And The Border Is Secure??????

[Subduction Zone]

LMAO! I read my sources. I am simply trying to find something you will agree with.
So several democrats opposed it?

Yes, I implied that before you even shot yourself in the foot by finding a compromise bill that was killed by Republicans. Do you know what happens in a compromise bill? At least some members of each party will oppose it. But if the overwhelming opposition comes from only one party then they rightfully get the blame. The Republicans killed it. You could only claim that the opposition was "bipartisan" if roughly equal numbers opposed it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand it but that doesn't mean I think it's good.

Okay. So what? That means nothing in this discussion.

 

[Kathryn]

The “no” votes included Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Alex Padilla of California, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Independent who caucuses with Democrats, also opposed the measure. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer voted no in a move that would allow him to make a procedural maneuver in the future to bring it back up.

Oh, and Cory Booker, D, also opposed it.

 

[Kathryn]

Okay. So what? That means nothing in this discussion.

It means something when you say things like you think I don't understand something but I do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The “no” votes included Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Alex Padilla of California, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Independent who caucuses with Democrats, also opposed the measure. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer voted no in a move that would allow him to make a procedural maneuver in the future to bring it back up.

Oh, and Cory Booker, D, also opposed it.

Yes, thank you for supporting my claim again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It means something when you say things like you think I don't understand something but I do.

But your posts have indicated that you did not understand. A handful of Democrats opposed it. That will happen with any compromise legislation. Over 40 Republicans voted against it.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, thank you for supporting my claim again.

Note that the quote (and it is a quote) states that the Democrats INCLUDE the names listed.

 

[Kathryn]

But your posts have indicated that you did not understand. A handful of Democrats opposed it. That will happen with any compromise legislation. Over 40 Republicans voted against it.

So? I never said otherwise. I simply stated that the opposition to the bill was also bipartisan. Which it was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Note that the quote (and it is a quote) states that the Democrats INCLUDE the names listed.

Five Democrats voted against it. One was Chuck Schumer that did so because of an odd rule that would allow the bill's reintroduction. So in reality four Democrats voted against it. Schumer would have supported it if it could have passed:

Full list of Democrats who voted against border deal

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the bill was killed by Republicans to help Donald Trump in November's election.

www.newsweek.com

That means opposition by Republicans was roughly ten to one. The Republicans killed the bill.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So? I never said otherwise. I simply stated that the opposition to the bill was also bipartisan. Which it was.

No, that is not really what "bipartisan" means. You are being excessively literal. And once again, I pointed this out from the start. I told you that a few Democrats opposing it does not make the opposition bipartisan.

 

[Twilight Hue]

you tired these claims before. They weren't true then and even less so now.

Here is the legislation
note the absence of any earmarks

Stop your lying. You are only showing the vanilla version.

Harris Slams Trump For Killing Border Bill In Debate: Here Are The Facts

“He preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem," Harris said of Trump's opposition to the bill.

www.forbes.com

Snippet....

The initial bill also earmarked approximately $60 billion in aid to Ukraine—after some Republicans opposed any aid being sent to Ukraine without being tied to border restrictions—on top of other funding that included $20.2 billion for border security improvements and $2.3 billion in assistance to refugees in the U.S.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Everybody knows you're wrong.

Only you think your right. Life goes on with the rest of us.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The bill had all sorts of other stuff, including but not limited to foreign aid, attached to it.

It certainly did, and 5000 allowed a day? !??

Holey moley that is completely unacceptable that goes beyond words. That's 1,825,000 foreigners every single year Democrats want in this country.

And the leftists want to pretend it's bipartisan.

 

[Kenny]

It did not pass because the Republicans that were largely the writers of it were told by Trump to oppose it. Don't you follow the news at all?

yesl.. that is what the news media said and I have no confidence for them. You would be a good reporter on the news media team.

I find that the reason is the administration would have the discretion to catch and release up to 5,000 inadmissible migrants per day — almost 2 million per year.

Solved nothing.

Oh boy, that is not what was happening. If you want to claim that the vast majority were people from jails and other areas you need a valid source. Not a lying orange one. Please, this is a gross distortion of reality. You might as well say that all of the stray cats and dogs disappeared on their way up here because they ate them all.

Say…. whaaaaaat?

I suppose you don’t remember when Cuba did the same thing.

 

[Kenny]

Trump wanted it killed because he wanted to run on immigration and the Republicans killed their own bill.

This political ad has bee approved by Aargentbear and the Demcratic party.

That wasn't a policy. Asylum seekers have to, by law be on American land

Just one of Trumps false racist claims

The FBI admitted that Venezuela emptied its prisons and sent the inmates to the U.S.

Oh… I’m sorry. We can trust the Venezuelan government not to do that.

Hey… they don’t need to… just come in before they get caught.

'Ghost criminals': How Venezuelan gang members are slipping into the U.S.

Cases linked to Tren de Aragua, including sex trafficking and a shooting, show how hard it is for border agents to vet migrants from nations that won't provide criminal background info.

www.nbcnews.com

In June 2019 ICE announced a 120 day test of DNA sampling program for children at 5 border crossing locations. Ice didn't find any such "fake families" and ended the program in 2020.

While the DNA testing program uncovered cases of migrant groups lying about being families, the federal data we found showed the rate of fraudulent families was lower than Cuccinelli’s figure.

Trump admin using DNA testing for 'fake families'

This piece was first published on PolitiFact.com on Aug. 26, 2019. Fearing that children were being smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border, the Trump administration has sought to detect instances w…

www.statesman.com

Let’s just close our eyes and sleep because the rate is lower than what he said. Who cares if it is fewer? Just 2 out of 10? Ohhh… that is ony 40,000 children when a million cross! WHEW! I thought we had a problem.

Sleep tight.

 

[Argentbear]

Stop your lying. You are only showing the vanilla version.

Its the text of the bill introduced into the Senate and its source is the congressional record.

Why don't you link us all to the "real" bill?

 

[Argentbear]

yesl.. that is what the news media said and I have no confidence for them. You would be a good reporter on the news media team.

You not liking the facts does not change the facts

 

[Subduction Zone]

yesl.. that is what the news media said and I have no confidence for them. You would be a good reporter on the news media team.

I find that the reason is the administration would have the discretion to catch and release up to 5,000 inadmissible migrants per day — almost 2 million per year.

Solved nothing.

How would you know? Seriously when you say things like this without any support you are only showing that you are the gullible one in these matters. You wanted to imply that I was but your post demonstrates that you only have massive projection. You listened to the lies of Republcans again. Here is what you do not understand about the news. There are reliable sources. For them being honest is more important than who is in power. If they are shown to be reporting inaccurately they lose trust. They lose advertisers, They lose money. The more honest that they are the more money that they make. Biased news sources such as OAN on the right or The Rumble on the left have a much smaller audience as a result of their bias and their advertisers often mimic that. The large companies that want to sell to everyone are going to invest their add money in the middle mostly. In other words enlightened self interest is what keeps sources such as the AP, Reuters, or for this example NBC in the middle. So let's see what they have to say:

The bipartisan border deal would not allow 5,000 illegal crossings per day, despite what Trump says

What's become a popular talking point among conservative Republicans opposed to an emerging immigration bill is incorrect. Here's what it would do.

www.nbcnews.com

"Migrants would not be able to just cross the border illegally under the new bill. It would end the practice of "catch and release," in which Border Patrol agents release migrants into the U.S. while they await immigration hearings.

Instead, migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews.

The bill does provide exceptions from detention for unaccompanied minors and families even if they cross the border illegally between ports of entry. But those migrants would be placed under community supervision; what that looks like would be at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security."

The release part was a law, and people that crossed illegally would still have a right, it is both US and international law, to apply for asylum. You do not seem to understand that Trump proposes a fascist cure where he ignores both US and international law. That is not a solution. But those that crossed illegally would have only 15 days to make their case before they were sent back. This change makes for a huge disincentive to cross illegally. If an asylum seeker crosses legally they would have ninety days to prepare for their first asylum hearing. If tehy failed that they would be sent back across the border:

"If the deal were to become law, migrants who come to the U.S. border at official ports of entry would be diverted to a new "removal authority program" in which they would have 90 days to make their initial asylum interviews. Those migrants would not be released into the interior of the U.S., either; they would either be detained or kept under government supervision.

If they failed their initial asylum interviews, they would be removed immediately."

Both of those are far quicker than what we now do. A key part of this was hiring more judges for those hearings. By the way, passing either of those would not become an automatic pass. They merely screen out those with very poor cases.

Say…. whaaaaaat?

I suppose you don’t remember when Cuba did the same thing.

Wow! There is a huge failure in logic. "Cuba did this once so every country must be doing it". No, it does not work that way. The burden of proof is still upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh… I’m sorry. We can trust the Venezuelan government not to do that.

Hey… they don’t need to… just come in before they get caught.

'Ghost criminals': How Venezuelan gang members are slipping into the U.S.

Cases linked to Tren de Aragua, including sex trafficking and a shooting, show how hard it is for border agents to vet migrants from nations that won't provide criminal background info.

www.nbcnews.com

Wow! Now your narrative has changed since the facts are against you. A huge number of Venezuelans applied for amnesty. That is true. Some of them were criminals and gang members. That too is true. But sorry, you do not get to then claim that say that Venezuela sent us all of the ri gang members. You do not seem to understand the difference between a purposeful act and the results of when one looks at a large population. You are misinterpreting the news, perhaps on purpose.

 

[Kathryn]

No, that is not really what "bipartisan" means. You are being excessively literal. And once again, I pointed this out from the start. I told you that a few Democrats opposing it does not make the opposition bipartisan.

YOU said that, doesn't make it true.