupied areas would prefer to be affiliated with Russia instead of Ukraine.

Provided they can get limitless aid from the West, the Ukrainians want to pursue the war until they regain all the occupied area and Crimea. And Biden has been willing to give them a blank check to fight this war to the last Ukrainian.

Time for adults to take control. Use the $60 billion as leverage over Russia and Ukraine to settle. Otherwise we could just continue pumping money into a never ending conflict. We probably could end the conflict and incentivize Russia to behave by attaching strings to the $60 billion. Maybe House Republicans will force our president and Congress to take this path by modifying the legislation.

As to immigration, I'll stick with what I said though. The bill speeds up the asylum process so you don't have as many immigrants gaming the process. And it shuts down asylum applications entirely when the number exceeds 5,000 per day. I don't understand why Johnson and Trump would oppose that, except to try to exploit immigration as a political issue.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm back eating crow, kind of. This bill sucks.

First, the bill throws $14.1 billion Israel's way. Israel is a wealthy country. Its GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, is close to the EU's, the UK's and Japan's. Furthermore, its nominal GDP is around 500 billion, so we're giving them aid worth around 3% of their annual GDP. That's a drop in the bucket. American taxpayers shouldn't pay for Israel's security. We've got our own problems.

Then there's the $60 billion for Ukraine with no strings attached. Putin has sent out feelers about ending the war in a way that would cede territory to Russia that the country occupies, and guarantee security for the rest of Ukraine with a pathway to membership in NATO. That would be a reasonable way to end the carnage, given that polls after Russia's takeover of Crimea and before 2022 indicated the majority of people in occupied areas would prefer to be affiliated with Russia instead of Ukraine.

Provided they can get limitless aid from the West, the Ukrainians want to pursue the war until they regain all the occupied area and Crimea. And Biden has been willing to give them a blank check to fight this war to the last Ukrainian.

Time for adults to take control. Use the $60 billion as leverage over Russia and Ukraine to settle. Otherwise we could just continue pumping money into a never ending conflict. We probably could end the conflict and incentivize Russia to behave by attaching strings to the $60 billion. Maybe House Republicans will force our president and Congress to take this path by modifying the legislation.

As to immigration, I'll stick with what I said though. The bill speeds up the asylum process so you don't have as many immigrants gaming the process. And it shuts down asylum applications entirely when the number exceeds 5,000 per day. I don't understand why Johnson and Trump would oppose that, except to try to exploit immigration as a political issue.

you mean for once the evil GOP is right to block this massive wasteful spending?


who knew??


baaahahahaaaaa

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you mean...the...GOP is right to block this massive wasteful spending? This quote has been selectively edited to remove RDS (Republican Derangement Syndrome).

Yes

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm back eating crow, kind of. This bill sucks.

Damn it, now I'm back a third time, puking my guts out. And all that's coming up is crow meat. Crow I shouldn't have ever eaten. Please see excerpt from article below, by the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

A Border Security Bill Worth Passing
The Senate bill has reforms Trump never came close to getting.

Do Republicans want to better secure the U.S. border, or do they want to keep what has become an open sore festering for another year as an election issue? That’s the choice presented to Congress this week with the rollout of the Senate’s bipartisan border security bill, and we’ll soon learn what the GOP really wants.

By any honest reckoning, this is the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades. Previous immigration talks have involved trading security measures for legalizing more immigration. There is little of the latter in this bill—nothing for nearly all of the Dreamers who were brought here illegally as children, no general pathway to citizenship or green cards for most illegal immigrants already in the U.S.

This is almost entirely a border security bill, and its provisions include long-time GOP priorities that the party’s restrictionists could never have passed only a few months ago. Republicans demanded border measures last year as the price for passing military aid for Ukraine, Israel and Pacific allies. Democrats resisted at first but later agreed to negotiate and have made concessions that are infuriating the open-borders left. Will Republicans now abandon what they claimed to want?

The bill’s details are worth describing because they’re crucial to reducing the current incentives for migrants to come to the U.S. border. Most important, the bill rewrites the standard and process for granting asylum in the U.S.

Under current law and practice, migrants cross the border, turn themselves in to border patrol agents, and claim asylum. If they pass the deliberately low bar for claiming “credible fear” of persecution, they are given a date for a future asylum hearing and released into the U.S. The wait can take years, and many never show up. This is the policy that has become known as “catch and release.”

The new bill raises the bar for that initial border screening for credible fear to a “reasonable possibility” of persecution. Toughening the asylum standard was a priority of the Trump Administration, but a statutory change is needed to make it permanent. Migrants will have to show they couldn’t have moved elsewhere in their own country to avoid persecution before seeking refuge in the U.S.

The bill also includes an expedited review process for asylum with a stay-or-deport decision within 90-180 days. There is money for 50,000 detention beds while migrants are awaiting review. If there are more migrants arriving than can be detained, the overflow will be enrolled in mandatory alternatives-to-detention programs that use tools such as ankle bracelets or reporting curfews. No more catch and release without consequences.

The bill also reforms humanitarian parole. Migrants will no long be able to register using the Biden CBP One App to gain free entry at a border crossing and an immediate work permit.

The bill doesn’t include a cap on the number of parolees in a year, as some Republicans sought. But the tightened rules for claiming parole should reduce the incentives to come, and parole is vital in some cases such as Ukrainians or Afghan allies. One disappointment is that the bill lets the Administration continue its parole programs for Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan migrants who apply in their home capitals.

The bill also includes an emergency provision mandating that the border be closed if the average showing up each day for a week is 5,000. This is to stop the current mess in which border crossings are overwhelmed. If a shutdown is triggered, all migrants will be deported until the number of arrivees falls 25% and the border patrol has regained control. The provision does not mean that migration is unchecked up to 5,000 a day.

GOP critics of the bill are pointing to the bill’s modest expansion of legal visas—about 50,000 a year for employment and family visas. But these immigrants aren’t pouring over the border willy-nilly. They are following legal rules. Republicans claim to oppose illegal immigration, but this complaint shows that some really oppose all immigration.

The Senate bill is a major improvement over the status quo, as the Border Patrol union said Monday in endorsing it. The bill would go far to reduce the incentives for illegal migration and provide new tools to the executive branch to control it. Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, who negotiated for the GOP, deserves thanks for digging into the policy nuances and writing a bill that Mr. Trump never came close to getting when he was President.

Yet the signs are that many Republicans in Congress may heed Mr. Trump’s current orders and reject this policy victory. They will point to this or that detail to justify opposition, all of which are minor in the context of these consequential reforms. House Republicans could also work to improve the bill, but it appears they may not even allow a vote.

If Republicans reject this bill, they will hand Democrats an argument that the GOP wants border chaos that they can exploit as a campaign issue. The chaos will continue for at least another year. Republicans may think they can write a better law if Mr. Trump wins in November, but don’t count on it. Democrats will again demand much more in return. If Republicans pass up this rare chance at border reform, they may not get a better one.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-...nion_lead_pos2

If I were a Congressman instead of a whoremonger, I would not vote for the bill, for the reasons set out in post #19. Still, Republican criticism of the border and asylum provisions in the bill is wildly misplaced.

[Yssup Rider]

We will.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

We will.

Haha!