We're Protecting Ukraine's Borders, But Not Ours

The situation we have now at our southern border is the same as having no border patrol agents there. We must put a stop to all border crossings immediately. A start would be to shut down the border for 6 months while we get organized and finish the wall. Bring down as many troops as needed. We got lots of troops who could be there in 12 hours. Trump just might do that.

 

This is totally untrue.

Who killed the bipartisan bill last January ?

He didn't do it during the 4 years he was POTUS.

By the way, did we get the check from Mexico for the wall Trump didn't build?

 

You are far too active on this forum not to know the answer to this. Literally dozens of threads on this subject and an even easier google search. Don’t feign ignorance just to waste my time. The only difference between Biden immigration policy and Trumps is 1 thing? Sorry, that level of ignorance is too profound to even believe.

So building a wall is illegal. Got it. Thanks for the insight. Again, you are claiming a level of ignorance that simply isn’t believable, and I can’t take you seriously until you actually stop projecting both fallacy and falsehood to justify what amounts to zero working knowledge of Presidential power, policies, results, and enforcement capabilities.

gotta try way harder buddy. You simply aren’t worth my time, go read up on the countless threads on illegal immigration detailing everything Biden has done and not done.

 

Schumer let HR2 die a slow death last May. How come you NEVER blame him?

 

I've already answered that.

The bill presented to Schumer wasn't bipartisan.

And besides, the border patrol didn't support it, proof that it wasn't meaningful.

Instead, they supported the bipartisan bill from last January.... that Trump ordered killed because it hurt his chances of reelection.

 

About 40 democrats supported that bill, that makes it bipartisan. Link me to the BP’s lack of support of the bill.

 

This is not true.

Biden touted it during the State of the Union address and said he was waiting for it to be approved in the Senate before signing it into law.

LoL

Now their opinion counts?

They didn't publicly endorse it last May but did for the bipartisan bill in January.

That's saying something.

Now that that's out of the way, how do you justify supporting Trump when he's killing legislation the border patrol wants?

 

On your first point, I stand corrected as not a single lib voted for it, why?

Now here comes the irony. I believe it was you, and I apologize if I'm wrong, who said cons should have voted for the senate bill because the border security measures were almost exactly the same as in HR2. One minute you guys are against a border security bill, the next minute you're suddenly in favor of it. Was the left holding our border security hostage in order to feed Zelensky his checks?

And I don't know what the BP thought of HR2, maybe they had their fingers crossed and hoped that sensible people would vote for it. But now, as you or someone else said, they're in favor of the nearly exact same border security measures that are in both bills. That shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

Which president attempted to build a border wall? Which president halted construction on the border wall?

 

Yeah... Republicans in the House refused to even vote on it because they believe it would solve the problem.

THAT is what stopped immigrants from coming during the Trump administration? A half-built wall?? Not even half... only a tiny portion.

Unbelievable.!

So there you have it, folks, stopping a CONSTRUCTION is the only thing MAGAs can cite as what has increased the number of immigrants.

You're certainly worth mine. I have LOADS of fun with posters who have no idea what the law IS.

 

I haven't found a link that proves what you're saying.

Do you have one?

It's not me.

Because I've read the broad outlines of both bills.

The Cons bill (in May) focused on increasing deportations and blocking any possibility of an immigrant ever obtaining citizenship status.

The bipartisan bill that the boder patrols supported increased staffing at the border and significantly reduced the time it takes to process asylum claims through the justice system.

Not just us.

The border partroll and conservatives who negotiated this bill with their Democratic colleagues.

Who killed the bipartisan bill last January?

So, the border patrol are idiots who know less than the Republicans about what they need to manage the border....

 

Here's the HR2 vote count

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023209

 

Thanks.

So your point is that Trump was right to demand that the bipartisan bill be killed because no Dems voted for the Cons one last May.....

And this despite the support of the border patrol.

 

Fallacy ridden retort. How pathetic

 

you did not know about the bipartisan bill Trump killed, lol, where you been

 

LANKFORD RELEASES BORDER SECURITY PACKAGE WITH HUGE WINS FOR SECURING THE BORDER
"I am happy to announce, we have finally finished strong bill text to add to the supplemental funding bill. Though most members of the Senate have already been briefed on the contents of the bill, the final text will be distributed to members of the Senate soon and posted online within a day.

“The border security bill will put a huge number of new enforcement tools in the hands of a future administration and push the current Administration to finally stop the illegal flow. The bill provides funding to build the wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. The border security bill ends the abuse of parole on our southwest border that has waived in over a million people. It dramatically changes our ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation.

“New bars to asylum eligibility will stop the criminal cartels from exploiting our currently weak immigration laws. The bill also has new emergency authorities to shut down the border when the border is overrun, new hiring authorities to quickly increase officers, and new hearing authorities to quickly apply consequences for illegal crossings. It changes our border from catch and release to detain and deport.

“Our immigration laws have been weak for years. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to close our open border and give future administrations the effective tools they need to stop the border chaos and protect our nation.”

Please point out the problems.

 

It's like every single progressive liberal without failure just parrots that same bovine excrement and your observation of it is exactly spot on.

 

I know this also sounds strange to a progressive but how about we focus on our own borders before we worry about someone else's?

 

Pretty simple.....

Some folks would have a far different view if and this would be less of an issue if.....there was just some sort of accountability or checks on where this aid is going once it leaves our control.... the fact that Democrats stand in our House of Congress and wave foreign flags of Ukraine is a little to much... as there are many "rumors" that some of our money is making it back to our own....

 

• No shutting down border until the daily crossings reach 5,000 per day. That works out to over 1.8 million illegal immigrants per year, which is too many. The state and local governments are overwhelmed as it is.
• Where is the enforcement on the border at places other than official points of entry? That involves “a wall,” which you guys hate.
  
• The law took asylum acceptance from the courts to border agents. Who appoints these agents? Who determines their qualifications? The Democrats support open borders. Will these agents be advocates for that?
  
• Will Biden enforce the law? He has a bad record on enforcing the law and even obeying Supreme Court decisions.
  
• This ties up future administrations. They would have to observe the 5,000 illegals per day, even if they don’t agree with it.

 

What makes you think Trump wouldn't sabotage such a thing as he did the last border security bill? Did you fall for the transparent propaganda justifying his previous sabotage? The absurd claim he did it because it was a "bad bill" when the actual reason was an expectation of how effective it would be in making progress on an issue essential to his campaign.

 

The Senate’s border bill “accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day.”

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000/

 

You know, traditionally, when you quote, you usually use quotation marks. Just a little friendly advice for a member of the alleged party of intellectualism. For giggles, I googled the quote "this was the biggest advance in securing the border in decades," and I got one result--your post. You know, paraphrasing and quoting are not the same thing. Perhaps you were paraphrasing. Do you have a reference to this paraphrase; or, if it is, indeed, an actual quote, do you have a reference to the source of the quote?

 

I know it sounds strange to a regressive but we don't fall for gaslighting when it comes to specious comparisons between aid to Ukraine and immigration reform.

 

“It will be, by far, the most conservative border security bill in four decades,” Sen. James Lankford, the chief Republican negotiator, told NBC News of the emerging deal.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...s-progress-congress-ukraine-israel-rcna135147