================================================= State TV version ~ Edited for no hard feelings =================================================
Colorado man charged in DUI crash that killed Broomfield mother and son sentenced in 2 other DUI cases 4 days earlier
By Shaun Boyd
A Boulder County man accused in a deadly crash that killed a mother and son near Broomfield High School has a long history of drinking and driving. CBS News Colorado has learned Jose Menjiaur-Alas pled guilty to two separate drunk driving charges just four days before the crash that killed Melissa Powell and her 16-year-old son Riordan.
Court documents show Menjiaur-Alas has five drinking and driving-related convictions dating back to 2007, four of them in Boulder County and one in Denver.
Again and again, he's been put on probation and, again and again, he's violated it, continuing to drink and drive until his next arrest. In each case, he's been released on no or low bond, failed to reappear for his hearing, and a warrant has been issued for his arrest.
That may explain why he didn't face sentencing for the two DUI cases from 2016 and 2019 until this month. The Boulder County District Attorney's Office allowed him to plead both cases down to lesser charges of Driving While Ability Impaired, despite having three prior drinking and driving-related convictions, multiple probation violations, and repeatedly failing to appear in court.
A Boulder County judge sentenced Menjiaur-Alas to probation, community service and work release on Dec. 8. He left the courthouse and four days later, investigators say, he got drunk, got behind the wheel and drove his truck into a car outside of Broomfield High School, killing the mother and son.
Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty told CBS News Colorado that he takes cases involving repeat DUI offenders very seriously saying, "There is no excuse for drunk driving and a person must be held responsible for their decision to drink and drive. We will review the court records, including the sentence imposed by the court."
Menjiaur-Alas is being held on a $100,000 bond. He would need to post 10% of that - or $10,000 - to get out.
================================================= The rest of the story... =================================================
EXCLUSIVE: Illegal Immigrant Deported Four Times Charged With Killing Colorado Mother, Son In DUI Crash
JENNIE TAER INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER January 08, 2024 1:42 PM ET FONT SIZE:
A man who came to the U.S. illegally and was subsequently deported four times allegedly killed a mother and her son in Colorado, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Jose Guadalupe Menjivar-Alas, who is from El Salvador, was previously deported four times after initially sneaking into the country undetected, ICE said. Menjivar-Alas, 37, was charged with vehicular homicide reckless, vehicular homicide DUI and habitual traffic offender after he allegedly crashed his vehicle and killed 47-year-old Melissa Powell and her 16-year-old son, Riordan, on Dec. 12, according to the Broomfield Police Department.
The accused has four convictions from Boulder County Court for alcohol-related driving offenses that occurred between 2007 and 2019, ICE said. A Boulder County judge had sentenced Menjivar-Alas to probation, community service and work release four days before his latest alleged offense, according to CBS News.
“Sanctuary policies not only lack any public benefit but also contribute to an increase in crime against citizens. By giving sanctuary to illegal aliens, these policies inadvertently enable them to commit crimes without consequences. The safety of citizens must be our utmost concern,” retired ICE Denver Field Office Director and current board member with National Immigration Center for Enforcement (NICE) John Fabbricatore told the DCNF.
“The failures of Colorado’s sanctuary policies allowed a convicted criminal to stay in our local communities on probation, intentionally avoiding notifying ICE. If sanctuary policies were abolished, these unnecessary deaths could have been prevented. We must end sanctuary policy and secure the border now!” Fabbricatore, who is also running for Congress, said.
ICE Denver lodged a detainer with Broomfield County to seek his arrest, the agency spokesperson said. Menjivar-Alas was deported in June 2009, June 2012, November 2014 and January 2015.
“ICE records show that the subject has been previously removed and has no regard for immigration law. As part of its routine operations, ICE targets and arrests noncitizens who commit crimes and other individuals who have violated our nation’s immigration laws,” the ICE spokesperson told the DCNF.
“All noncitizens in violation of U.S. immigration law may be subject to arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removed from the United States, regardless of nationality,” the spokesperson added.
Research by Stanford’s Ran Abramitzky and co-authors uncovers the most extensive evidence to date that immigrants are less likely to be imprisoned than U.S.-born individuals.
Opponents of immigration often argue that immigrants drive up crime rates. But newly released research from Stanford economist Ran Abramitzky and his co-authors finds that hasn’t been the case in America for the last 140 years.
The study
reveals that first-generation immigrants have not been more likely to be imprisoned than people born in the United States since 1880.
Today, immigrants are 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated than are U.S.-born individuals who are white, the study finds. And when the analysis is expanded to include Black Americans — whose prison rates are higher than the general population — the likelihood of an immigrant being incarcerated is 60 percent lower than of people born in the United States.
While other research has also debunked claims that immigration leads to more crime, this study of incarceration rates provides the broadest historical look at the relationship between immigration and crime across the country and over time, says author Abramitzky. Abramitzky is the Stanford Federal Credit Union Professor of Economics and senior associate dean of social sciences in the School of Humanities and Sciences, as well as a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).
The study is detailed in a working paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Using U.S. Census Bureau data, it focuses on immigrants present in the Census regardless of their legal status and on men between the ages of 18 and 40.
“From Henry Cabot Lodge in the late 19th century to Donald Trump, anti-immigration politicians have repeatedly tried to link immigrants to crime, but our research confirms that this is a myth and not based on fact,” says Abramitzky, whose 2022 book, Streets of Gold: America’s Untold Story of Immigrant Success, examines the many misconceptions around immigration.
In their analysis of Census data from 1850 to 2020, Abramitzky and his co-authors find that, compared to U.S.-born individuals, immigrants as a group had higher incarceration rates before 1870 and similar rates between 1880 and 1950. Since 1960, however, immigrants have been less likely to be incarcerated than have the U.S.-born.
According to the study, this is the case for almost every region in the world that is a major source of immigrants to the United States. As of 2019, immigrants from China and eastern and southern Europe were committing the fewest number of crimes — as measured by incarceration rates — relative to U.S.-born individuals.
The exception is Mexican and Central American immigrants, but the higher incarceration rates for this group since 2005 is largely attributed to the fact that the Census data combines incarceration for criminal acts with detentions for immigration-related offenses, the researchers say in the paper. Incarceration rates among Mexican and Central American immigrants were similar to those of U.S.-born individuals between 1980 and 2005.
What’s more, comparing the imprisonment of Mexican and Central American immigrants to that of white males born in the United States based on education tells a different story, according to Abramitzky. Men without a high school degree are the group most likely to be incarcerated for criminal activity. “But Mexican and Central American immigrants with low levels of education, which comprise a large share of immigrants from this region, are significantly less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born men with similarly low levels of education,” he says.
Abramitzky’s co-authors include Leah Platt Boustan, an economics professor at Princeton and co-author of Streets of Gold; Elisa Jácome, an assistant professor of economics at Northwestern and a former SIEPR postdoctoral fellow; Santiago Pérez, an associate professor of economics at the University of California, Davis; and Juan David Torres, a Stanford PhD student in economics and former predoctoral fellow at SIEPR. Immigrants vs. U.S.-born: Different economic forces
In setting out to compare criminality over time, the researchers took on a big challenge: Finding credible evidence of a connection between immigration and crime — and over a long time period — is extremely difficult. Other studies have relied on arrests records, but those do not include immigration status or birthplace. They also include arrests for minor infractions, which can reflect police bias more than actual crimes.
Instead, Abramitzky and his collaborators chose to analyze incarceration rates, which they say are better indicators of serious crime because they often require a conviction. As their primary data source, they turned to decennial censuses and surveys from the U.S. Census Bureau, which include information on individuals in correctional facilities and their birthplace — thereby allowing the researchers to build what they say is the first nationally representative dataset of incarceration rates for immigrants and the U.S.-born going back 170 years.
The researchers say it’s not entirely clear why the data show that immigrants have been imprisoned at increasingly lower rates than U.S.-born males since 1960.
“Many of the explanations we had in mind turned out to NOT be right when we looked at the data,” Abramitzky says. For example, examining differences in age, marital status, or education levels among immigrants didn’t provide a clue. Nor did changes in immigration policy or the states in which immigrants settled.
It is also unlikely, he says, that deportations contributed to the relatively lower rates of immigrant incarcerations.
The researchers conclude the likely explanation is that first-generation immigrants are faring better overall (and not just with respect to incarceration rates) than are U.S.-born men — especially compared to those without a high school diploma.
Globalization and advances in technology have hit white males hard, especially those who were born in the United States and who didn’t finish high school. Compared to immigrants, they are much more likely to be unemployed, unmarried, and in poor health — and perhaps more prone to commit crimes as a result, Abramitzky says.
The manual jobs that immigrants typically take on have been stable by comparison. Other studies have shown that immigrants also are, among other characteristics, highly adaptable and resilient.
“Recent waves of immigrants are more likely to be employed, married with children, and in good health,” Abramitzky says. “Far from the rapists and drug dealers that anti-immigrant politicians claim them to be, immigrants today are doing relatively well and have largely been shielded from the social and economic forces that have negatively affected low-educated U.S.-born men.”
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
The former president this week claimed that immigrants are coming from “mental institutions and insane asylums” and that Hannibal Lecter ― the cannibalistic serial killer from “Silence of the Lambs” ― is entering the country.
“Did you ever hear of Hannibal Lecter? They’re being dropped into our country. Hannibal Lecter is coming in, lots of them!” Trump told a crowd in New Hampshire.
I'm not so sure about that. With some I think you are correct. There are too many immigrants coming across the border. We can't take on immigrants from the entire continent of South America and Central America. It's simply too much. As of now leaders in the senate and the Biden administration are working on bipartisan legislation to address that. They're trying to find an effective compromise. I support that and I'm all for that.
However the people you seem to be describing have said they will derail any such efforts as soon as it hits the floor of the House. As I've shown, they don't actually want to fix anything as long as Biden is president because they feel it may help him in the election. Party over country. All I was actually doing was showing that factually, from a statistical basis, this myth claiming that immigrants raise the crime rate is a false narrative.
The last thing that an immigrant wants to do is to get cross with the law. The will do most anything to avoid interaction, which in of itself can be a problem. Lots of unreported domestic issues.
I almost started a different thread (I should have, one is in order): "What you you won't see on State TV"
I'm not arguing that all these immigrants are criminals, although there are plenty of "bad hombres" crossing the border. You've never heard me beating that drum in these hallowed halls.
Does anyone else find it curious that this receives no attention from the liberal media? The same media (along with our esteemed White House) that made Abbott out to be a murderer 24/7 last week?
And why would CBS just ignore that fact that he is an illegal immigrant that has been deported four times?
I've been paying attention. Red state TV and Blue state TV said totally different things about Covid. Just as they say pretty much the opposite thing about almost everything. Red states listen to Red State TV and Blue states listen to Blue State TV. Both have their share of bias and propaganda. To pretend it's otherwise is only fooling yourself. A portion of the reason why the division in America is so wide is because of this very thing. One side is just as guilty as the other.
CBS was the one legacy lefty news source to report this story, why do you think they would leave out those details? I mean, the border disaster and immigration problem is the #1 issue with almost all voters on both sides.
Maybe some people don't see the importance of where someone came from when it comes to the crimes they commit. It seems you have decided to ignore the nasty and hateful comments trump has been making about immigrants. When factually the crime rate is higher among American citizens that immigrants. The painting and promotion of a false narrative is not attractive.
You see, continuing to concentrate on the fact of where someone came from that has committed a crime ONLY when they are an immigrant only continues to poison people's minds towards them. When in fact they actually have a lower crime rate than citizens. I've never considered promoting a racial stereotype when the facts certainly do not support it as a positive thing.
I'm not sure if that GIF is him building a wall or taking it down. It looks like he can't make up his mind. He keeps repeating himself while getting nowhere. No wonder you like it.
Nov. 15, 2023 An increasing number of migrants arrested at the southern border over the past year are on the United States’ terrorist watch list, according to government data.
From October last year to this September, officials at the southern border arrested 169 people whose names matched those on the watch list, compared with 98 during the previous fiscal year and 15 in 2021, according to government data. But that is a minuscule fraction of the total number of migrants who were apprehended at the border over the past year, more than two million.
The increase appears to reflect at least two factors, a surge in illegal crossings and the number of people arriving from a wider variety of countries than in previous years.
Not that facts ever matter in this place... facts are for Pit to make fun of and OCD... well, I don't even know how he comes up with his responses.
Maybe some people don't see the importance of where someone came from when it comes to the crimes they commit. It seems you have decided to ignore the nasty and hateful comments trump has been making about immigrants. When factually the crime rate is higher among American citizens that immigrants. The painting and promotion of a false narrative is not attractive.
You see, continuing to concentrate on the fact of where someone came from that has committed a crime ONLY when they are an immigrant only continues to poison people's minds towards them. When in fact they actually have a lower crime rate than citizens. I've never considered promoting a racial stereotype when the facts certainly do not support it as a positive thing.
You sound like Mr. Rogers... on crack.
If somebody kills someone, drunk in a car, who shouldn't even have a license, then having been deported four times IS part of the story. Whether you or any of your whiney-azz snowflakes want to believe it or not.
And your second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Please attribute that to anything I've ever said or done here since post #1. I haven't concentrated on anything, I don't pick and choose. If they were black they were black, or white, green, whatever. Your little "poison people's minds" crap makes it sound like you just wet yourself. If a ______ person killed someone, it's impossible for it to be a racial stereotype in and of itself.
Obviosly, I meant shouldn't be behind the wheel, my bad.
Do prisons stop people? Simple... Illegal commits crime on US soil, illegal is deported... illegal comes back and is caught, life in prison. Border prison where they serve corn husks for dinner.
If somebody kills someone, drunk in a car, who shouldn't even have a license, then having been deported four times IS part of the story. Whether you or any of your whiney-azz snowflakes want to believe it or not.
And your second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Please attribute that to anything I've ever said or done here since post #1. I haven't concentrated on anything, I don't pick and choose. If they were black they were black, or white, green, whatever. Your little "poison people's minds" crap makes it sound like you just wet yourself. If a ______ person killed someone, it's impossible for it to be a racial stereotype in and of itself.
The story is the crime. Using something as a means to further anti immigration sentiment isn't attractive. I see rather than having discussions you have reverted back to your usual tactics. That's fine. Just remember that's a two way street. Many Americans drive with no license. Should part of the story be that they are Americans?
Instead you seem eager to point the finger at a group with a lower crime rate than Americans. Hmmmm....
Now all you have to do is explain Eve's crazy accusation. Which is after all what the discussion was about before she tried to derail it. Her claim was and I quote....
Quote
Thanks libtards for letting terrorists waltz through security.
She is referring to immigrants already in this country. Can you provide any evidence of these people flying are terrorists? You don't really have to put you ass on the line for every crazy thing Eve says you know.
Nov. 15, 2023 An increasing number of migrants arrested at the southern border over the past year are on the United States’ terrorist watch list, according to government data.
From October last year to this September, officials at the southern border arrested 169 people whose names matched those on the watch list, compared with 98 during the previous fiscal year and 15 in 2021, according to government data. But that is a minuscule fraction of the total number of migrants who were apprehended at the border over the past year, more than two million.
The increase appears to reflect at least two factors, a surge in illegal crossings and the number of people arriving from a wider variety of countries than in previous years.
Not that facts ever matter in this place... facts are for Pit to make fun of and OCD... well, I don't even know how he comes up with his responses.
Yeah, you didn't jump in and respond to the conversation where Eve said they were allowing terrorists to fly. She tried to move the goal posts mid stream and you, trying to play the hero jumped right in.
If somebody kills someone, drunk in a car, who shouldn't even have a license, then having been deported four times IS part of the story. Whether you or any of your whiney-azz snowflakes want to believe it or not.
And your second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Please attribute that to anything I've ever said or done here since post #1. I haven't concentrated on anything, I don't pick and choose. If they were black they were black, or white, green, whatever. Your little "poison people's minds" crap makes it sound like you just wet yourself. If a ______ person killed someone, it's impossible for it to be a racial stereotype in and of itself.
The story is the crime. Using something as a means to further anti immigration sentiment isn't attractive. I see rather than having discussions you have reverted back to your usual tactics. That's fine. Just remember that's a two way street. Many Americans drive with no license. Should part of the story be that they are Americans?
Instead you seem eager to point the finger at a group with a lower crime rate than Americans. Hmmmm....
Nope. Not at all. That's the narrative you want to switch to in your never-ending game of pin the tail on the goalposts.
I'm not pointing the finger at any group. I'm talking about one criminal illegal piece of human trash. Since none of your State TV sources will say anything about the fact that he's a four-time-deported illegal immigrant, I will. Now you know the whole story -- you're welcome. If you don't like it, find a safe space.
Just because she's talking about the 200 illegals on the terror watch list that entered the country during Biden's Border Disaster doesn't make all the other news story concerning this other-wordly-stranger-than-fiction approach toward the disaster irrelevant.
Nope. Not at all. That's the narrative you want to switch to in your never-ending game of pin the tail on the goalposts.
A narrative is something you add to what happened. The crime is what happened. The immigrant narrative is what you wish to be added.
Quote
I'm not pointing the finger at any group. I'm talking about one criminal illegal piece of human trash. Since none of your State TV sources will say anything about the fact that he's a four-time-deported illegal immigrant, I will. Now you know the whole story -- you're welcome. If you don't like it, find a safe space.
You can say anything you want. But no matter where he is from, no matter how many times he has been deported, that has zero impact on the story of what actually happened. So yes, you are pointing your finger at a group no matter how much you wish to deny it. And if I needed a safe space I wouldn't be on here taking on the likes of you and Eve, and Jim. Taking on the deplorables is what I do.
Just because she's talking about the 200 illegals on the terror watch list that entered the country during Biden's Border Disaster doesn't make all the other news story concerning this other-wordly-stranger-than-fiction approach toward the disaster irrelevant.
Comprende, DT police??
So long answer short you have no evidence that any of the immigrants that boarded those planes were terrorists. Thanks.
You see, I think they should all have to have photo ID's as well. That we agree on. What I won't do is uphold some of the crazy, unsubstantiated word vomit that people like Eve posts that have no basis in fact in order to paint a false narrative. You seem to have no problem with it.
Aw, you are trying to give me the power of the police. How nice of you sweetie.
Could you explain to your audience what the difference if a terrorist would take a bus, train or a plane to reach their destination? Inquiring minds want to know.
Lol. Nevermind. The possibility of two different posts with two different points is waaay over your head. You combine them to make one and then dispute it.
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Could you explain to your audience what the difference if a terrorist would take a bus, train or a plane to reach their destination? Inquiring minds want to know.
Yet every other terrorist attack in America has had nothing to do with flying in an airplane. From the Murrah Federal Building to the World trade Center bombing of 1993. But as per usual you use the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself. I expected as much.
The fact you jumped into a discussion about Eve claiming "Thanks libtards for letting terrorists waltz through security." and are now playing the denial game seems to escape you.
Next they'll be kicking Texas out of that park on the same grounds. Interfering with and preventing border agents from doing their job. Abbott's publicity stunts are coming to a close.
I'm anxious to see how much razor wire they start cutting out now that it's clear that the border-crisis-not-border-crisis-secure-border-not-secure-border is about to cost Biden the presidency.
Since the Republicans refuse to reach a border deal to help the crisis I imagine people will be dumb enough to fall for yet another political stunt by them. Who is saying it's not a crisis? Even Biden says it is. More Faux News misinformation or are you even further down the rabbit hole than that?
House Republican says he won't accept a border deal because it may help Biden politically
"Let me tell you, I'm not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval rating," Republican Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas told CNN this week. "I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man's dismal approval ratings. I'm not going to do it. Why would I?"
Ah, the Tenth of a Trillion War Bill with the 14B attached to help fix the disaster?
I wonder if Republicans will ever get to see the text on this one? They've been asking for weeks.
Quote
Meanwhile, GOP lawmakers on the outside of the closed-door talks are growing restless without seeing the border deal in writing. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., a voice critical of sending more aid to Ukraine, told reporters Monday that "we've had everybody tell us this is the best deal in the world, and nobody has seen a scrap of paper."
Stupid republicans... wanting to know what's actually in the bill before passing it?! The horror!!
P.S. I wonder if Biden's border-crisis-repair-plan will be called racist as well?
Before you start to mention just how much "BS is being stuffed into these bills" please remember that it was the republicans who decided to bundle Ukraine spending, Israel spending and the border into one giant package. That's just slightly more complicated than remodeling a home. Then you also don't have two contractors arguing over what is actually wrong with your home and which methods are best to fix it. So there's that.
And yes, they are having bipartisan, behind door talks to find something both parties can agree to. At that point everyone will see the agreement they reached, if they reach one. But as I've already shown you republicans don't want any kind of a deal because it might help Biden during an election year. You know, party over country.
Republican Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas told CNN this week. "I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man's dismal approval ratings. I'm not going to do it. Why would I?"
You've quoted him about 18 times in the last week. Is that what makes him "republicans"? The people digging the hole for the next goalpost would like to know.
Yes, keep pretending he is the only one just because he messed up and said it out loud. If you actually believe that the only one you're fooling is yourself.
If there is some show it to us? So far Comer can't, even though he claims he has it. Are you this easily fooled all of the time? Try taking a look at what 05 has to say about his own personal experience dealing with Comer. They often times say that facts don't matter. In this instance with you the lack of facts doesn't seem to matter.
I see you're having trouble comprehending a pattern of behavior that has been going on for decades with comer. Nor can you seem to grasp the false accusations Comer has made during these hearings themselves. That's a you problem.
And of course there are those who don't care about the nations court system or their decisions. And it goes as far as defying the SCOTUS.....
Rep. Chip Roy calls on Texas to defy SCOTUS border ruling
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) called on Texas lawmakers Tuesday to ignore the Supreme Court ruling allowing the Biden administration to remove razor wire installed to prevent migrant crossings at the border.
The big picture: The Republican-led state and the federal government have been dueling over keeping razor wires and buoy barriers with blades along the Southern border as the U.S. sees a surge in the number of migrants attempting to enter the country.
What he's saying: Roy said on Fox News Tuesday that the state has a duty under the Constitution to protect its citizens.
"There is no exception to that," he said. "And if the Supreme Court wants to ignore that truth, which a slim majority did, Texas still had the duty, Texas leaders still have the duty, to defend their people." Roy added, "It's like, if someone's breaking into your house, and the court says, 'Oh, sorry. You can't defend yourself.' What do you tell the court? You tell the court to go to hell, you defend yourself and then figure it out later."
Meanwhile, other Republican lawmakers in the state echoed their disdain at the decision.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Tuesday that the state's National Guard "continues to hold the line in Eagle Pass." and "Texas will not back down from our efforts to secure the border in Biden's absence." He also affirmed a statement from the Texas Department of Public Safety that said the state "will maintain its current posture in deterring illegal border crossings by utilizing effective border security measures - reinforced concertina wire & anti-climb barriers along the Rio Grande." Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Tuesday that the decision makes him angry and accused President Biden of "deliberately, systematically" dismantling progress the state had made in securing the border.
Catch up quick: The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Biden administration's request to vacate an injunction in the case, clearing the way for Border Patrol to remove razor-wire barriers installed by the state along the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass.
The Department of Justice had filed a lawsuit against Texas over the barriers last year. Texas sued the Biden administration in December in an attempt to stop agents from removing them. The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court earlier this month to grant an emergency motion allowing it to remove the wire.
Of note: A divided Supreme Court made Monday's ruling with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting.
Asked about the lack of an explanation in the brief order, Roy called on the two conservative justices who voted for it. "I mean, I don't know. You gotta go talk to John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett. There's no excuse for it," Roy said.
Prosecutors rebut ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon's attempt to dismiss fraud charges
Bannon is accused of defrauding donors to the "We Build the Wall" campaign.
Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon's attempt to dismiss his fraud indictment in New York City "bears little resemblance to reality," Manhattan prosecutors said Tuesday in a new court filing.
Bannon, who helped run former President Donald Trump's campaign for part of the 2016 presidential race, is seeking to dismiss charges that he defrauded donors of the "We Build the Wall" online fundraising campaign that was supposed to raise money for Trump's signature domestic project.
Bannon has pleaded not guilty in the case. A trial is scheduled for May.
The Manhattan district attorney's office said Bannon defrauded donors to the nonprofit organization by falsely promising that none of the money they donated would be used to pay the salary of "We Build the Wall" president Brian Kolfage -- while Bannon secretly funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kolfage by laundering it through third-party entities.
The fundraising campaign represented that "We Build the Wall" would use the money to privately construct the wall along the southern boarder. Prosecutors said a "central piece of the public messaging in support of this fundraising effort was that Kolfage was not taking a penny of compensation."
Financial records show that Kolfage was paid according to a secret salary arrangement that included an upfront payment of $100,000 and monthly payments of approximately $20,000.
Prosecutors said that when Kolfage testified before a grand jury, he admitted to receiving those payments, but testified that he believed that he was being paid by a nonprofit organization controlled by Bannon, Citizens of the American Republic, instead of We Build the Wall.
Prosecutors allege that Bannon concealed his role in diverting some of the $15 million in donations toward Kolfage, pointing to messages they say show how the alleged scheme worked.
"People's presentation in the instant matter included ample evidence that was more than sufficient to support the grand jury's decision to vote the charges laid out in the indictment," prosecutors said in their opposition to Bannon's motion to dismiss.
Bannon has pleaded not guilty to charges of money laundering, conspiracy and scheming to defraud investors. He was initially indicated on federal charges, but received a pardon from then-President Trump on Trump's final night in office.
Well I read the summary of the study you posted. I take it you posted it to show everyone that immigrants are no more likely to be criminals than us gringoes. After reading it something did not sit right. Something was missing. So I read it again. Light went off. Missing from the entire piece was the word illegal. These folks were studying criminal activity of either legal immigrants only or an unknown mix of immigrants here legally and illegally. That’s a problem isn’t it since I am pretty sure everyone on here expressing problems with what is going on at the border are concerned with illegal immigration. Not legal immigration.
Problem with data and conclusions drawn from it are simple. People who come here legally, go thru the process and are thoroughly vetted. Long criminal records need not apply. So the likelihood is that the legal immigrants do not commit much crime. What folks want to know is how much crime is committed by illegals in this country. Which is just what the lefties don't want Americans to know. Which is why the feds make it very difficult to obtain info about the number of crimes being committed by illegals. But I am certain that you can get that for us.
However, they cannot hide everything and some stuff just slips out. So for example, I saw this data in 2015 and it was from the most recent year data was available then, 2009. At that time the state of California ( states are not as good at hiding info from us as the feds) had about 200,000 prisoners in their state and local prisons. According to the states report sent to the feds, they were housing 102,000 illegal aliens in the prisons. Cost to the taxpayer for imprisonment of those illegals… $1,000,000,000 annually.
So really this report you posted does not add much. And while I do not know these guys I would bet they are lefties who just love open borders.
Maybe you brainiacs should consider the term UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS. ‘Illegals’ is a dehumanizing term for knuckle draggers and fascist leaders who think undocumented immigrants have no right to exist, let alone be here. I doubt many educated people doing a study would label or call them illegals.
Maybe you brainiacs should consider the term UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS. ‘Illegals’ is a dehumanizing term for knuckle draggers and fascist leaders who think undocumented immigrants have no right to exist, let alone be here. I doubt many educated people doing a study would label or call them illegals.
Nope, they are here illegally. Not gonna pussyfoot about language to avoid hurting libtard feelings. They are ILLEGAL ALIENS who are here ILLEGALLY.
Maybe you brainiacs should consider the term UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS. ‘Illegals’ is a dehumanizing term for knuckle draggers and fascist leaders who think undocumented immigrants have no right to exist, let alone be here. I doubt many educated people doing a study would label or call them illegals.
Maybe you brainiacs should consider the term UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS. ‘Illegals’ is a dehumanizing term for knuckle draggers and fascist leaders who think undocumented immigrants have no right to exist, let alone be here. I doubt many educated people doing a study would label or call them illegals.
Nope, they are here illegally. Not gonna pussyfoot about language to avoid hurting libtard feelings. They are ILLEGAL ALIENS who are here ILLEGALLY.
As if you think I would ever expect you to act with class.
Whats wrong, those words too strong for you? Or are you just allergic to the truth? And I don’t talk in memes and gifs, if you want to say something snarky, say it. I don’t care what you call me, think of me, or say to me. I know who I am and what I think. I also know in all things regardingTrump, I am correct and on the right side of History.
Whats wrong, those words too strong for you? Or are you just allergic to the truth? And I don’t talk in memes and gifs, if you want to say something snarky, say it. I don’t care what you call me, think of me, or say to me. I know who I am and what I think. I also know in all things regardingTrump, I am correct and on the right side of History.
You post that after your feelings get hurt by the truth? ILLEGALS ARE HERE ILLEGALLY. HENCE THE LABEL. You might want to read your signature.
Libtards are always getting their feelings hurt. This is like when they cancelled the term "looting" in favor of "smash and grab". They cant handle the truth, they just relabel it to make themselves feel better.
So, I should believe the Biden family is clean because 05 doesn't like Comer?
Seems legit.
You know why I still believe in Santa Claus? Crop circles.
No, certainly not. You should believe the Biden Family is clean because there hasn't been any proof to the contrary. You wanna know how I know that there hasn't been proof? That's easy, if there was, Comer and Jordan would already have brought charges and attempted to impeach him.. All they've done so far is create the appearance of wrongdoing. No actual wrongdoing.
I don't believe in Santa or Crop circles either,,,,
Thus far anything connecting to Joe Biden has been. And somehow you think some chart made up with no documentation to back it up means something. No wonder you're so easily led astray.
Nothing about Chip Roy telling Abbott to ignore the SCOTUS ruling? I didn't think so.
Thus far anything connecting to Joe Biden has been. And somehow you think some chart made up with no documentation to back it up means something. No wonder you're so easily led astray.
Nothing about Chip Roy telling Abbott to ignore the SCOTUS ruling? I didn't think so.
Now you're outraged because someone says the ruling is b.s.?
I'm excited to see Team Biden there cutting out the wire... every snip = 1000 less votes. When is that charade going to start? Still sharpening their scissors??
So you won't address the fact that a Senator Chip Roy is telling the governor of Texas to defy the SCOTUS ruling. Exactly as I had thought. That dodge ball game of yours is still strong.
Yet another example of trump only caring about himself
Trump Privately Pressuring GOP Senators To ‘Kill’ Border Deal To Deny Biden A Win Jennifer Bendery, Igor Bobic Wed, January 24, 2024 at 7:38 PM EST·4 min read 1.5k
WASHINGTON – Donald Trump on Wednesday privately pressured Senate Republicans to “kill” a bipartisan deal to secure the U.S. border because he doesn’t want President Joe Biden to chalk up a win ahead of the 2024 presidential election, according to a source familiar with the tenuous negotiations on the package.
Trump directly reached out to several GOP senators on Wednesday to tell them to reject any deal, said this source, who requested anonymity to speak freely. The GOP presidential frontrunner also personally reached out to some Senate Republicans over the weekend, the source told HuffPost.
“Trump wants them to kill it because he doesn’t want Biden to have a victory,” said the source. “He told them he will fix the border when he is president… He said he only wants the perfect deal.”
Trump’s meddling generated an “emotional” discussion in a closed door meeting between Senate Republicans on Wednesday, as senators vented their frustrations for hours about the largely secret negotiations over emergency aid for Ukraine, Israel and immigration. The conference is splintering into two camps: those who believe Republicans should take the deal, and those who are opposed at any cost.
“The rational Republicans want the deal because they want Ukraine and Israel and an actual border solution,” said the source. “But the others are afraid of Trump, or they’re the chaos caucus who never wants to pass anything.”
“They’re having a little crisis in their conference right now,” the source added.
A bipartisan group of senators has been working for months to craft a border deal, and Trump has made it no secret that he opposes it. Last Wednesday, he wrote on Truth Social, his conservative social media site, “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions and Millions of people.”
What’s different now, though, is that Trump, who appears to have the GOP presidential nomination locked up, is now directly telling GOP senators to oppose any deal. His meddling has left their conference in even more disarray than it was already in, and a potential border deal in limbo
Donald Trump is privately telling Senate Republicans to kill a bipartisan deal to secure the U.S. border because he doesn’t want President Joe Biden to chalk up a win ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) demurred when asked if he thinks it’s constructive for Trump to tell Republicans not to make any border deals.
“I could probably go through any number of things that Biden is saying that are not constructive when he’s on the campaign trail, but that’s the nature of campaigns,” Tillis said. “So I’m not going to criticize President Trump or his positions.”
But, bucking Trump, he said he supported passing the bipartisan border deal, which Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) has been working on with Democrats.
“Based on what I’ve seen and based on the work that James Lankford has put in, it goes far enough for me,” said Tillis. “If anyone’s intellectually honest with themselves, they all know these would be extraordinary tools for President Trump.”
During Wednesday’s meeting, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) referenced comments Trump made as president in 2018 about the difficulty of getting Democrats to agree to changes to immigration laws. McConnell, who is no fan of Trump, was making the case that Republicans should agree to a border deal now, since the likelihood of Democrats potentially cutting a deal with Trump in the White House again would be highly unlikely.
At the meeting, senators also viewed footage of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) making a prophetic warning about Russia’s designs on Europe after Vladimir Putin ordered an invasion of Crimea in 2014 — a bid by Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) to build support for Ukraine aid.
Tillis, who is an advocate of aid to Ukraine, told HuffPost there is “a general consensus in the majority of our conference that we need to support Ukraine.”
He warned what it would mean if the U.S. gives up on Ukraine: “This won’t take decades to regret. This will be in a matter of years. People who choose to ultimately exit Ukraine, if they are successful, for as long as I am breathing, I will remind them of the consequences I am convinced we will have to live through.”
Multiple senators described the meeting as a healthy airing of views, but none believed that it changed any minds.
“I don’t think Russia’s going to keep going,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), said when asked about the dangers of abandoning Ukraine.
“They have fought for two years just to try to get 50 miles in Ukraine. How in the hell are they going to go to Poland, Sweden, keep going through Europe?” he wondered. “That’s not going to happen.”
Before you start to mention just how much "BS is being stuffed into these bills" please remember that it was the republicans who decided to bundle Ukraine spending, Israel spending and the border into one giant package. That's just slightly more complicated than remodeling a home. Then you also don't have two contractors arguing over what is actually wrong with your home and which methods are best to fix it. So there's that.
And yes, they are having bipartisan, behind door talks to find something both parties can agree to. At that point everyone will see the agreement they reached, if they reach one. But as I've already shown you republicans don't want any kind of a deal because it might help Biden during an election year. You know, party over country.
Leading the talks is Republican from Oklahoma James Lankford- “There are some hard issues that are still on the table," Lankford said Wednesday afternoon after giving Senate Republicans an update on talks at a lunch meeting. “But I think we’ve got serious people on all sides … trying to figure out how to resolve these.”
Lankford is working with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., and top White House staff to try and hammer out a solution to toughen asylum laws and restrict parole authorities for immigration cases. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have gotten involved in the talks, along with the Department of Homeland Security, sources with knowledge said.
And they will come to an agreement and it will die in the house. There is no way that johnson brings this up for a vote-just by chance that you get some dems and repubs vote together to pass this. johnson is not going to cross his leader-in an election year.
President Biden did say a couple days ago that both sides are negotiating in good faith on the senate side and they framework of the bill is something he would sign.
Why would we do that?? A definition of alien is “someone who resides in a country not of one’s birth, without proper documentation. That describes them to a “t”! And they are here illegally hence the term illegal alien. Calling them undocumented anything seems to me to imply they need to be documented. They don’t. We need to keep doing what Biden is doing loading them onto buses. But instead of running them into American communities and becoming an expense to American taxpayers, we point the buses due south and take them back where they came from. In the case of illegals crossing from Iran, Russia, China etc we take them to a port in Mexico and let them find their way home. These people are not American citizens and they do not have a right to be here.
It is time America took charge of its borders and Americans have a say in who is allowed into our country.
Maybe you should brush up on how the asylum system works. And maybe you should understand the back back log there are in those cases. And how hard Biden has tried to get funding for more immigration judges and increased border agents while Republicans have refused to fund those things.
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to request the opportunity to apply for asylum.Oct 6, 2023
What your ilk refuses to understand that even when they cross the border illegally the moment they apply for asylum they are then legally granted a hearing. Those hearings are backlogged for two years as it stands now and Republicans refuse to fund more immigration judges.
Maybe you brainiacs should consider the term UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS. ‘Illegals’ is a dehumanizing term for knuckle draggers and fascist leaders who think undocumented immigrants have no right to exist, let alone be here. I doubt many educated people doing a study would label or call them illegals.
The term is actually illegal aliens. I get what you're saying (dehumanizing might be a little dramatic), but at the end of the day crossing the border illegally means they are here illegally. The manner in which they cross the border involves breaking law(s) no different than a thief stealing from a store. People who steal from a grocery store due to food insecurity are still shoplifters, regardless of how we feel about the context.
Illegally until the moment they apply for asylum. I don't think a shoplifter can apply for asylum so it is a much different situation. It is true that they crossed the border illegally. But once they apply for asylum they have a legal right to a hearing.
This system is broken and laws need to be changed. But in this case, due to some pretty crazy laws, they are here illegally until the moment they aren't. But that doesn't sound like something anyone would actually own up to when trying to sow political division.
“My ilk” explained on here in a conversation with you how to deal with asylum seekers. Go and review it. Biden could do it all if he wanted to control the border.
People wading across the rio grande, cutting holes in walls and digging under fences are not asylum seekers. They are lawbreakers.
I know you really do not care but dealing with this problem is not all that hard. As I said above if you come in between ports of entry you are loaded up immediately and taken back from whence they came. For those who apply properly for asylum, first under no circumstances are they released into our country . They are detained or remain in Mexico. Second we hire as many asylum referees as necessary to staff hundreds at each port. Asylum requests are adjudicated within 48 hours. Since about 90% of asylum requests are denied most of those folks will be sent packing within 2-3 days. As the likelihood of getting released into America for anyone who show up at the border goes away, the mass draw to our border will be eliminated .
Our first goal should be to get it down to the levels we saw during Trump administration. Your know maybe .5 million per year. But that would just be the start. Eventually our border would be an orderly well maintained border. Then we start working on the 25 million or so in the country illegally.
Biden does not have the authority to rewrite immigration law. I know you want to support a dictator to be commander in chief but that's actually not how changing laws work. The only way he would have the power to do that would be under a national health emergency. You know, like when covid was killing all those people. No amount of wrangling can change that.
Congress writes the law.
You claim 25 million are here illegally. How many of that 25 million have applied for asylum? Because for those who have they're here legally pending an asylum hearing. Entering the country illegally isn't the same as being here illegally once they apply for asylum. You may not like that and I may not like that but that's the way the law is at the present time. But I do understand you don't wish to address that.
Pat attention. Your "ilk" isn't trying to solve or fix anything at the border because trump has spoken......
GOP senators seethe as Trump blows up delicate immigration compromise
Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are grappling with the reality that most in the GOP are loathe to do anything that is seen as potentially undermining the former president – and coming to terms with the fact that Trump is likely going to be their party’s standard bearer.
“I think the border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is is really appalling,” said GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump.
He added, “But the reality is that, that we have a crisis at the border, the American people are suffering as a result of what’s happening at the border. And someone running for president not to try and get the problem solved. as opposed to saying, ‘hey, save that problem. Don’t solve it. Let me take credit for solving it later.’”
GOP Sen. Todd Young of Indiana expressed concern over the idea of the border deal being scrapped for political reasons, saying: “I hope no one is trying to take this away for campaign purposes.”
“I would encourage (Senate GOP negotiators) James Lankford and other conservatives to produce a work product with which they will shortly allow conservatives like myself to review it and take heart that there are a number of us who won’t be looking to third parties and assessing the propriety of passing this bipartisan proposal,” Young said.
It’s an all-too-familiar dynamic for the Republicans who served while Trump was in office, where he could easily derail legislative action on Capitol Hill with the blast of a single tweet or stir up a new controversy that Republicans were forced to respond to. And with Trump now marching toward the presidential nomination, Republicans are once again bracing for life with him as the nominee.
GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina – who has also been involved in the talks – said he didn’t know if anyone could convince Trump to not kill the deal. But he acknowledged that it would take some “courage” for members to be able to press ahead at this point in defiance of Trump – though Tillis argued it would ultimately be beneficial for Trump for them to pass a border security deal.
“I think this is when members of the Senate have to show some courage and do something that at the end of the day will be very helpful for President Trump,” Tillis said.
Asked whether it was a mistake for Trump to be assailing this deal, Tillis said: “I’ll leave it to him to figure out how he needs to get into office. I hope you’ll leave it to some of us who would support that effort to give him the tools he needs to really manage the border and the abuse and the dangerous situation we have today.”
For his part, McConnell – who has had zero relationship with Trump since the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack – downplayed Trump’s opposition saying, “It’s not anything new,” and insisting they were not abandoning the talks.
“We’re still working,” McConnell said. “Trying to get an outcome.”
These are not Democrats saying these things. Trump doesn't want the border fixed until he becomes president and can take credit for it. Power and ego over country.
You do not need to rewrite immigration law. You don’t need to pass new laws. Biden can do what is necessary to begin bringing the American under control. First end catch and release. A really dumb idea. Second, reinstate remain in Mexico policy. Third get back to work on the wall. If they haven’t sold the material for pennies on the dollar we can get started pretty quickly. Those things worked before and they will work now. You may not like it but they will. Quit making it more complicated than necessary.
Trump used emergency Covid restrictions which was legal and was helpful but have expired as Covid is no longer a national health emergency. And I think you are missing something very critical here. A president can not "fix the border". People such as Keith keep acting as if a president has the power to magically change everything which they certainly do not.
The "fix" is what is being attempted to be done now. Both parties sit down and figure out a new bipartisan immigration proposal and present it to congress. Only congress has the power to change and approve such changes in our immigration laws. The GOP wouldn't be engaged in trying to reach such a deal with the Biden administration and put such a bill before congress if congress weren't in charge of immigration laws.
This actually has nothing to do with " Biden couldn't fix it, trump didn't, Obama didn't, etc." It has to do with congress hasn't fixed it. And as I've shown above, trump is telling them not to try and fix it until he has a chance to become president. And those quotes in the article are those of Republican law makers. Not democrats or the liberal news media as some always try to suggest.
Somehow people have been convinced that immigration law and fixing that is in the hands of whoever happens to be president at the moment which is far from the truth. Only congress can write laws. Anyone suggesting otherwise is proposing that the measure of checks and balances written into the constitution no longer exist. And some seem to support that idea.
Edit to add; And of course there is a crisis at the border. There has been for decades. The numbers are worse and that brings it to everyone's attention and focus even more.
Are you serious??? The difference between the border under Trump and the border under Biden is like the difference in watching nfl football and watching high school football. Biden has destroyed border security and the lefties in his administration do not care. Do what Trump did and we can eliminate the chaos going on now.
Edit to add; And of course there is a crisis at the border. There has been for decades. The numbers are worse and that brings it to everyone's attention and focus even more.
That's what I was saying. And I'll also say this: It won't be fixed until it's too late. Might be too late now.
Are you serious??? The difference between the border under Trump and the border under Biden is like the difference in watching nfl football and watching high school football. Biden has destroyed border security and the lefties in his administration do not care. Do what Trump did and we can eliminate the chaos going on now.
Yes, I'm serious. No one is going to fix it. Hasn't been 'fixed' in how long?
Trump used emergency Covid restrictions which was legal and was helpful but have expired as Covid is no longer a national health emergency. And I think you are missing something very critical here. A president can not "fix the border". People such as Keith keep acting as if a president has the power to magically change everything which they certainly do not.
The "fix" is what is being attempted to be done now. Both parties sit down and figure out a new bipartisan immigration proposal and present it to congress. Only congress has the power to change and approve such changes in our immigration laws. The GOP wouldn't be engaged in trying to reach such a deal with the Biden administration and put such a bill before congress if congress weren't in charge of immigration laws.
This actually has nothing to do with " Biden couldn't fix it, trump didn't, Obama didn't, etc." It has to do with congress hasn't fixed it. And as I've shown above, trump is telling them not to try and fix it until he has a chance to become president. And those quotes in the article are those of Republican law makers. Not democrats or the liberal news media as some always try to suggest.
Somehow people have been convinced that immigration law and fixing that is in the hands of whoever happens to be president at the moment which is far from the truth. Only congress can write laws. Anyone suggesting otherwise is proposing that the measure of checks and balances written into the constitution no longer exist. And some seem to support that idea.
Edit to add; And of course there is a crisis at the border. There has been for decades. The numbers are worse and that brings it to everyone's attention and focus even more.
Why are you lying? The President absolutely does have the power to set and change border policy. I know it's inconvienent for libtards, but here is a sample of what Biden has done: https://cmsny.org/biden-immigration-executive-actions/
First try finding out the difference between what an executive order is and immigration laws are and then get back to me. Which means nobody lied about only congress having the authority to write immigration laws. But I wouldn't expect a repugnantcan to know the difference when they like to point fingers first and learn something later to know the difference. If they even bother to learn anything.
Considering the source I'll take that as a compliment since you obviously have no clue what you're talking about, ever. So explain then how a president can write and pass laws? Explain how the constitustion says only congress can do that? Or have you ever read the constitution? Oh that's right, you support a man who doesn't believe in the constitution. Case closed.
First try finding out the difference between what an executive order is and immigration laws are and then get back to me. Which means nobody lied about only congress having the authority to write immigration laws. But I wouldn't expect a repugnantcan to know the difference when they like to point fingers first and learn something later to know the difference. If they even bother to learn anything.
So, youre trying to say that those dozens of Biden executive orders changing border policy to weaken border policy had no effect on border policy because they are not laws? Stop lying.
I of course can already tell you haven't bothered to look up the difference between what an executive order and passing laws are or the fact that the constitution plainly states that only congress can pass laws.
I said and I'll say it again. Our immigration system is broken. The laws need to be revised and our immigration laws need to be changed. Only congress has the power to do that. Everything that seeks to undermine that or act like that isn't true is nothing more than white noise and doesn't change those facts.
I didn't expect you to learn anything and as it turns out you have once again met my expectations.
The SCOTUS has ruled. Are you saying they should ignore the highest court in the land which has the final say in this country? It would come as no surprise if you did. The governor of Texas is not above the SCOTUS. But then when you have a group that ignores the constitution and the law of the land it comes as no surprise. And BTW- it's a SCOTUS with a conservative majority. When you don't like the outcome you don't even care if the people making the decision are on your side.
I of course can already tell you haven't bothered to look up the difference between what an executive order and passing laws are or the fact that the constitution plainly states that only congress can pass laws.
I said and I'll say it again. Our immigration system is broken. The laws need to be revised and our immigration laws need to be changed. Only congress has the power to do that. Everything that seeks to undermine that or act like that isn't true is nothing more than white noise and doesn't change those facts.
I didn't expect you to learn anything and as it turns out you have once again met my expectations.
Stop lying dude. Biden has destructively changed border policy resulting in a massive influx of illegals. Sticking your fingers in your ears saying lalalalala out of one side of your mouth while lying out of the other side of your mouth isnt going to change the facts.
The SCOTUS has ruled. Are you saying they should ignore the highest court in the land which has the final say in this country? It would come as no surprise if you did. The governor of Texas is not above the SCOTUS. But then when you have a group that ignores the constitution and the law of the land it comes as no surprise. And BTW- it's a SCOTUS with a conservative majority. When you don't like the outcome you don't even care if the people making the decision are on your side.
Texas is going to do what they want to do and I support them. Biden Admin including SCOTUS has their head in the sand.
No, Abbott won't "do what he wants to do". I know in the repugantcan world you think that's how things work, "I'll do what i want". but we are supposedly a nation of laws. Somehow you think that all changed once trump showed up.
No, I said the president can't change or write immigration laws. If I said what you claim then quote me on that. And good luck BTW. Now you're just making BS up.
No, I said the president can't change or write immigration laws. If I said what you claim then quote me on that. And good luck BTW. Now you're just making BS up.
You said exactly what I said you said. Biden has most definitely changed immigration policy and you keep lying about it.
Cool story. We'll let you know when the world, DT, or even your basement becomes a place where another human gives any credence to who you consider 'winners' and 'losers'.
So Trump kills a Senate border deal that gives Senate GOPers everything they asked for and Romney told the world! You can’t make this crap up! Straight told America Trump would rather blame Biden then fix it! The PATHETIC DUPES got rolled by big orange again! The Orange Ass Clown Party! That’s some dictator crap there, screw the people, take care of me me me! OMG, comedians couldn’t write it this well.
EDIT: Trump won’t be happy until he has the right wearing his brand of swastika and killing fellow Americans. Hard to believe anyone following him would have a problem woth that personally.
Cool story. We'll let you know when the world, DT, or even your basement becomes a place where another human gives any credence to who you consider 'winners' and 'losers'.
No, I said the president can't change or write immigration laws. If I said what you claim then quote me on that. And good luck BTW. Now you're just making BS up.
You said exactly what I said you said. Biden has most definitely changed immigration policy and you keep lying about it.
You're lying and obviously can't back up your lie. A president can't write or pass immigration laws. That's what I've said all along and you don't have anything other than your trumpian style lies to indicate otherwise.
Pit: "He can't do anything about it... Congress!!"
So now you wish to join into the liars club. I said no president can write or pass immigration laws. I considered you above Eve. But now you've taken to her lying ways. Birds of a feather.
Your so called quote was a direct lie and you know it. But I didn't expect you to take ownership of that. Of course presidents can write executive orders but they can not overhaul the immigration laws. The numbers were already trending up before Biden took office as your own chart indicated. But his executive orders certainly helped exasperate the situation. Passing new immigration laws to stop leaving so much ambiguity in our immigration laws would help prevent such things in the future. Hopefully it would be written in a manner to stop future presidents from separating children from their parents as well.
It's not a "direct lie". It's the excuse you use in every conversation about the border. Instead of manning up and admitting Biden created this disaster, you point at Trump and congress. It's Pitiful. You, and the left, spent three years saying there was no problem, now you want to dance around it and point at someone else.
I've always pointed the finger at who is responsible for poorly written immigration laws and the loopholes and ambiguity in them. Try this again. Only congress can write or pass immigration laws.
That's not a lie of ANY type. I never said immigration wasn't a problem. I did point how low the numbers had dipped at one point which was 100% factually true.
I have no idea how saying.....
Quote
But his executive orders certainly helped exasperate the situation.
..... is blaming someone else for his part in this.
Nothing to see here folks, it's only 200+ years FBI experience serving under seven Presidents and four FBI directors...
Retired FBI execs to Congress: Invasion at border ‘perilous’ for America
Bethany Blankley The Center Square contributor Washington Examiner Jan 26, 2024
(The Center Square) – Ten retired FBI directors and experts in counter intelligence sent a letter to congressional leaders warning that President Joe Biden’s border policies have facilitated a “soft invasion” into the U.S. of military-age men coming from terror-linked regions, China and Russia.
They argue a terrorist attack is likely imminent but preventable.
“The threat we call out today is new and unfamiliar. In its modern history the U.S. has never suffered an invasion of the homeland, and, yet, one is unfolding now. Military age men from across the globe, many from countries or regions not friendly to the United States, are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands – not by splashing ashore from a ship or parachuting from a plane bur rather by foot across a border that has been accurately advertised around the world as largely unprotected with ready access granted.”
“It would be difficult to overstate the danger represented by the presence inside our borders of what is comparatively a multi division army of young single adult males from hostile nations and regions whose background, intent, or allegiance is completely unknown. They include individuals encountered by border officials and then possibly released into the country, along with the shockingly high estimate of 'gotaways,' meaning those who have entered and evaded apprehension.”
According to the US Department of Defense, an Army company is comprised of 100 soldiers, a battalion of 1,000, a brigade 5,000, a division 15,000, and a corps, 45,000.
There have been over 1.7 million gotaways reported to have illegally entered and evaded capture since Biden’s been in office, the majority of whom are military age men. They are included in the more than 10 million total illegal border crossers reported to have entered the country from Jan. 1, 2021, to Sept. 30, 2023.
“In light of such a daunting, unprecedented penetration by uninvited foreign actors, it is reasonable to assert that the country possesses dramatically diminished national security at this time. The nation's military and laws and other natural protective barriers that have provided traditional security in the past have been thoroughly circumvented over the past three years,” the former FBI directors wrote.
They called on Congress to secure the border “against these young men and those already here illegally must be identified and removed without delay.”
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., posted a copy of the letter on X, saying, “This sobering letter from former FBI, Homeland Security, and other law enforcement officials describes the chilling reality of why the president’s open border is a clear and present danger to America.”
The letter was written on Jan. 17, prior to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott invoking the invasion clause of the U.S. Constitution arguing Texas’ right to defend itself and ahead of the House preparing to impeach U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over the years-long border crisis.
It was addressed to Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and the chairs of House and Senate intelligence and homeland security committees.
The retired FBI officials sounding the alarm served under seven U.S. presidents and four FBI directors.
They include Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence and former principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Chris Swecker, former assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division; Timothy Healy, former director of the Terrorist Screening Center; Ruben Garcia, Jr., former executive assistant director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch; Mark Morgan, former assistant director for training at the FBI, former acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and former U.S. Border Patrol chief; David Szady, former assistant director of counterintelligence; Jody Weiss, former special agent in charge in Philadelphia; David Mitchell, former special agent in charge in Milwaukee; William Gavin, former assistant director of the FBI’s Inspection Division and Timothy McNally, former assistant director of the FBI’s Los Angeles division.
The MAGA GOPers on capital hill only care that Biden fails. Fixes aren’t even on the table for them. “Biden must fail” All of them traitors to the USA. Sabotaging their own nation.Pffft GOPers.
Just excited that somebody has the balls to do something about this insanity, it's about time.
You forgot the "even if it's illegal and denying a SCOTUS order" part.
Quote
But frame it however you want.
There is no other way to frame it. You are excited that the governor of Texas is refusing to follow the rule of law to take the law into his own hands. That's nothing less than supporting vigilante justice.
You do realize this immigration crisis has been ongoing WITH that razor wire in place, right? That the razor wire has had zero impact in regards to stopping the flow of immigrants crossing our border, right? You're "excited" by a publicity stunt that has done absolutely nothing to prevent the flow of immigrants. It's no wonder people such as yourself are so easily fooled and support brazenly illegal acts by those you support.
Though the Supreme Court this week allowed federal officials — namely, the Border Patrol — to remove razor wire installed by Texas, that order did not affect other flashpoints in the uneasy relationship between feds and state agents.
Since then, the governor has methodically increased the border enforcement roles of the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas National Guard, citing the constitutional authority for a state to defend itself against invasion.
“That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border,” wrote Abbott.
I thought the SCOTUS made that clear. Or did you even bother to look? Of course you didn't.
The wire is placed on the bank of the river. Immigrants are ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY at that point. It is the job of U.S. Border Enforcement to detain those immigrants at that point since they are already in the United States. The razor wire acts as a deterrent which interferes with Border Patrol doing their job.
Maybe you should take your opposition up with the conservative leaning SCOTUS that made that ruling.
These are the results one gets when you refuse to look at the SCOTUS ruling. Abbott isn't stopping immigrants from crossing the border. His claim to the contrary is nothing but feeding people like yourself something to cling to. They have already crossed the border before they get to the razor wire.
So once again you support Abbott denying the SCOTUS ruling. This is what it looks like when people support extremism over the rule of law. I'm not surprised you support the breaker of the law over the rule of law. Since it seems you put more stock in what Abbott has to say and thinks his opinion means more than the SCOTUS ruling.
Yep. That's actually inside out, but you're too blind to see. I'm not surprised you're not surprised. His being an actual leader and doing something about a Biden sponsored invasion isn't an "opinion".
And in your circle that's what passes for an actual leader these days. Someone who refuses to honor the rule of law. Even after the explanation of the SCOTUS ruling the law no longer means anything to you. That's the same thing that happened on Jan. 6th. And you wonder why I keep telling liberals they should arm themselves.
So you support Abbott refusing to obey an order form the SCOTUS. Yes, they all need protection from anyone and everyone who endorse no respect for law and order because there's no telling just how far they will take it and we've seen evidence of it. Just in case you missed it, the SCOTUS is the law of the land and you are promoting lawlessness just as was done on Jan. 6th. I did not however see you ever condoning that people refuse to follow the instructions of the SCOTUS. It seems as though promoting lawless behavior is spreading among your kind like an infection. Sad days for America.
Biden's gonna get on soon and mumble, stumble & fumble through a few sentences explaining what he's going to do about it.
I predict some shaming and no action at all. The alternative will seal his fate as a one term failure.
I love your crystal ball predictions. What should happen is Abbott should be arrested for contempt of court and then we would see an armed revolt by the right wing because thus far they keep supporting that laws don't apply to them and their kind. Their #1 weapon is intimidation and violence.
So you support Abbott refusing to obey an order form the SCOTUS. Yes, they all need protection from anyone and everyone who endorse no respect for law and order because there's no telling just how far they will take it and we've seen evidence of it. Just in case you missed it, the SCOTUS is the law of the land and you are promoting lawlessness just as was done on Jan. 6th. I did not however see you ever condoning that people refuse to follow the instructions of the SCOTUS. It seems as though promoting lawless behavior is spreading among your kind like an infection. Sad days for America.
Yes, yes, YES. I support it. How many times do you want me to say it??
Biden's gonna get on soon and mumble, stumble & fumble through a few sentences explaining what he's going to do about it.
I predict some shaming and no action at all. The alternative will seal his fate as a one term failure.
I love your crystal ball predictions. What should happen is Abbott should be arrested for contempt of court and then we would see an armed revolt by the right wing because thus far they keep supporting that laws don't apply to them and their kind. Their #1 weapon is intimidation and violence.
No. That's what should happen. When you defy a SCOTUS ruling you should be held accountable for for it. If not the law means nothing in this country anymore because they are the highest court in the land. The reaction to it if it should ever happen was based on a previous experience we all saw. No, I don't expect Abbott to be held accountable for his criminal activity at this point. Which is why the rule of law no longer matters to people such as yourself. You only support keeping the law when it's convenient for you.
You have now put yourself in the category of supporting lawless behavior based on your politics.
A president can not "fix the border". People such as Keith keep acting as if a president has the power to magically change everything which they certainly do not
I see Pitdawg is still lying today. Biden signed 535 executive border policies to establish border policy. Lie about that some more pit. Tell us how 535 executive orders don't do anything.
Also, stop acting like a law would change anything. It is currently a federal crime for an illegal immigrant to be on our land. Yet they are still here. A law says it's illegal. I don't see them getting deported. Might have something to do with the 535 executive orders.
Also, stop acting like a law would change anything. It is currently a federal crime for an illegal immigrant to be on our land. Yet they are still here. A law says it's illegal. I don't see them getting deported. Might have something to do with the 535 executive orders.
I'm sorry you refuse to read how people can apply for asylum. They can apply after they enter the country illegally and have a right to a hearing after they apply. I've posted that law on here several times. I'm sorry you either refused to read it or can't comprehend it. You better contact congress and have them fix that.
Also, stop acting like a law would change anything. It is currently a federal crime for an illegal immigrant to be on our land. Yet they are still here. A law says it's illegal. I don't see them getting deported. Might have something to do with the 535 executive orders.
I'm sorry you refuse to read how people can apply for asylum. They can apply after they enter the country illegally and have a right to a hearing after they apply. I've posted that law on here several times. I'm sorry you either refused to read it or can't comprehend it. You better contact congress and have them fix that.
Not everybody applies for asylum. The illegals are here illegally. They cross illegally. They enter illegally. Ask the 6 million of them who have done so while Biden is president.
He can change policies not covered by the law. What he can't do is change the laws. Do you even bother to read the thread? I told Fate earlier today in this very thread that biden made decisions that helped make the situation worse. Try to catch up rather than just spewing word vomit.
Not everybody applies for asylum. The illegals are here illegally. They cross illegally. They enter illegally.
You are correct that not all of them apply for asylum and they should be deported. However, as much as you keep relying on "They cross illegally. They enter illegally.", those who do apply for asylum after crossing the border can remain here legally pending an asylum hearing. Once again, only congress cab change that law.
So you finally admit that Biden changed policy for the worse. My job is done here.
You had nothing to do with it. You still think that a president can change immigration laws. You still think that a president has the power to fix the border. No president holds that power.
The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make public why the agency halted the 287(g) program that helps take illegal alien child rapists, attempted murderers, assailants, carjackers, and others off the streets.
I have already agreed that I certainly don't agree with many of the changes Biden made to policies and programs. But this isn't an immigration law. Even your own source doesn't claim that it is.
From your Hill source....
Quote
Republicans plan to use Biden’s immigration enforcement policies against the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections, and recent polls indicate many voters are worrying “a great deal” about illegal immigration — and that they think the Biden administration is encouraging it.
Once again while the headline reads law, the article you posted the link to makes it clear it's policy and not law.
I'm not sure why certain ones of you are having so much trouble understanding the difference.
That's what your chart showed. It's not my fault you chose to post it. Maybe you should be more careful about posting factual information only to have it blow up in your face.
I'm not the one who is so ignorant they don't know the difference between immigration policy and immigration law. And not only that, you don't even care enough to learn the difference between the two.
NOBODY cares about the difference. You've stated it in 139 posts. It's your way of avoiding any actual conversation concerning Sleepy Joe's Border Disaster.
And you posted two links claiming he wasn't enforcing immigration laws when none of it was immigration laws. Maybe when it finally sinks into that brain of yours that those two things aren't the same I won't have to keep trying to teach it to you and Eve.
I'm not the one who is so ignorant they don't know the difference between immigration policy and immigration law. And not only that, you don't even care enough to learn the difference between the two.
Stop lying dude. You refuse to acknowledge that Biden's immigration policy has opened the border wide open.
What part of I don't like some of his policies and that they have added to the problem can't you comprehend? If you weren't so sad you would be hilarious.
What part of I don't like some of his policies and that they have added to the problem can't you comprehend? If you weren't so sad you would be hilarious.
Finally you took the L. Now I can do other things.
Hmmm... seems like Border Patrol likes the razor wire. Now what, Joe? Deadline has come and passed... nothing?
Sleepy Joe won't do anything because he knows it will cost him the election.
I'd say this whole thing will blow up in his face, but he has State TV on his side. All the lefty wingnuts will toe the line and sweep this whole episode of Joe's Border Catastrophe under the rug.
Border Patrol has 'no plans' to remove razor wire set up by Texas amid feud with Biden admin
Adam Shaw, Griff Jenkins Fri, January 26, 2024 at 4:05 PM EST·3 min read
Border Patrol has "no plans" to remove razor wire placed by Texas along the southern border, a senior Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official told Fox News on Friday, stressing a "strong" relationship with Texas despite an ongoing legal battle between the state and the administration.
Texas is currently locked in a multi-pronged legal fight with the federal government over the security of the Texas-Mexico border. The federal government has threatened legal action over Texas’ recent seizure of Shelby Park near Eagle Pass, while lawsuits are ongoing over the administration’s cutting of razor wire set up by Texas and the establishment of buoys in the Rio Grande. Texas has declared that it has a right to "self-defense" against what it says is a migrant "invasion."
On Monday, the Supreme Court found in the administration's favor when it granted an emergency appeal to allow agents to keep cutting border wire set up by Texas after a lower court had blocked such moves. Texas has continued to fortify the border, and has also indicated it will not comply with the administration’s demands for it to vacate the Shelby Park area.
"[President Biden's] actions have caused an unprecedented invasion that we must defend against," Abbott said on Thursday.
The Biden administration has said that Texas is interfering with the federal enforcement of immigration law.
"Enforcement of immigration law is a federal responsibility," a DHS spokesperson said this week. "Rather than helping to reduce irregular migration, the State of Texas has only made it harder for frontline personnel to do their jobs and to apply consequences under the law. We can enforce our laws and administer them safely, humanely, and in an orderly way."
Dozens of Republican governors have backed Texas as the feud between the state and the feds escalates. But a senior CBP official told Fox that the relationship between Texas and Border Patrol officials on the ground is "strong."
"While this issue plays out in the courts, the relationship between Border Patrol, Texas DPS [Department of Public Safety], & TMD [Texas Military Dept.] remains strong," the official said. "Our focus is and will always be the mission of protecting this country and its people. On the ground, we continue to work alongside these valuable partners in that endeavor."
"Bottom line: Border Patrol has no plans to remove infrastructure (c-wire) placed by Texas along the border. Our posture remains the same. If we need to access an area for emergency response, we will do so. When that happens, we will coordinate with Texas DPS & TMD"
That sentiment was echoed by the Border Patrol union, which in a lengthy statement dismissed the idea that Border Patrol agents could start arresting Texas National Guard members.
"TX NG and rank-and-file BP agents work together and respect each other's jobs. Period. If TX NG members have LAWFUL orders, then they have to carry out those orders," the National Border Patrol Council said on X, formerly known as Twitter.
"Rank-and-file BP agents appreciate and respect what TX has been doing to defend their state in the midst of this catastrophe that the Biden Admin has unleashed on America," the statement said. "We want to be perfectly clear, there is no fight between rank-and-file BP agents and the TX NG, Gov. Abott, or TX DPS. It may make flashy headlines, but it simply isn't true."
I guess the senate is going forward anyway-they may get mean tweeted at. Hopefully it will actually start to move forward in the near future.
Win McNamee/Getty Images Senate negotiators have agreed to empower the US to significantly restrict illegal migrant crossings at the southern border, according to sources familiar with the matter, a move aimed at ending the migrant surge that has overrun federal authorities over the past several months.
The Senate deal, which is expected to be unveiled as soon as next week, would also speed up the asylum process to consider cases within six months – compared with the current system, under which it could take up to 10 years for asylum seekers.
The details provide a new window into high-profile negotiations that have been going on for months – as Senate leaders hold out hope they can attach the deal to aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as domestic and international crises loom. The plan would also put pressure on Republicans to decide whether to greenlight these new authorities or reject the plan as former President Donald Trump has urged the GOP to defeat anything short of what he calls a “perfect” bill.
President Joe Biden, in a rare statement on ongoing congressional negotiations, said the deal that Senate negotiators have worked toward is both tough and fair.
“What’s been negotiated would – if passed into law – be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” he said in the statement Friday. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”
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.
Moreover, if crossings exceed 8,500 in a single day, DHS would be required to close the border to migrants illegally crossing the border. Under the proposal, any migrant who tries to cross the border twice while it is closed would be banned from entering the US for one year.
The goal of the trio of negotiators – GOP Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut – is to prevent surges that overwhelm federal authorities. The Biden administration and Senate leaders have been heavily involved in the talks, and more details of the deal are expected to be released in the coming days.
In December alone, there were over 300,000 migrant encounters. The source said if the new legislation were in effect, the border would be shut down now to illegal migrants. Another source familiar with the matter said that certain migrants would be allowed to stay if they show they are fleeing persecution — and that there would still be a minimum of 1,400 asylum applications that could be processed though legal ports of entry while the emergency authorities are in effect.
Steve Bannon Admits Bank Account May Have Evidence of Fraud January 26, 2024in News, Politics Steve Bannon Admits Bank Account May Have Evidence of Fraud
After failing to pay his lawyer nearly half a million dollars, he’s now clambering to halt a review of his personal finances—a situation that’s forcing him to admit something quite embarrassing: that there might be evidence of his border wall fraud scheme in his bank documents.
The conspiracy-spewing right-wing political agitator had the gall to stiff his lawyer, former federal prosecutor Robert “Bob” Costello, who stuck by him for years. Specifically, Costello was Bannon’s lawyer on a number of cases, including when he faced criminal charges for pocketing donor funds intended for a privately funded border wall between the United States and Mexico. So it was only a matter of time before the law firm of Davidoff Hutcher and Citron came knocking with a lawsuit, one that quickly resulted in a judge ordering Bannon to hand over the overdue $480,487.
But now, that miserly mistake is coming back to haunt him.
Bannon has asked a New York state judge to block Costello’s law firm from perusing through his bank statements and reviewing his assets, a request that has required Bannon to awkwardly concede that his personal finances likely have evidence that could bolster the Manhattan District Attorney’s case against him.
“DHC’s taking of post-judgment discovery from Mr. Bannon poses a significant risk of compromising Mr. Bannon’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination,” Bannon’s current defense attorney, Harlan Protass, said in a court filing earlier this month.
Protass also argued that subjecting Bannon to questions under oath from the aggrieved law firm’s attorneys “also poses a significant risk” for the same reason: he might say something damning that could bolster two ongoing criminal cases against him.
Bannon, who helped coordinate a key part of former President Donald Trump’s undemocratic plot to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, refused to testify about his so-called “Green Bay Sweep” to congressional investigators. As Bannon’s lawyer, Costello ran interference when the House Jan. 6 Committee issued a subpoena ordering the MAGA media figure to testify—and represented him when the Department of Justice followed up with criminal charges. Bannon was convicted by a Washington jury in 2022, but he remains out of prison while he appeals the judgment.
Then the Manhattan DA, who keeps reviving federal criminal cases that faltered during the Trump administration, developed a criminal case against Bannon over his involvement in “We Build the Wall”—a scammy, xenophobic project that raised crowdfunded money to purportedly build a privately sponsored border wall. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York criminally charged Bannon and his business partners over the ordeal in 2020, but the one-time Trump White House chief strategist managed to score a pardon from his former boss.
That pardon, however, didn’t stop Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg Jr. from going after Bannon for breaking state laws in 2022. That case is set for trial in May.
Bannon bizarrely ghosted his own lawyers when the DA’s case got rolling in January 2023, the first signs that he was worsening his own situation. And his refusal to pay Costello seemed like a particularly stinging insult, given that Costello found himself on the wrong end of an FBI surveillance effort for working with Bannon.
Meanwhile, Bannon is louder than ever—outright rejecting the American democratic system on his War Room podcast and calling for a vengeful and violence-laden dictatorial return for Trump in the White House—even as his legal woes are mounting.
Last year, federal law enforcement indicted a major Bannon benefactor, the billionaire Guo Wengui, for enriching himself by allegedly defrauding a Chinese-American community of anti-communist dissidents. Earlier this month, a superseding indictment claims that several businesses that Bannon founded with Guo, including the social media app Gettr, were actually part of a criminal enterprise.
And that’s where Bannon’s ill-fated decision to stiff Costello comes in.
In November, one of Costello’s colleagues at the firm sent Gettr a subpoena demanding that a company officer there answer questions about Bannon’s involvement with the company—details that Bannon is now admitting could cause him legal peril in ongoing criminal cases.
Joseph N. Polito, a senior counsel at the firm, sent Gettr a questionnaire asking how Bannon has been paid by the company since the start of 2021, how exactly he owns any share of the company, and even whether he operates through cut-outs and “aliases.”
Costello’s law firm has sent legal demands to the political consulting firm Winning Republican Strategies, the War Room LLC that Bannon uses to operate his podcast, and others tied to the right-wing agitator. According to court filings, Costello’s law firm sent several restraining notices—legal instruments that formally require an entity to stop paying someone—in its ongoing attempt to put Bannon through a financial colonoscopy.
Both sides have agreed to slow down this ongoing feud until mid-February while they trade legal arguments back and forth.
Neither Protass nor Polito immediately responded to requests for comment.
"migrant who tries to cross the border twice while it is closed would be banned from entering the US for one year." How 'bout banned for LIFE. All this weak language is the biggest part of the problem. Everything is a slap on the wrist and a ride to your favorite city.
And this 5000, 8500 b.s... If this is language that turns the border into a turnstile at 2 million per year, no way in hell I vote for it.
I guess you keep thinking what "somebody likes" or what "somebody feel" means more than a SCOTUS ruling. That's how it works when they think their feelings mean more than the law. At that point they'll endorse criminal behavior and defying the law. It just depends on what laws are being broken and who is breaking them.
And that's a convenient way to phrase a SCOTUS ruling to suit an agenda. It isn't a Biden game. Say it slowly..... "It's the law of the land settled by a ruling of the SCOTUS."
GOPers can’t CRY ABOUT THE BORDER because Trump is keeping them from fixing it. Dems gave them everything they wanted, but Trump wants Putin to take Ukraine… Dupes can’t see it.
GOP senator: ‘Immoral’ to kill border deal to help Trump
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) argued it is “immoral” for Republicans to reject a border deal to help former President Trump.
“I didn’t come here to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss. I came here to pass good, solid policy,” Tillis said Thursday, first reported by NBC News. “It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win.”
Members on both sides of the aisle are upset with Trump’s attempt to kill the border deal to deny President Biden a legislative win. His recent remarks calling for GOP members to oppose a border deal that isn’t H.R. 2 have complicated things for the Senate.
With two solid wins for Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire and a path toward becoming the Republican presidential nominee, Trump’s allies in the Senate are attempting to kill the border package. That could endanger future aid for Ukraine in its war against Russia, which has been tied to such a deal.
The White House and the Biden administration officials got involved in negotiations in mid-December. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) argued that the Biden administration is “probably feeling the heat” from the public and wants to address the border issue as Biden ramps up his reelection efforts.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) called the effort to kill the bill “appalling.” Romney argued that there is an issue at the southern border and anyone running for president should be attempting to solve it now — instead of solving it later and taking credit for it down the road.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has reportedly floated the idea of separating the border and Ukraine sections of Biden’s request, but others say McConnell will stand behind pairing the border aid with other foreign aid.
Let's just see if your puppet enforces the SCOTUS ruling.
YOU seem to ignore that all the BP have basically say they want no part of his games.
Ok, I guess if states don’t have to follow SCOTUS rulings then states can disregard the SCOTUS Roe ruling or states like Colorado can disregard a future ruling that comes from SCOTUS regarding trump and the 14th amendment case
He is standing up to the feds. Thats basically the opposite of gutless pig.
You are confused. He is defying a SCOTUS ruling. He's refusing to follow the law. A majority conservative SCOTUS at that. Of course the rule of law doesn't mean anything to your kind anymore.
Let's just see if your puppet enforces the SCOTUS ruling.
YOU seem to ignore that all the BP have basically say they want no part of his games.
Ok, I guess if states don’t have to follow SCOTUS rulings then states can disregard the SCOTUS Roe ruling or states like Colorado can disregard a future ruling that comes from SCOTUS regarding trump and the 14th amendment case
PLEASE show me where BP has tried to remove razor wire?
Of course the rule of law doesn't mean anything to your kind anymore.
Of course they value the rule of law. But only when they can use it to impose their will on others. When it comes to actually following the law, well that just won't do
Facing 91 criminal counts and being the runaway front runner in the presidential nomination for the Republican party explains everything you need to know about that.
It sure does! Especially if you dig a little and do some actual thinking.
Is 91 the wrong number? Oh, and BTW, I thought you said that Republicans first wanted to see the immigration bill before they decided whether they would vote for or against it? You know, the deal they haven't even hammered out yet? It seems trump thinks it's already written and he has given his marching orders to stop it. So much for your theory that they wanted to read the bill first.
Quote
“As the leader of our party, there is zero chance I will support this horrible open borders betrayal of America,” Trump told his supporters on Saturday. “I’ll fight it all the way. A lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they’re blaming it on me. I say, that’s okay. Please blame it on me. Please.”
They only agree with SCOTUS rulings that suit their beliefs. Otherwise they support ignoring them and making excuses why they should fight against the rule of law.
He is standing up to the feds. Thats basically the opposite of gutless pig.
You are confused. He is defying a SCOTUS ruling. He's refusing to follow the law. A majority conservative SCOTUS at that. Of course the rule of law doesn't mean anything to your kind anymore.
I'm not confused. I know he is defying a SCOTUS ruling. He is saying his state has the right to protect it's borders from invasion. He might be in the wrong, but if the Feds won't help then he will do what he has to do. 25 other state governors agree with him and are willing to send national guard to help.
He might be in the wrong, but if the Feds won't help then he will do what he has to do. 25 other state governors agree with him and are willing to send national guard to help.
If you can't see how they're playing politics with the border issue I can't help you.
The legal fight over whether Texas can seize control of the border, explained
The Constitution gives the Biden administration nearly exclusive authority over matters of immigration. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wants the courts to change that.
Last Monday, the Supreme Court made its first foray into a longstanding conflict over who is in charge of the United States-Mexico border: the United States government or Texas’s Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
In a 5–4 decision, the Court temporarily permitted federal officials to cut razor wire barriers set up by the Texas government, which had prevented US Border Patrol agents from entering an area where immigrants sometimes cross into the United States. This decision, moreover, came in one of several disputes between Texas and the United States over border policy — with many GOP-led states now backing Abbott.
Under existing law, it is well established that the federal government is in charge of nearly all questions of immigration policy and may override state immigration policies that conflict with its goals. As the Supreme Court said in Arizona v. United States (2012), “[I]t is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States.”
But it is unclear whether the current Supreme Court, with its 6–3 Republican supermajority, will honor this longstanding balance of power between the national government and the states, which has been in place at least as far back as the Court’s 1941 decision in Hines v. Davidowitz.
Though the Court’s Monday order in Department of Homeland Security v. Texas was a victory for the Biden administration, it was also an ominous sign that many of the justices are eager to shift power away from the federal government — and toward state officials like Abbott, who are eager to impose more draconian enforcement policies.
The case involved an extraordinary attack on the federal government’s primacy over immigration. Texas erected razor wire barriers along a river in Eagle Pass, Texas, that physically prevented federal Border Patrol agents from entering the area, processing migrants in those areas, or providing assistance to drowning victims. According to the DOJ, the Border Patrol was unable to aid an “unconscious subject floating on top of the water” because of these barriers.
[b]Federal law, moreover, provides that Border Patrol agents may “have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.” So Texas claimed the power to use razor wire to prevent federal officers from performing their duties, in direct violation of a federal statute. Nevertheless, four justices dissented from the Court’s order allowing the Border Patrol to cut the razor wire when necessary to do their jobs.
This dispute over razor wire is one of at least three ongoing legal disputes between Texas and the United States over who controls the border. The Biden administration also sued Texas, in a case known as United States v. Abbott, seeking to remove a 1,000-foot floating barrier Texas erected in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass. At least one body was found trapped in this barrier.
Meanwhile, a third case, United States v. Texas, challenges a Texas state law that purports to give state judges the power to issue deportation orders. That law will take effect in early March unless a court intervenes.
At least two of these lawsuits — the razor wire case and the challenge to the state-authorized deportations — should be slam dunks for the federal government under decisions like Arizona and Hines. But Republicans have long railed against federal primacy in the immigration space. And, as the narrow vote in the razor wire case suggests, many of the GOP-appointed justices appear to have embraced their political party’s stance on this issue.
Why the federal government has virtually exclusive authority over immigration
So why do states play such a diminished role in immigration policy? A partial answer can be found in the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which states that federal law and federal treaty obligations “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This is why the Homeland Security case — the razor wire case recently decided by the Supreme Court — should have been a clear-cut victory for the federal government. There is a federal law explicitly stating that Border Patrol agents may enter other people’s land “for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.” Under the Constitution, that law is supreme over any state law or policy.
This principle, that federal law overcomes state law when the two conflict, is known as “preemption,” and preemption is particularly strong in the immigration context. As the Supreme Court held in Hines, preemption in immigration cases extends not just to federal laws that explicitly conflict with those in a state, but also to any area where Congress has enacted a “complete scheme of regulation” governing an aspect of US immigration policy.
Hines involved a Pennsylvania law that required non-citizens 18 years of age or older to register with the state, “receive an alien identification card and carry it at all times,” and to present this card upon demand to police officers and other state officials. At the time, federal law also required non-citizen immigrants to register with the federal government, but the federal law did not provide for ID cards or specify many of the requirements imposed by the Pennsylvania regime.
In striking down this Pennsylvania law, the Court warned that states must play an exceedingly limited role in immigration policy because of the risk that a single state could damage US relations with other nations. “One of the most important and delicate of all international relationships,” Hines explained, “has to do with the protection of the just rights of a country’s own nationals when those nationals are in another country.” The Court added that “international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs” inflicted on the citizens of one nation by another.
That does not mean that the United States must treat every single foreign national with caution or deference. But it does mean that, if the United States decides to risk an international incident by treating a foreign national harshly, that decision should come from a government that is accountable to the entire American people — and not just to the people of one state.
“The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties,” the Court said in an opinion that was handed down before Alaska and Hawaii became states. Thus, “for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.”
One corollary to this rule of federal supremacy, Hines also held, is that comprehensive federal regulation over immigration-related matters preempts state regulation that touches on similar matters, even if the federal law does not explicitly say that state laws are preempted. In the Court’s words,
where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.
The same rule should apply to the not-yet-in-effect Texas law permitting state courts to issue deportation orders. Just like the Pennsylvania registration scheme at issue in Hines, Texas is stepping into an area that Congress has comprehensively regulated with its law allowing state courts to order deportations. Federal law provides for a network of immigration officials and specialized courts that determine which immigrants may remain in the United States and which ones must be deported. Texas may neither “curtail or complement” these courts with its own state-level immigration system.
Nevertheless, state laws seeking to undermine Hines now seem likely to arise whenever a Democrat is in the White House. The 2012 Arizona case involved such a state law, known as SB 1070, which sought to “discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens” by giving state police new authority to arrest and detain individuals they had “probable cause to believe ... has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”
Yet while the Supreme Court in 2012 was quite conservative, it did not bite on this effort to undercut Hines and instead blocked several key provisions of SB 1070. Arizona was a 5–3 decision, with Republican appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy crossing over to vote with three liberal justices (Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal Obama appointee, was recused from the case).
Texas’s deportation law is probably best understood as an attempt to relitigate the Arizona case, but to do it with a much more conservative, and much more partisan, Supreme Court. Since 2012, Kennedy left the Court and was replaced by Trump-appointee Brett Kavanaugh — a fairly hardline conservative who dissented from the recent Homeland Security order. Meanwhile, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal feminist icon, died in 2020 and was replaced by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett (though Barrett, it is worth noting, joined the majority in Homeland Security).
If Hines is overruled or undermined, in other words, it will not happen because of any change in American law or the Constitution. Rather, it will happen solely because the Court’s personnel has changed — and the new justices tend to vote with the Republican Party. Texas’s arguments in the floating barrier case are less frivolous than their arguments in the other two cases
Hines is much less of a factor in the Abbott case, the one challenging the floating barrier blocking a stretch of the Rio Grande, because that case turns not on an immigration law but on a federal statute intended to keep major American waterways unobstructed.
The floating barrier at the heart of the Abbott case, according to two federal judges who ruled against Texas in this case, “is roughly 1,000 feet long, made up of large four-foot orange buoys fastened together with heavy metal cables and anchored in place with concrete blocks placed systematically on the floor of the Rio Grande.” It also features “a stainless-steel mesh ‘anti-dive net’ extending two feet into the water.”
This barrier appears to be responsible for at least one death by drowning — an unidentified victim who most likely was a migrant attempting to cross the southern border into the United States
The federal government challenges this barrier not under a federal immigration law but under a statute providing that “the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is prohibited,” and forbidding the construction of any “wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures” in a “navigable river ... of the United States” without approval from the Army Corps of Engineers.
This case was previously heard by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a far-right court that frequently acts as a rubber stamp for legal theories offered by MAGA litigants. The three Fifth Circuit judges initially assigned to this case, however, included two Democrats and one Republican — and they split along party lines, with the majority agreeing that the floating barrier violates the federal statute.
That three-judge panel’s decision is no longer in effect because the full Fifth Circuit agreed to rehear the case in a process known as “en banc” — a process that, among other things, allows the full court’s right-wing majority to reconsider decisions that were randomly assigned to panels with a Democratic majority.
In any event, the panel divided on whether the particular stretch of river that contains the floating barrier qualifies as a “navigable” waterway under the relevant federal law.
Judge Dana Douglas, the Biden appointee who authored the panel’s majority opinion, pointed to the fact that federal law defines what constitutes a “navigable” waterway quite expansively. Among other things, the relevant federal regulation provides that “a determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.”
Douglas also points to several official federal documents which concluded that the relevant section of the Rio Grande is navigable, including a 2011 determination by the Army Corps that this river is navigable from “the Zapata-Webb county line upstream to the point of intersection of the Texas-New Mexico state line and Mexico,” and a 1984 determination by the US Coast Guard that the Rio Grande “was listed among the navigable waters of the United States pursuant to treaties with Mexico and for Coast Guard regulatory purposes.”
In dissent, Judge Don Willett, a Trump judge, essentially argues that these determinations by expert federal agencies were wrong and that they misread two longstanding treaties.
It’s doubtful that Willett, a lawyer with no training in engineering, hydrology, or maritime navigation, reached a more accurate conclusion than two federal agencies with considerable expertise in such matters. But Willett does make a plausible case that the relevant section of the river has not historically been used very much by commercial vessels. Among other things, he points to a 1975 Army Corps study which found that “there was ‘no [then-current] commercial activity occurring within’ that stretch of the river.”
So this does appear to be an edge case. It’s not surprising that migrants would prefer to cross the Rio Grande at a narrow point that does not lend itself to easy commercial navigation.
Nevertheless, given that federal regulations explicitly state that “a determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody,” Willett is on very shaky ground by trying to second-guess a series of official determinations that the Rio Grande is navigable — many of which predate the Abbott litigation by decades. Gov. Abbott’s public rhetoric about these disputes has focused on his worst legal argument
On Wednesday, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled against him in the razor wire case, Abbott released an angry statement accusing the federal government of breaking “the compact between the United States and the States” by opposing Abbott’s preferred border policies. He also claimed that he has the authority to act against the federal government’s wishes because he “declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.”
This is, to put it mildly, a terrible legal argument.
The clause of the Constitution that Abbott references provides that “no State shall ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” One thing that immediately stands out after reading this language is that it does not authorize any state to do anything. Rather, this clause is a prohibition on certain state actions; it forbids states from waging “War” except in limited circumstances.
It is very odd to read a provision of the Constitution that limits state power as giving a state the power to violate federal law.
Abbott’s argument that a rush of migrants trying to enter the United States constitutes an “invasion,” moreover, was rejected by no less of an authority than James Madison. In an 1800 document, Madison wrote that “invasion is an operation of war ... And as the removal of alien friends has appeared to be no incident to a general state of war, it cannot be incident to a partial state, or a particular modification of war.”
In other words, undocumented migrants from non-hostile nations are neither an “invasion” nor are they something a state can wage “War” against.
Federal courts, moreover, have previously agreed with Madison. As one federal appeals court concluded in a 1996 opinion, “[I]n order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government.” Immigration, even by people who do so illegally, does not constitute “armed hostility from another political entity.”
All of which is a long way of saying that, if the courts apply longstanding legal principles, Abbott should lose all three of these cases — and he should absolutely lose the two cases seeking to undermine Hines’s conclusion that states may only play an extremely limited role in setting immigration policy because of the danger that a state may harm the US’s relationship with a foreign power.
But Abbott is betting that the Supreme Court’s current majority won’t care what established law has to say about his border policy.
This is simple, SCOTUS has ruled that the wire needs removed. Anyone disputing that?
If nobody is disputing that, then the Party of Law and Order isn't really the party of law and order and should be treated lawless.
Eisenhower had a similar situation he had to deal with. He ended up sending in troops to settle it.
What the hell is it with all those people that seem to think it's ok to ignore SCOTUS rulings?
I bet if the ruling came down in Abbots favor they'd all be delighted.
I'm disputing it, not because of my party, law and order, or any of that mumbo-jumbo. I'm disputing it because as usual you are 100% clueless.
SCOTUS did not say the wire "needs removed". They said no such thing or anything even hinting at that. Either you live in a world of make-believe or watch entirely too much State TV.
And again, nobody has ignored any rulings. Has anyone tried to remove wire? No, didn't think so. #fakenews
IN FACT, many members of Sleepy Joe's border patrol have clearly stated they will not remove any wire, already have ample access to patrol the river, stand with TMD, and commend their efforts and hard work in keeping this complete disaster under control.
Not so long ago you were talking about how the border patrol was going as far as using heavy equipment to lift the wire. How they were cutting the wire and making the wire useless. Now you claim they like the wire and won't remove the wire. It seems as though you like to claim it goes both ways depending on the debate at the time. So are they doing everything in their power to circumvent the wire or do they promote the wire remaining?
Yes, we all remember Covid. Which is another reason to dismiss conspiracy theories.
And once trump has spoken, here's hoe the Republican party treats for trying to help solve thew problems at the border.....
Oklahoma GOP condemns Lankford for bipartisan Senate border talks
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) on Sunday defended bipartisan border security package negotiations after facing criticism from some fellow Republicans, including former President Trump.
The big picture: Oklahoma Republican Party vice chair Wayne Hill announced in a statement Saturday that the state GOP had passed a resolution condemning and censuring Lankford over the border talks, threatened to withdraw support for him and accused him of "playing fast and loose with Democrats" on the issue.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said if rumors about the details of the Senate's expected border deal are true, it would be "dead on arrival" in the House. Trump has come out strongly against any bipartisan deal on the border. He told supporters at a rally in Nevada Saturday ahead of the state's Feb. 8 caucuses there's "zero chance" he'd "support this horrible open borders betrayal of America ... A lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they're blaming it on me. I say, that's OK. Please blame it on me. Please."
What he's saying: During an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, lead Senate GOP negotiator Lankford noted some people were "functioning off of internet rumors of what's in" the bill's final text that's in the final stages, "and many of them are false."
Lankford noted the "internet rumors" during a "Fox News Sunday" interview during which he said the bill "focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings" per day. "There's no amnesty. It increases a number of Border Patrol agents and it increases asylum officers. It increases detention beds so we can quickly detain and then deport individuals," he told Fox anchor Shannon Bream. "It focuses on additional deportation flights out. It changes our asylum process so that people can get a fast asylum screening at a higher standard and then get returned back to their home country," Lankford added.
"This is not about letting 5,000 people in a day. This is the most misunderstood section of this proposal. And let me tell you briefly what it is."
The bottom line: "It is interesting, Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said, 'We're not going to give money for this. We want a change in law,'" Lankford told Bream.
"We all have an oath to the Constitution and we have a commitment to say we're going to do whatever we can to be able to secure the border."
This helps explian what Lankford is being punished. He spoke out against what trump said concerning the border deal that's being negotiated....
Lankford: Trump opposition to border deal due to ‘misinformation’
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) minimized the influence of former President Trump’s opposition to a Senate border deal, arguing that detractors will back the effort after they read the bill, though any text of the legislation has yet to be released.
Trump has urged Senators not to support a bipartisan border security agreement, calling it a “catastrophe waiting to happen” and falling short of what is needed.
Lankford, a leading Republican in negotiations, said Sunday he still believes the effort will pass.
“They’re all functioning off of internet rumors of what’s in the bill, and many of them are false,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “So people want to be able to just see it, read it, go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes and how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely.”
“That’s been a simple request of Americans, whether you’re Republican, Democrat or independent,” he continued. “People just want a secure border where we have legal immigration, but we’re not promoting illegal immigration, and that’s what we’ve seen in the last three years.”
He said lead negotiators don’t have a solid vote count of who is backing the effort just yet because the entire text has not been distributed to members, adding that “misinformation” about the bill will be corrected when the text is released.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), another lead negotiator, made similar comments Sunday, optimistic about the border deal’s future.
“I am hopeful that we will still have enough Republicans in the Senate who want to fix the problem at the border rather than just do Donald Trump’s bidding, but we will see over the next 24 to 48 hours whether that’s true,” he said.
Some Republicans have denounced Trump’s comments slamming the bill, including Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), calling Trump’s opposition “immoral.”
Here is a quick summary from what Lankford said yesterday on fox on what is in the bill;
“This bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day. There’s no amnesty. It increases the number of Border Patrol agents, increases asylum officers, it increases detention beds so we can quickly detain and then deport individuals,” Lankford said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“It focuses on additional deportation flights out. It changes our asylum process so that people get a fast asylum screening at a higher standard and then get returned back to their home country,” Lankford added.
Lankford noted that, in the last four months, there have only been seven days where there were fewer than 5,000 unauthorized border crossings a day, and that the bill was intended to close down the border so that “no one gets in” if there was a rush of crossings.
“This is not about letting 5,000 people in a day. This is the most misunderstood section of this proposal,” Lankford said on Sunday on Fox. “This is not someone standing at the border with a little clicker saying, ‘I’m going to let one more in. We’re at 4,999’ and then it has to stop. It is a shutdown of the border and everyone actually gets turned around.”
The authority Biden was referencing would shut down most asylum screenings for migrants crossing illegally, according to two people familiar with the outlines of the deal who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. Migrants could still apply at ports of entry, where a set number of asylum claims would need to be granted, they said. Migrants would be expelled indefinitely until crossings dipped below 3,750 per day, which would end the expulsion authority period.
The bill being negotiated would also change the U.S. asylum process with the goal of reducing the average time for an asylum claim to be resolved from several years to 6 months, the people said. It also raises the standard for migrants to be able to make an asylum claim in the first place. Some Republicans’ goal to dramatically curtail Biden’s use of his humanitarian parole powers for certain categories of migrants is not in the final deal, they said.
On Sunday, Lankford said the measure will ensure that the only migrants who get a work permit are those who have gone through a “strenuous evaluation” and who are probably going to be able to end up with asylum and remain in the United States.
“That’s a fraction of the people that go through the process. The vast majority of people that actually go through this process will be turned around and were deported,” Lankford said.
These people have been behind closed doors since November.
Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill?
They've been releasing text to only certain people. Then they complain about 'leaks' and people arguing over possible language.
Release the stupid bill. These dolts in Washington could take something as simple as sitting down and make it so that only an double-jointed Olympic athlete could accomplish it.
My understanding is the negotiations have been completed but the full bill isn't finished and ready to be released.
Key border deal negotiator says bipartisan agreement has been reached, could be ready in the coming days
Sen. Chris Murphy, a key negotiator on a possible border deal, said Sunday that text of a compromise could be ready to go to the Senate floor in the coming days.
“We do have a bipartisan deal. We’re finishing the text right now,” Murphy told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” adding that the question remains whether Republicans are going to listen to former President Donald Trump, who has tried to tank the compromise.
“We are sort of finalizing the last pieces of text right now. This bill could be ready to be on the floor of the United States Senate next week. But it won’t be if Republicans decide that they want to keep this issue unsettled for political purposes,” the Connecticut Democrat added.
There's much more of the article at the link. But I'm pretty sure they have to finish the text of the bill before they have a bill complete. And I'm also pretty sure you can't release a bill until it's finished.
NO. $1 billion to find the athlete, $3 billion in a failed attempt to train people to sit in it, $5 billion for a new chair design.
And finally, $500 million, after-the-fact, for studies and senate subcommittee hearings to decide whether the new chair design contributes to a sedentary lifestyle.
There's much more of the article at the link. But I'm pretty sure they have to finish the text of the bill before they have a bill complete. And I'm also pretty sure you can't release a bill until it's finished.
But that's the problem.
Here's what's in the bill we agreed to, but the text isn't done yet because we don't have our pork in it yet.
I'm not sure what you're confused by. The bill and the language of the bill is already completed. All they're doing now is putting the agreement in written form. I understand what you're saying in terms of what happens once a bill hits the floor. Congress will tweak it, add other things to it and it often comes out far different than where it started. And for all either of us know that may be what happens here after congress gets their hands on it. I sure don't know. But that process has not yet started because the original bill has not been competed in text form as of yet.
Exactly. That's the problem with ALL bills in congress. They get a fancy name that everyone likes, then pork gets added to it, making, say, a $1billion bill cost $5 billion.
I certainly agree with you. Peen and I touched on this in another thread here just today. I mean when just looking at this bill alone funding for both Ukraine and Israel was forced to be packaged into an immigration bill. None of those things are connected to each other.
Both peen and I agreed, and it sounds like you would as well, that each bill that goes before congress should be a stand alone bill that only addresses the topic of the bill with no additional add ons or pork attached to them.
Ignore border catastrophe for 3+ years. (The border is secure, the border is secure, the border is secure!) Then say you need money to fix border (over 10X what you were willing to give Trump to fix the border) Still send mixed message: while acknowledging problem yet wanting to cut razor wire. Stuff three idiots in a room for 3 months for a "bipartisan bill" Have them leak language for weeks and then dispute the leaks. Put together unreasonable bill that treats border as a turnstile. Blame MAGA for border disaster when they won't pass the ridiculous bill on 36 hours notice when you finally release it.
Wash your hands of border crisis and think voters aren't paying attention to the most ridiculous chapter in the history of US politics.
Lol. Still no bill. Where is it you ask. I’ll tell you where it is, It’s tied up in a MAGA GOPer political charged impeachment hearing with no validity.
Did you ever notice they complain when nothing is done and then they complain when something is trying to be done? The old "heads I win, tails you lose" game.
And I would like to mention those idiots in that room belong to both parties. And if my math is correct, this is more than three......
Michael Bennet of Colorado, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina
So if I start a city block on fire, wait 'til it's nearly burnt to the ground, then piss on the embers, I'm "trying to do something", right? This is not much different.
Sleepy Joe is "trying to do something" to improve the worst approval rating in the history of America to win an election.
So you were PO'd when they did nothing now your PO'd because they are working on doing something but not fast enough to suit you. Heads you win, tails they lose.
What I do know is those are the five senators working on the bipartisan bill.
And no. Biden is trying to get funding for Israel and Ukraine which the GOP is holding hostage by tying it onto a border deal. And it seems you have obviously missed that it's a group of GOP semators working out a border deal, not Biden. Silly rabbit, presidents don't write laws/bills. I thought we had gone over this at great lengths?
You sound like all of those far right GOP congressman who wanted it and now that they're getting it, they don't want it. Somebody is doing what you've whined about for so long and now you're whining that they're doing it. There's just no pleasing some people.
10 million illegals later, as the libs scream bloody murder and try to blame the GOP...
An unabridged recap of Biden's border catastrophe:
Jan 2021: "Those poor immigrants, I'm gonna reverse every Trump policy!!" Feb 2021: "The border is secure!" March 2021: "The border is secure!" April 2021: "The border is secure!" May 2021: "The border is secure!" June 2021: "The border is secure!" July 2021: "The border is secure!" August 2021: "The border is secure!" September 2021: "The border is secure!" October 2021: "The border is secure!" November 2021: "The border is secure!" December 2021: "The border is secure!" Jan 2022: "The border is secure!" Feb 2022: "The border is secure!" March 2022: "The border is secure!" April 2022: "The border is secure!" May 2022: "The border is secure!" June 2022: "The border is secure!" July 2022: "The border is secure!" August 2022: "The border is secure!" September 2022: "The border is secure!" October 2022: "The border is secure!" November 2022: "The border is secure!" December 2022: "The border is secure!" Jan 2023: "The border is secure!" Feb 2023: "The border is secure!" March 2023: "The border is secure!" April 2023: "The border is secure!" May 2023: "The border is secure!" June 2023: "The border is secure!" July 2023: "The border is secure!" August 2023: "The border is secure!" September 2023: "The border is secure!"
October 2023: "I got it... Let's build a wall!" November 2023: "I need money for this border crisis!" December 2023: "I need money for this border crisis!" January 2024: "Those damned republicans!!!" (and oh yeah, Abbott drowns Mexicans)
Coming soon, February 2024: "Republicans won't support the "Turnstile Bill", this is all their fault!!"
So they were wrong when they did nothing and wrong by working out a solution to fix it. We get it.
It's like that moody girlfriend who gets mad when you won't buy her a new car. Then once you go out pricing cars she's mad that you're going to buy her a new car. Women, am I right?
Quote
Coming soon, February 2024: "Republicans won't support the "Turnstile Bill", this is all their fault!!"
Actually, it's more like watching her hitchhike for three years and then buying her a skateboard.
Yes, the bill "republicans helped write". If it contains language that includes no accountability for those that have been released, and a turnstile for 5000 per day, I don't care who helped write it.
Lankford has already explained this bill and it's not what the talking heads claim which seems to be who you have been listening to. He actually stated that what's being said is based on misinformation. Since Lankford is a Republican and is actually in the room and is actually a part of writing the bill I thought you may listen to what he had to say about it. But I'm beginning to have my doubts.
But then again his own party censured him for working on bipartisan legislation just like they destroyed the careers of Cheney and Kinzinger for working on the Jan. 6th committee. It seems the Republican party hates bipartisanship.
If the libtards were really serious about fixing the border, Biden would reverse those 535 executive orders that made illegal immigration tempting and easier. It costs no money.
But they aren't serious. They like the turnstile border and just want to make their problem the GOPs fault.
Lankford has already explained this bill and it's not what the talking heads claim which seems to be who you have been listening to. He actually stated that what's being said is based on misinformation. Since Lankford is a Republican and is actually in the room and is actually a part of writing the bill I thought you may listen to what he had to say about it. But I'm beginning to have my doubts.
But then again his own party censured him for working on bipartisan legislation just like they destroyed the careers of Cheney and Kinzinger for working on the Jan. 6th committee. It seems the Republican party hates bipartisanship.
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Originally Posted by FATE
What does the bill have to do with impeachment hearings?
Nothing. The point was…It’s GOpers first order of business. Impeachment. Border security is on the back burner. Hence no bill you asked for.
The border deal is being worked on in secret by an illuminati mindtrust. There are no "burners'.
Except sign an executive order... which he said he will do if the bill passes... but he doesn't need the bill top pass to do it... but that's the only way to blame the GOP... for a bill that hasn't been released yet...
If the libtards were really serious about fixing the border, Biden would reverse those 535 executive orders that made illegal immigration tempting and easier. It costs no money.
But they aren't serious. They like the turnstile border and just want to make their problem the GOPs fault.
100
It's funny to see them shouting and crying about all the lost lives now. Creepy Joe Scarborough pounding his fists about the criminals crossing and fentanyl is classic State TV.
Only congress can write bills and pass laws. Just because one president thinks he's above the law doesn't mean they all should.
Tattoo it on your forward backwards and go stare in the mirror for a while. Any president can sign an executive order. Your "one (p)resident" has signed 535.
I don't need that tattoo but obviously you do because it seems it still hasn't quite sunk in yet. You do understand the difference in making an executive order and repealing an executive order, correct? If not maybe you should look into that.
I'm not sure. I know he could if Covid was still a national health emergency. Unless you would think he could call the immigration issue an "invasion" I have no idea how else he could do it. I don't believe either one of us know enough about the law to make such a determination actually.
I don't think he needs to call it an invasion to state it as an emergency. And he'd only have to demonstrate it as such if it was challenged in court.
Bottom line, sign the order, close the border, let the chips fall and react accordingly. That's what would happen if someone actually wanted to end the madness.
So to hell with doing what a president actually has the power to do and just see if it's challenged in court? As I said, that may be what you're used to but that's not how it's supposed to work.
The reason I think it may not be allowed or within a president's right to do this is that the circumstances were much different when trump closed the border. Unlike what you're suggesting Biden should do, it wasn't trump who unilaterally called it a state of emergency. It was the CDC that proclaimed it a state of emergency which gave trump the right to shut down the border. You're suggesting that Biden make that call even though that's not what trump did nor what gave him the right to close the border. You're comparing apples to oranges here. And I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't believe that our government should be based on "I'll do what i want."
50 U.S. Code § 1621 - Declaration of national emergency by President §1621. Declaration of national emergency by President; publication in Federal Register; effect on other laws; superseding legislation (a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.
(b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be exercised during a national emergency shall be effective and remain in effect (1) only when the President (in accordance with subsection (a) of this section), specifically declares a national emergency, and (2) only in accordance with this chapter. No law enacted after September 14, 1976, shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so in specific terms, referring to this subchapter, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this subchapter.
( Pub. L. 94–412, title II, §201, Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1255 .)
Emergency powers have existed in countries around the world for centuries. Their purpose is simple: to temporarily enhance executive power during unexpected crises that are moving too fast for Congress to respond. The Brennan Center’s original research cataloged 123 statutory authorities that become available to the president when he declares a national emergency. Many are measured and sensible, but others seem like the stuff of authoritarian regimes: giving the president the power to take over domestic communications, seize Americans’ bank accounts, and deploy U.S. troops to any foreign country. Given how broad these powers are, it is critical to have adequate safeguards in place to prevent abuse.
The National Emergencies Act, in its current form, lacks those protections. It allows the president to declare emergencies with nothing more than a signature on an executive order, and presidents can renew those emergencies every year ad infinitum. Congress can vote to end an emergency, but it effectively needs a veto-proof majority to do so.
For Immediate Release January 27, 2024 Contact: Taylor Haulsee
President has full authority under existing law to close the border
WASHINGTON, DC — Speaker Mike Johnson released the following statement regarding the President’s statement endorsing 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.
But when talking about the "bipartison bill"... Sleepy: “It'll also give me as president, the emergency authority to shut down the border until it could get back under control. If that bill were the law today, I'd shut down the border right now and fix it quickly.”
So he's saying the border is an emergency and if he had the power he would shut down the border right now. Hmmm...
Seems that he already has that power. You can say that's an abuse of power if you'd like. You could even call it draconian and xenophobic like the libs reacting to Trump's executive order calling the border an emergency. But you can't stop the order.
So I guess all there is to resolve is if Biden actually considers the border an emergency (as he just stated it is) and would like to do something about it, or will he just like to continue to play politics and point the finger at others for the disaster he created.
I don't think he needs to call it an invasion to state it as an emergency. And he'd only have to demonstrate it as such if it was challenged in court.
Now all you have to do is figure out what the national emergency is. Screaming loudly doesn't make it so. Nobody is playing politics except people who wanted a new border bill until they didn't. Do you actually think you've come up with a good excuse for refusing to pass a new border bill?
I think it's gone over yours. Let me show you.....
"Congress refuses to fix our immigration laws which is creating an emergency so I'm going to call the fact they refuse to address this as an emergency and close the borders. I'm going to be the one to let them off the hook for not doing their job."
Cool, so you can admit it's just a pissing contest and Biden doesn't see it as an emergency at all... unless it fits his narrative.
It's an "emergency" when the terminology fits his agenda, but not when the responsibility of doing something comes into play. Makes sense. I mean, it's all the republicans' fault 10 million have just crossed the border anyway. Joe definitely has no culpability, so he should definitely fight for a win before he lifts a finger to fix anything.
I admit at the moment congress has the ability to fix it but rather than do their job they blame Biden for it. And they will have you by their side helping support that message. You refuse to talk about now by talking about then. I'm not surprised by that.
Where did I say it was good? I said that Lankford, a republican actually working on the deal said much of what Republicans are saying about the bill is based on false information. You just like to sling BS that's me promoting a bill I haven't seen. I guess maybe you should try calling the man I quoted, a Republican who is actually in the room helping to write the legislation calling it good because I never called it any such thing. But you know that and just like to muddy up the water. And it's not Biden's job to shut down the border. Why do you keep insisting that it's the presidents job to write an immigration bill and rule on the laws of what he can and can not do which would be extremely questionable at best?
So you know the bill is being put in text and will be given to congress in just few days. That's been shown to you and you're still creaming "Where is the bill"? You continue to throw this tantrum about what Biden should do when congress will be looking at the bill in less than a week? Dear God man you sound like someone they should hire to write GOP talking points.
And there goes that short term memory loss again. Just a few days ago on this very board I stated that some of Biden's decisions on the border have helped add to the problems we're seeing now. You're beyond help at this point.
So something that actually makes sense which I would certainly agree with is what you're throwing a tantrum about now? Of course they should look the bill over. And here they call dems the #snowflakes
This paints a pretty poignant picture of "I've done all I can do!!". The crisis already well underway, this is the attitude towards it...
Biden's FY23 Budget: Border Crisis APRIL 14, 2022
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last month, President Biden released his fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget, which deliberately doubles down on the failed policies that created the worst border crisis in over 20 years. The President’s budget makes cuts to critical agencies responsible for securing the border, even as the Administration prepares to end the Title 42 border policy, which will result in more than double the current number of illegal border crossings per day – projected to reach 18,000.
Quote
“President Biden’s budget puts cartels and human traffickers first, not the American people. The cartels are currently making $32 million per day, roughly $1 billion in profit each month, from human smuggling across our southern border. Meanwhile, the President is proposing to cut Immigration and Customs Enforcement by $150 million next year. With the hypocritical repeal of Title 42, cartel profits will skyrocket. The President is not only turning a blind eye to the border for the second year in a row, he is deliberately making matters worse – even continuing to illegally withhold and divert to other purposes the $1.9 billion in tax dollars that Congress passed to build the border wall. It’s clear from this budget that President Biden has no interest in securing our southern border. The American people will continue to suffer because of the President’s inaction and indifference on the border crisis he created,” said House Budget Committee Republican Leader Jason Smith (MO-08).
Biden’s Border Crisis Over 2.9 million border encounters since Joe Biden became president, which is a 426% increase over the previous year 976,000 pounds of narcotics - including 12,200 pounds of fentanyl - have been seized by border patrol over the last year, enough to kill every American man, woman, and child six times over $6 million being paid each day to Department of Defense contractors to not build the wall $350 million of already-purchased, border wall steel continues to rust at the southern border $2 billion diverted from COVID-19 testing, vaccines, and therapeutics as well as the Strategic National Stockpile to house illegal immigrants. Taxpayer dollars used to fly illegal immigrants from the southern border into the interior of the United States
Biden’s FY23 Budget $600 million cut to the Department of Homeland Security, when removing $3 billion in unnecessary climate funding $150 million cut to Immigration and Border Enforcement $4 billion reward to Central American countries flooding U.S. with illegal immigrants Fails to enforce the successful “Remain in Mexico” policies despite a court order Continues catch-and-release Zero accounting for taxpayer dollars spent on flights to transport illegal immigrants from the border to other parts of the country During a hearing before the House Budget Committee, the Biden Administration admitted they are using the $1.9 billion Congress gave for border wall construction to instead fund “environmental restoration” and “community consultation" For more on Biden’s FY23 budget, click here.
Of course he still wasn't smart enough to know that a president doesn't have the power to spend money without the approval of congress.
Even trump knew it would take a border bill passed by congress. Right up until he didn't and wanted to make elected on the issue. Thanks for supporting his re-election efforts based on false information......
Biden seeks $14 billion in additional border, immigration funding
October 20, 2023
The Biden administration is requesting $14 billion in additional border spending, largely to hire more officers, agents and immigration judges to respond to high levels of border crossings.
“The request we have made of Congress today provides critically needed funding to equip the Department of Homeland Security with the people and tools it needs to prevent cartels from moving fentanyl through our ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws in an orderly and effective way,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said. “At this time of unprecedented hemispheric and global challenges, we must come together to strengthen our ability to protect the American people.”
The $105 billion supplemental funding request is largely focused on supporting Ukraine and Israel in ongoing wars.
The two members of Congress representing El Paso – Democrat Veronica Escobar and Republican Tony Gonzales – declined to comment on the funding request because they hadn’t yet seen all the details.
Congress cannot act on the supplemental request until the House or Representatives elects a speaker – something it has been unable to do for almost three weeks because of Republican infighting.
Among the highlights from the Biden administration request for additional border funding:
Hiring an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents and 1,000 officers for Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.
Adding 1,600 asylum officers and support staff to speed up asylum decisions.
Additional detention space to hold migrants, rather than releasing them with notices to appear in immigration court.
Hiring 375 new immigration judges and 1,470 additional attorneys and support staff to process immigration cases more quickly.
$1.4 billion in additional funding for local governments and nonprofits that provide temporary assistance to arriving migrants.
Migrant advocates had a lukewarm response to the proposal.
“As is often the case with the Biden administration, there’s some good and bad mixed together here,” said Adam Isacson, director of defense oversight for WOLA, an advocacy organization in Washington, D.C., that is focused on human rights in the Americas.
“There are important increases in funding for migrant processing, adjudication of asylum cases, and U.S. assistance for communities trying to integrate asylum seekers,” Isacson said.
“Parts of the package, however, still reflect a belief that this protection-seeking migration can somehow be deterred by making the experience more miserable. Nothing else explains the new investment in detention and the ‘soft detention’ of non-custodial expedited removal, which will increase misery and truncate due process but are unlikely to reduce arrivals at the border very much,” he said.
At least he tried to get funding to help the problem. Congress has done nothing to comply or help. Giving it some effort is better than giving it no effort.
Obviously you don't understand a good point when one is presented to you. Never have. You either ignore them all together as most of your ilk does or you make up some far fetched attempt to dismiss them.
‘Fedsurrection’ Looms Large as ‘Army of God’ Protest Convoy Heads to Border
Would-be participants are expressing fears that the demonstration could be a “psyop” or “honeypot,” spearheaded by the federal government.
Paranoia about federal entrapment is looming large over the “Take Our Border Back” convoy, which departed Virginia Beach Monday morning and plans to arrive in Texas later this week.
By noon Monday, after a few hours on the road, the convoy had amassed just a few dozen participants—so far, predominantly men over the age of 60. The convoy’s promoters promised over 700,000 participants.
The low numbers could be due, in part, to conspiracy theories riddling Telegram channels for the convoy. Would-be participants are expressing fears that the demonstration could be a “psyop” or “honeypot,” spearheaded by the federal government and undercover agents with the goal of ensnaring right-wingers into a violent event. This is the basis of the Jan. 6 “fedsurrection” conspiracy theory, which around a quarter of Americans believe, according to recent polling.
“I have 3 former associates doing lengthy prison sentences because of the J6 setup,” one person wrote in the Telegram channel for the Texas contingent of the convoy. “I know first hand, even if they don’t have charges they can pin on you, they will make some up.”
One of the organizers, former military commander Pete Chambers, who says he was a green beret, put out a video message in which he appears to directly appeal to supposed undercover federal agents.
“If you start going after these people, trying to trap them, you’re going to be found out,” Chambers said. “There’s too much momentum on the other side bro, so just let it go. Stop working for that entity. They’re just going to tear you down, they’re going to use you like a kleenex, just like they did to me.”
The convoy is expected to stop over in Jacksonville, Florida, before making its way along the southern border. Three separate rallies are planned for Feb 3, in locations near Eagle Pass, Texas, Yuma, Arizona, and a third in San Ysidro, California.
All eyes are on Eagle Pass in particular, which is the epicenter of the standoff between the Biden Administration and Texas over border enforcement. Earlier this month, the Texas National Guard seized control of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, which abuts a stretch of the Rio Grande that’s a popular point for unauthorized border crossings, and surrounded it with razor wire. The Biden Administration said that Texas’ actions had severely limited Border Patrol’s ability to survey the area—and prevented them from conducting rescue operations, which likely resulted in a migrant woman and two children drowning. Texas denied the allegation.
The Supreme Court ruled last week that the federal government—not Texas—had ultimate authority over the border. But Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has since doubled down on the state’s actions and blew past the Friday deadline set by the Biden Administration to allow Border Patrol access to Shelby Park. Governors of twenty-five red states have since signed onto statements supporting Texas, and some have sent reinforcements to the border after Donald Trump called on them to do so.
The escalating standoff has inspired civil war fantasies of a feds versus states showdown.
Organizers of the convoy, who include QAnon-world influencers and anti-vaxxers, characterized the demonstration as an “army of god,” and have spent the last couple days putting out PR fires—and trying to distance themself from any possible future unrest or bad optics. “No we are not militia friendly,” wrote Christina Holbrook aka “Thought Criminals,” who is an admin for the convoy’s Texas Telegram channel. Holbrook has also asked participants to leave their long guns at home.
Organizers are also trying to assuage fears that the convoy is a “false flag” or “psy-op,” trying to suggest that the government is sowing paranoia intentionally. “They are trying to scare the ppl with all their “fed” “Jan 6th” crap,” wrote Holbrook.
Last week on a planning call, one of the organizers also waved off concerns about entrapment. “When J6 happened, that’s DC, that has nothing to do with the United States. It’s its own continent,” said Mark Anthony. “This is a whole different ball game. We’re out in our country, not a foreign territory. Each state and county has been strategically thought through.”
Still, one person on the Telegram channel suggested that convoy participants bring zip ties with them so they can arrest anyone they believe to be “instigating.” “Basically make-shift cuffs and put them in time out,” she wrote. “You can’t fight them, you know they’re a paid fed or paid actor.” Another said that they’ve heard rumors of plain-clothed FBI agents stationed in Eagle Pass “to create unrest” and have decided to reroute to a different rally location.
Others are suggesting that people avoid the convoy altogether. In a YouTube broadcast on Sunday night, the channel LoveTravelAdventure, which is run by a trucking husband and wife influencer duo with nearly 100,000 subscribers, warned viewers about possible traps ahead. “You're being set up, and you’re advertising every move you’re making to the people who want to know the most,” the husband, who goes by “Red Viking,” said. “There is no 1776 happening so put that out of your mind.”
Red Viking also raised suspicions about organizer Pete Chambers. Green berets are “masters of psyops,” said Red Viking. “I’d love to believe he’s not a part of this,” he said, alluding to a government conspiracy to ensnare conservatives.
“All i’m gonna say to the people who are going to the border: don’t get caught in another January 6th event and do dumb [censored] to get entrapped by your corrupt government,” warned the Telegram Channel Woke Societies.
Similar suspicions have been expressed on the far-right forum Patriots.win. “Listen this is all a trap,” one person wrote. “Trump never asked for people to go to the border. He asked states to assist with guard personnel. Fed fed fed.”
Far-right commentator Charlie Kirk also weighed in. “Please do not fall for obvious traps at the border,” Kirk wrote on X. “Let law enforcement handle this. Don’t create or join some ad-hoc “citizen militia.” Don’t be a one-man hero. Learn the lessons from the last 3 years.”
The last multi-state convoy in the U.S., in Jan. 2022, was an utter disaster—in part because of infighting about federal infiltration. Inspired by a relatively more successful event in Canada, truckers and their counterparts drove across the country to Washington, D.C. to protest vaccine mandates that didn’t exist. Big promises to “barricade” or “occupy” DC were quickly revealed to be bluster, and the convoy ended up parked at the Hagerstown Speedway in Maryland, just outside of the District, for over a week, before heading home.
White nationalist Ryan Sanchez, who goes by “Culture War Criminal” online, said he was heavily involved in the previous convoy but claims it “got taken over by a bunch of feds.” “They kicked out all the radicals, the nationalists,” Sanchez said on a stream broadcast late last week on Cozy.tv, which is run by white nationalist Nick Fuentes. Sanchez said he plans to join the border convoy, and hopes it will be more successful.
Meantime, the Biden administration has two other border-related cases pending against Texas. In one, the federal government is suing Texas to remove a 1,000-foot, state-erected floating barrier in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass. In the other, it is suing Texas to challenge a state law, set to go into effect in March, that would give state judges authority to issue deportation orders.
God help them if they want to actually be able to get to the immigrants to do their job. In case you can't grasp the concept, that's exactly what the SCOTUS said they were doing. Immigration is the duty of the federal government, not the states.
Quote
On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officially assumed responsibility for immigration services and border control functions of the Federal government. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135) dissolved the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and reorganized the former agency into three components within DHS. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services handles immigration services, focusing on the administration of applications. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, handle immigration enforcement and border security functions. Other agencies with responsibilities related to visas and the legal status of immigrants, such as the Departments of Justice, State, and Labor are included in this search.
Quote
Can states enforce immigration laws?
Although states are able to assist in immigration regulation and enforcement, it is the federal government that has the legal power to enforce U.S. immigration laws.
Can Biden declare a state of emergency and reinstitute remain in Mexico?
No b.s., just answer the actual question.
No
Wrong
Nope. You’re wrong. There is no state of emergency. The only thing he could do is write an executive order to allow Texas to handle their own border and patrol if that’s what they want to do. We’ll all save tax dollars. And GOPers love that.
You have tom remember a lot of the same people espousing this BS are the same people who claimed that either Covid, the vaccine, or both were a hoax. They instead ignored an actual emergency and now are screaming like their hair is on fire.
IMO the problem is a fairly easy fix. Open federally operated receiving facilities with on site Judges to expedite and process legal immigration. Kinda like Ellis island. We’ve done this before. And really I don’t get Texas. They are shipping all their immigrant traffic to other states without notice. So what do they care?
You would think so. But Biden's efforts to get funding in order to pay for an increase in the number of border patrol agents and immigration judges to handle the backlog of cases has been ignored or rejected by the GOP controlled House.
Explainer: Asylum Backlogs
With so many asylum seekers stuck in backlogs, delays can be long. If someone is before USCIS, their estimated wait time is more than 6 years. For claims in front of EOIR, asylum seekers are looking at an average wait time of approximately 4.3 years. - Jan 23, 2024
IMO the problem is a fairly easy fix. Open federally operated receiving facilities with on site Judges to expedite and process legal immigration. Kinda like Ellis island. We’ve done this before. And really I don’t get Texas. They are shipping all their immigrant traffic to other states without notice. So what do they care?
Ah, YES.
Open the borders wider and just figure out how to process the asylum seekers faster!
Biden should put you two in charge, this catastrophe would be ironed out in no time! 🤣
Oh that's right, there are no asylum laws. How quickly we forgot. You know maybe if we had a new immigration bill that addresses changing some of the current laws your concerns could be addressed. Or do you think Biden has the power to change federal asylum laws too?
As it stands we have millions upon millions of people already in this country waiting for asylum hearings. So is it then your contention that they simply stay here for years awaiting a hearing? Or should we have more immigration judges to catch up on the backlog and get those who do not qualify for asylum out of the country?
Oh that's right, there are no asylum laws. How quickly we forgot. You know maybe if we had a new immigration bill that addresses changing some of the current laws your concerns could be addressed. Or do you think Biden has the power to change federal asylum laws too?
As it stands we have millions upon millions of people already in this country waiting for asylum hearings. So is it then your contention that they simply stay here for years awaiting a hearing? Or should we have more immigration judges to catch up on the backlog and get those who do not qualify for asylum out of the country?
Can Biden declare a state of emergency and reinstitute remain in Mexico?
No b.s., just answer the actual question.
No
Wrong
Nope. You’re wrong. There is no state of emergency. The only thing he could do is write an executive order to allow Texas to handle their own border and patrol if that’s what they want to do. We’ll all save tax dollars. And GOPers love that.
Border officials seized 4,600 pounds of fentanyl along the southern border in 2020, a number that skyrocketed to 26,700 pounds in FY 2023 – a 480 percent increase. Most of the fentanyl seized by the two agencies in FY 2023, about 98.9 percent (26,700 out of 27,000 pounds), was seized at the southern border. #notanemergency
300,000+ illegal border crossings per month, with no way to vet them and nowhere to put them. #notanemergency
282 people on terrorist watchlist in the last three years arrested at border. Must be asylum seekers. #notanemergency
FY2023, CBP has arrested 35,433 aliens with criminal convictions or outstanding warrants nationwide, including 598 known gang members, 178 of those being MS-13 members. #notanemergency
Hotels, schools, gyms, community centers overrun with migrants in every "sanctuary city" #notanemergency
It has nothing to do with debating the emergency. It has to do with Sleepy Joe having no balls to do what's right.
Oh that's right, there are no asylum laws. How quickly we forgot. You know maybe if we had a new immigration bill that addresses changing some of the current laws your concerns could be addressed. Or do you think Biden has the power to change federal asylum laws too?
As it stands we have millions upon millions of people already in this country waiting for asylum hearings. So is it then your contention that they simply stay here for years awaiting a hearing? Or should we have more immigration judges to catch up on the backlog and get those who do not qualify for asylum out of the country?
Too many voices in your head, bro.
I don't blame you for dodging the question. I don't blame you for acting like asylum laws don't exist. I don't blame you for refusing to admit that the entire immigration system is broken and only congress can pass laws to fix it. At this point what other choice do you have?
Oh that's right, there are no asylum laws. How quickly we forgot. You know maybe if we had a new immigration bill that addresses changing some of the current laws your concerns could be addressed. Or do you think Biden has the power to change federal asylum laws too?
As it stands we have millions upon millions of people already in this country waiting for asylum hearings. So is it then your contention that they simply stay here for years awaiting a hearing? Or should we have more immigration judges to catch up on the backlog and get those who do not qualify for asylum out of the country?
Too many voices in your head, bro.
I don't blame you for dodging the question. I don't blame you for acting like asylum laws don't exist. I don't blame you for refusing to admit that the entire immigration system is broken and only congress can pass laws to fix it. At this point what other choice do you have?
LOL Yep, that's it.
Speaking of choices...
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
As it stands we have millions upon millions of people already in this country waiting for asylum hearings. So is it then your contention that they simply stay here for years awaiting a hearing? Or should we have more immigration judges to catch up on the backlog and get those who do not qualify for asylum out of the country?
So, let 10 million people in with wide open borders and a red carpet and them blame others because you had no plan??
Now all we need is for congress to put that plan together since that is their job. Screaming "shut down the border!" over and over again isn't a pan to fix the nations immigration issues no matter how many times you repeat it.
I'm actually shocked you didn't join up with 'God's army' on their "Take Our Border Back" convoy traveling to Texas to stop migrants from crossing the border. Those people and their cause seem right up your alley.
They bring them to a loving home and their faces are beaming with pride and joy.
Pretty soon they realize there's [censored] all over the floor. And the cats seem angry, they're parading around as if in pain. They notice some of them are starting to look real skinny. Some look sickly.
SUDDENLY, they realize -- they have no food or litter boxes! And none of these cats have had shots!
Sooooo.... they start a GoFundMe so that everyone else can help them with their 'problem'.
^That's^ Joe Biden's immigration plan in a nutshell. No plan at all, except to appease those making the most noise and all the people that hated his predecessor, from day one. Reversing everything that was working and letting a problem grow larger and larger and larger.
And when the 'plan' fails. You've got diehard libtards and State TV to do all the lying for you!
Congress writes laws, not trump. Are you ever going to figure out who is responsible for writing the laws in this country?
And of course immigration laws are just like adopting cats. You really need to catch up to that caravan. You will find many like minded people among them.
IMO the problem is a fairly easy fix. Open federally operated receiving facilities with on site Judges to expedite and process legal immigration. Kinda like Ellis island. We’ve done this before. And really I don’t get Texas. They are shipping all their immigrant traffic to other states without notice. So what do they care?
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
You would think so. But Biden's efforts to get funding in order to pay for an increase in the number of border patrol agents and immigration judges to handle the backlog of cases has been ignored or rejected by the GOP controlled House.
Y'alls couldn't find a solution if it knocked your blindfold off and screamed in your face.
Yes congress who are actually responsible to fix immigration are blameless in the MAGA world. So what do we do about the millions of asylum cases that are backed up as much as six years for the people already here and awaiting their hearings? Oh that's right, we don't need to address that now do we? That would take congress actually doing their job and approve funding for those judges. We con't hold them accountable for that now can we? Who is responsible for funding an increase in hiring more border agents to enforce this shut down of the border you keep proposing? You do realize that will take a lot more people to enforce and that only congress can pass the funding to pay them, correct? But I know, you're all stuck in sleepy Joe mode.
Didn't you just co-sign that we need more agents at the border to process people into the country faster?
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
IMO the problem is a fairly easy fix. Open federally operated receiving facilities with on site Judges to expedite and process legal immigration. Kinda like Ellis island. We’ve done this before. And really I don’t get Texas. They are shipping all their immigrant traffic to other states without notice. So what do they care?
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
You would think so. But Biden's efforts to get funding in order to pay for an increase in the number of border patrol agents and immigration judges to handle the backlog of cases has been ignored or rejected by the GOP controlled House.
Yes congress who are actually responsible to fix immigration are blameless in the MAGA world. So what do we do about the millions of asylum cases that are backed up as much as six years for the people already here and awaiting their hearings? Oh that's right, we don't need to address that now do we? That would take congress actually doing their job and approve funding for those judges. We con't hold them accountable for that now can we? Who is responsible for funding an increase in hiring more border agents to enforce this shut down of the border you keep proposing? You do realize that will take a lot more people to enforce and that only congress can pass the funding to pay them, correct? But I know, you're all stuck in sleepy Joe mode.
Who cares about that? That has nothing to do with closing the border.
Dems and Biden have a border deal ready to go. The GOPers loved it until Trump realized it would fix it… And you blame dems. FFS, you can’t make this crap up. Buffoons.
Dems and Biden have a border deal ready to go. The GOPers loved it until Trump realized it would fix it… And you blame dems. FFS, you can’t make this crap up. Buffoons.
How does anybody know if this border deal will close the border if nobody knows whats in it?
Dems and Biden have a border deal ready to go. The GOPers loved it until Trump realized it would fix it… And you blame dems. FFS, you can’t make this crap up. Buffoons.
How does anybody know if this border deal will close the border if nobody knows whats in it?
It won't fix anything. But it WILL include money for pork projects.
Biden himself said he'd "shut the border down, if the bill passed." So, why didn't he shut it down without the bill?
Because he can't. No matter what the screamers on here say there are not enough border agents to enforce a border shut down. That's why he's been asking for funding to hire more border agents since October. You can't possibly enforce a border shut down with the number of border agents currently on staff and congress has to pass funding to hire more. People seem to act as though trump too didn't urge congress to pass an immigration deal but he did. He knew that a president can't fix the problem without congress acting. It seems either people forgot about that or simply refuse to mention it. Here it is from 2017....
Trump envisions bill allowing many immigrants to stay in US
President Donald Trump wants to pass an immigration reform bill that could grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US.
“The time is right for an immigration bill as long as there is compromise on both sides,” Trump told reporters Tuesday at the White House.
The President is eager to pass a compromise immigration bill in his first term that would stop short of granting a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, but would allow undocumented immigrants who aren’t serious or violent criminals to live, work and pay taxes in the US without fear of deportation, a senior administration official said.
Trump included the idea of a compromise in his address to a Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday night.
“I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security and to restore respect for our laws,” Trump told lawmakers. “If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.”
But Trump also signaled he stands behind some of his most controversial pledges from the campaign cycle, including the “extreme vetting” behind his travel ban that was blocked by the courts, and a call to cut back on low-skilled workers entering the country with a “merit-based” immigration system.
A path to citizenship for those in the country illegally would not be part of Trump’s vision for this deal, with the possible exception of “Dreamers” – those brought into the US illegally as children.
News of the President’s support for a comprehensive reform of the US’s immigration system fell against a backdrop of increasingly aggressive actions by immigration authorities across the US, who under Trump’s administration have found new freedom to deport undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of a serious crime – the bar they were told to abide by under President Barack Obama’s tenure.
But Trump’s new apparent desire to grant legal status to many undocumented immigrants living in the US also marks a startling reversal from the positions he championed during his campaign for president. Trump focused on the need to build a wall along the US-Mexico border, and for much of his campaign, called for deporting all estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the US. The closest he came to calling for a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants was in his calls to allow the “good ones” who had been deported to reenter the US through an expedited, legal process.
Democrats on the Hill may be open to working with the administration on a compromise, sources said – but healthy skepticism remained about Trump’s true intentions on Tuesday and lawmakers signaled they’d want to see more from the President, and less aggressive immigration enforcement actions, before they believed him.
Tackling immigration reform would be another massive legislative endeavor, piling on top of Trump’s already ambitious goals of repealing and replacing Obamacare and passing a tax reform package.
It would perhaps be the ultimate test of Trump’s deal-making credentials, which he touted daily on the campaign trail.
Supporting a pathway to legalization for millions of undocumented immigrants could roil his base of supporters, many of whom flocked to Trump early on due to his controversial and hardline position on immigration.
But the official said Trump does not see the bill as something that would necessarily upset Trump’s base, stressing that there would need to be “a softening on both sides.”
“It has to be a negotiation,” the official said, arguing that the bill theoretically could make people on both the “far right” and “far left” happy – and it’s a negotiation the President believes he could successfully broker, the official said.
The President believes that the nation is now in a position where it can pass immigration legislation after decades of failed efforts, and he believes the country is “exhausted.”
“There’s got to be a coming together,” the official said.
In private, immigration activists on both sides of the spectrum believe that compromises can be made during Trump’s tenure, although the inclusion of a “pathway to citizenship” for the millions of people living in the US illegally remains a tough sticking point.
“People would be willing to discuss it,” one senior Democratic Hill aide who works on immigration issues said.
For Democrats, “there is openness to discussing options that may fall short of a full path to citizenship,” the aide added.
Still, healthy skepticism remains about whether the White House is being genuine.
“It’s just hard to believe this President,” the Democratic staffer said. “He says things in one room to one group of people and then the next day he does things that are the opposite.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump still has work to do to gain Democrats’ trust.
“He’s got a lot to undo,” Schumer said. “The immigrant community is rightfully scared of what President Trump has done. His executive order goes far beyond what anyone proposed. People are cowering. It’s going to hurt us economically. … (The administration doesn’t) seem to know what they are doing. They simply come up with these proposals that sound good and then they can’t implement them.”
Schumer was echoed by fellow Democrat Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, who said Trump would have some walking back to do.
“I would have to see the details of any proposal,” Wyden said. “Certainly if he is looking at something bipartisan, he’s going to have to walk back some of the statements that he has made time after time after time, which in effect would say that there’d be a lot of focus by immigration authorities like ICE on people who have not committed any serious crimes.”
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, mainly made up of Democrats, released a statement in response to Trump’s Tuesday remarks, essentially welcoming him to the immigration reform club.
“We’ve been ready,” said Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, chairwoman of the caucus.
As always with immigration reform, the devil is in the details. In 2013, the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform bill passed with wide bipartisan support in the Senate only to die in the House, where leadership did not move it forward.
Many of the compromises in that bill still enjoy wide support in Washington, but the pathway to citizenship has remained toxic for the Republican base, which labeled it “amnesty.”
Trump has taken a hardline position on immigration – with charged rhetoric against illegal immigration throughout the campaign.
In the later stages of the campaign and after, he softened slightly, signaling empathy toward Dreamers and saying that deportations for some undocumented immigrants are not necessarily a priority.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the President has been clear about his openness to conversations about a compromise on immigration, but added the focus at the moment is “border control” and “deporting criminals.”
For both Democrats and Republicans, the sequencing matters greatly in negotiating a compromise on immigration.
Some Republican lawmakers endorsed the idea of reform compromises, but said they would like to see efforts to move forward come in pieces. Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner said there are areas of “common ground,” but that it would have to be done piecemeal.
“I think that’s something I’ve been asking for for a very long time,” Gardner said. “I think we can find there is a way forward on an immigration package that Democrats and Republican can support. … (But) the American people have expressed whether it’s through the Affordable Care Act or through the Gang of Eight bill that they would rather see a series of package of bills that Congress can use to gain the trust of the American people as we implement the reform.”
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, one of the members of the 2013 Gang of Eight who suffered politically for his participation, said that he thinks legalization is better than the status quo, though he originally supported a pathway to citizenship in his bill.
“I personally have always believed that it’s not a good idea to have millions of people in your country that can never become citizens but I certainly think legalization is better than what they have now,” Rubio said. “And if that’s what we need to do to get progress, I would be able to accept that.”
But he also said the path forward exists through smaller pieces.
“Immigration reform is something most people are in favor of,” Rubio said. “It’s what’s in that immigration reform that can quickly become controversial. So we’ll see. It will take a lot of work. It’s a tough issue. And I truly believe it has to be done in multiple steps, piecemeal approach.”
Other Republicans didn’t want to discuss the possibility until border security was addressed.
“It’s an important discussion and one we’ve been trying to resolve for many years now, so I welcome the opportunity to have that discussion,” said No. 2 Senate Republican and Texan John Cornyn. “For my own part, I believe we need to regain the public’s confidence that we’re actually serious about enforcing the law and securing the border, and to me those are the most important priorities.”
Republicans have for years insisted they would be open to immigration reform – if border security and enforcement of existing laws come first. They blamed President Barack Obama for not enforcing laws, and said they did not trust him enough to send him any bill that would be lenient toward undocumented immigrants, alleging he would ignore any enforcement provisions of such a bill.
Now, with Trump as president, the winds have shifted and that argument is off the table, since Trump has made enforcing immigration laws on the books that have been unused for years a priority in his first month as President.
But Democrats are also concerned about sequencing, and while they would agree to certain enhanced enforcement and border-security measures, they are concerned that if they agree to too much compromise, Republicans will never return to working out something to give security to the undocumented immigrants living in the US peacefully who have often have families that are American citizens.
The difficulty has extended even to the narrow BRIDGE Act, proposed by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, which would give the undocumented Dreamers currently protected by Obama administration policies formal reprieve from deportations, should the policy be ended by the Trump administration.
The legislation enjoys generally wide support among lawmakers and could likely have the votes to pass Congress, but leadership has been hesitant to move the bill forward, with Republicans concerned that it would be viewed by their base as too lenient and Democrats concerned that agreeing to pass the BRIDGE Act along with another compromise would mean other undocumented immigrants would not be given any such relief in the future.
He requested a bipartisan immigration deal. You know, like they just worked out. But now people seem to forget all of that.
People also keep ignoring that more and more republican lawmakers have made it clear by saying out loud that they won't pass an immigration deal because it will help biden. They have made it plain that they don't want to fix the immigration problem as long as Biden is president. And trump has been leading the charge by telling them exactly that. I'm not sure how much more clear they can make it.
And the trump minions on this board have followed suit.
The terms of a bipartisan agreement were hammered out and agreed to for a whole day, then Trump put his thumb in the pie. You know that. The text is still being drafted, but GOPers are now acting like it doesn’t matter. There’s your leadership. Troll that.
GOPers love open borders and immigrants, because even though they bitch like hell, they never want to actually fix anything.
The terms of a bipartisan agreement were hammered out and agreed to for a whole day, then Trump put his thumb in the pie. You know that. The text is still being drafted, but GOPers are now acting like it doesn’t matter. There’s your leadership. Troll that.
GOPers love open borders and immigrants, because even though they bitch like hell, they never want to actually fix anything.
Sen. Chris Murphy, a key negotiator on a possible border deal, said Sunday that text of a compromise could be ready to go to the Senate floor in the coming days.
“We do have a bipartisan deal. We’re finishing the text right now,” Murphy told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” adding that the question remains whether Republicans are going to listen to former President Donald Trump, who has tried to tank the compromise.
“We are sort of finalizing the last pieces of text right now. This bill could be ready to be on the floor of the United States Senate next week. But it won’t be if Republicans decide that they want to keep this issue unsettled for political purposes,” the Connecticut Democrat added.
Maybe you need to expand your news sources? You do realize that it was posted on this very board a couple of days ago the deal had been reached and simply had to be put in text and printed, right?
The terms of a bipartisan agreement were hammered out and agreed to for a whole day, then Trump put his thumb in the pie. You know that. The text is still being drafted, but GOPers are now acting like it doesn’t matter. There’s your leadership. Troll that.
GOPers love open borders and immigrants, because even though they bitch like hell, they never want to actually fix anything.
This isn't "a deal has been reached". These are five people in a room.
They've been hoarding text and leaking what they want to leak for over two months.
State TV has been calling it "a bipartisan deal" for weeks... so they can blame the GOP when they won't agree to a turnstile border with amnesty for all.
Most people know this, it's plain as black and white. If you two want to argue this lunacy, have at it.
It is what it is, and it's clear as day... and we're still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for this "deal" that has been bragged about for weeks. The deal that will likely get voted down because it's absolute trash.
Then y'all can try to get a corpse re-elected under the premise that the border disaster was someone else's fault.
The deal has been reached. The final wording of the bill is all that's left. When you have both Republicans and Democrats in a room working out a deal, that's bipartisan by its very definition. Trump came out and told them not to pass the deal. Republicans have stated plainly they won't pass it because it would help Biden. There are two corpses running for president. Stop pretending otherwise.
Dismissing the truth because of who stated it is moronic at best. But when that's all you've got left....
I know you hate that Lankford, a Republican, actually came out and cleared up some of the misinformation that was being spread about what was in the deal. But in case you missed it he isn't state TV.
These people have been behind closed doors since November.
Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill?
Why do you guys keep touting a bill that still doesn't exist???
They intend to release it over the weekend. WHEN IT'S DONE!
Now, think about this, its not been released yet, and Republicans are saying it's BAD. THEY HAVENT READ IT.. and they are knocking it. ALL because their Feckless leader says to do so.
These people have been behind closed doors since November.
Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill?
Why do you guys keep touting a bill that still doesn't exist???
They intend to release it over the weekend. WHEN IT'S DONE!
Now, think about this, its not been released yet, and Republicans are saying it's BAD. THEY HAVENT READ IT.. and they are knocking it. ALL because their Feckless leader says to do so.
Wrong and wrong.
They have been releasing text for weeks (only to special members of 'the club'). Releasing text creates rumors. People respond to those rumors. Republicans responded to the rumors of allowing 5000 to cross the border every day. One of the dudes that gets to sit in the actual 'club house' says that's not true -- we'll see.
There's a decent chance those 'leaks' were done on purpose, to gauge reaction, and language may have been changed or adjusted accordingly. I mean, let's be honest, they've been behind doors for months, if just one member had Pit's typing skills, they could have rewritten the entire Tax Code by now.
And all that happened WAY before Trump ever said a word.
These people have been behind closed doors since November.
Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill? Where. is. the. bill?
Why do you guys keep touting a bill that still doesn't exist???
They intend to release it over the weekend. WHEN IT'S DONE!
Now, think about this, its not been released yet, and Republicans are saying it's BAD. THEY HAVENT READ IT.. and they are knocking it. ALL because their Feckless leader says to do so.
Wrong and wrong.
They have been releasing text for weeks (only to special members of 'the club'). Releasing text creates rumors. People respond to those rumors. Republicans responded to the rumors of allowing 5000 to cross the border every day. One of the dudes that gets to sit in the actual 'club house' says that's not true -- we'll see.
There's a decent chance those 'leaks' were done on purpose, to gauge reaction, and language may have been changed or adjusted accordingly. I mean, let's be honest, they've been behind doors for months, if just one member had Pit's typing skills, they could have rewritten the entire Tax Code by now.
And all that happened WAY before Trump ever said a word.
So you are ignoring everything Lankford, you know the guy who is working on the bill, actually said about it? And when did anyone release the "actual text" of the bill? They just reached agreement on the bill last week and started putting it in text.
So you are ignoring everything Lankford, you know the guy who is working on the bill, actually said about it? And when did anyone release the "actual text" of the bill? They just reached agreement on the bill last week and started putting it in text.
How am I ignoring what he said?
They've been releasing text to the Senate Appropriations Committee for weeks, Pit. That's how the language gets crafted and that's how info gets leaked. That's 30 other people with text in their hands.
"They just reached agreement on the bill last week and started putting it in text."
I have no idea what that means, there's been "text" since day one. You think they just sit around spitballing and then have someone 'type it up' on the last day??
Then maybe you can explain how they reached an agreement last week but are still finalizing the text of the bill? While you have an agreement in principal the exact wording of and the details of that have not been finalized. And Lankford himself actually said what they're saying about the bill is based on false information. So they were being given false text?
So it seems that what you're trying to say is all of this misinformation Lankford stated these Republicans were spreading false claims came from the text of the bill? Are you're saying that the senate appropriations committee gets to see the text of a bill bit by bit before it's ever fully agreed upon, finalized and completed? If so, what is it you base that on?
I don't know about every bill. I know that's how things are working on this one. Why? because it's such a small group working on the bill... and that actually makes sense from that standpoint, does it not?
And yes, this "misinformation" came directly from the bill. That's why Lankford has not disputed the general language, just clarified it's meaning.
My issue is you have nothing in support of your claim about this bill being given bit by bit to the committee. I don't think it makes sense at all to give a bill to the appropriation committee bit by bit by bit. They would first have to know the total cost of the bill and see the breakdown as to how much is being spent on each part of the bill before you can appropriate the funds to pay for it. You have the funding of Israel, the funding for Ukraine as well as immigration legislation all rolled into one here. It would seem to me that the very function of the appropriation committee itself would need all the numbers in the funding for every part to do their job.
I'm not saying that you're wrong here. I'm saying that none of that makes sense to me and I've seen nothing that backs up your claim.
You keep screaming pork. What pork is in this bill? No arch, the detaisl of the wording is what they have been working out. You do understand that coming to an agreement in principal is different than having every detail spelled out in words don't you?
But your message sounds familiar. Predicting what's in the bill before you've seen the bill. There is a lot of that going on.
And you just make things up without seeing the bill. You do realize this is a bipartisan panel that includes Republicans, right? It doesn't seem as though you can wrap your mind around how the process works. I'm not saying there won't be any pork in the bill. Unlike yourself I don't have my mind made up until I see it. I'm just telling you that after coming to an agreement in proncipal they have to work out the wording of the details put in the text of the bill. For some reason that seems like a foreign concept to you.
What bill? It's not a bill until it's seen. Bipartisan? Yeah. Working on the TEXT of the said "bill"? Pork time. Trust me. I don't care who wrote it. D, I, R. And pretty much none of them care until they get their pork into it. Period. The end.
Well rather than "trust you" once the bill comes out you can show me the pork that was added last minute. Until then trusting you would be foolish. You're simply taking your preconceived notions and trying to present them as fact. But there's been a lot of that going on lately.
Yes Arch. You should never trust anyone with an (R) beside their name until Pit@DawgTalkers says you should.
This would be the first time, but who's counting?
I trust people with an R in front of their names. Just not the extremists. I know you don't like having discussions but what arch is suggesting is that both the R's and D's are somehow colluding to add a bunch of pork into this bill last minute with zero evidence to support it. Let's face it, both of you always blame everything on the Democrats. So explaining that Republicans are also involved in this process only shows that since this is the claim he's making it promotes some far fetched theory that the D's and the R's are colluding together. But of course personal barbs are more important to you than discussion.
Well rather than "trust you" once the bill comes out you can show me the pork that was added last minute. Until then trusting you would be foolish. You're simply taking your preconceived notions and trying to present them as fact. But there's been a lot of that going on lately.
Wrong. It's not a preconceived notion. It's a fact of how congress works. Thanks for playing.
I'm not the one playing Nostradumbass here trying to claim something is in a bill before I ever see the bill. You're not even trying to play. You're trying to see into the future. You need an 800 number like Miss Cleo.
It doesn't matter, libs just play loose and fast with all the laws and scream "Congress!", "Trump!" and "Evil GOP!!".
Yet another Trump policy that Biden fought like hell to reverse in order to install the turnstiles. And when a judge ordered it couldn't be ended, the Biden admin just said "well he didn't order us to reinstate it".
This "bill" is exactly laughable. After you get past all the military spending for Ukraine, Taiwan, it actually reads like a bill of rights for illegals entering our country. Like, what the U.S needs to do.
As I said, it's pork central. I only read about 80 pages before I started skimming. It seems .......oh, I won't get into it.
But this bill is exactly what's wrong with congress, and this country.
You do understand that all of that spending for military assistance was packaged into the deal by the Republicans is not pork? Or were you ever keeping up to begin with and just wanted to come here and scream pork?
Now that they have decided they don't want to look bad over military assistance to Israel they've decided to vote on a stand alone bill to help them and not Ukraine or Taiwan. You still can't figure out who it is playing politics here can you?
It doesn't matter, libs just play loose and fast with all the laws and scream "Congress!", "Trump!"
Yes, God help us if we hold the people responsible for writing immigration laws or the man who told congress to fail this bill so he could use it as an election issue. You know, because they are Republicans.
It doesn't matter, libs just play loose and fast with all the laws and scream "Congress!", "Trump!"
Yes, God help us if we hold the people responsible for writing immigration laws or the man who told congress to fail this bill so he could use it as an election issue. You know, because they are Republicans.
And that has what to do with the return to Mexico law??
You do understand that all of that spending for military assistance was packaged into the deal by the Republicans is not pork? Or were you ever keeping up to begin with and just wanted to come here and scream pork?
Now that they have decided they don't want to look bad over military assistance to Israel they've decided to vote on a stand alone bill to help them and not Ukraine or Taiwan. You still can't figure out who it is playing politics here can you?
Correction:
Republicans said they would agree to no military aid bill if the stooges were going to continue to ignore Biden's Border Disaster.
And when are you gonna figure out that we are not talking about “immigration laws”, we are talking about border control. Let’s make it really simple.
First, Reinstitute remain in Mexico policy. That just requires some negotiation with the Mexican government. While they are at it, negotiate the return of the Mexican army patrolling their southern border and blocking the flow of migrants north. If the migrants want asylum they can claim it at the first country they come to. Now I am not certain Plugs has what it takes to negotiate that deal and I am certain Blinken can’t, so maybe he can appoint Donald Trump to get the job done.
Second eliminate maybe the most ridiculous policy ever instituted, catch and release. Nobody gets dumped into our country, nobody gets a cell phone , nobody gets a debit card. These two policies alone would return our border situation to roughly Trump era calmness.
Third, hire thousands of “asylum referees” and place them at all ports of entry. Run asylum court 24/7 until all current asylum seekers are adjudicated. Then begin the process of expedited adjudication of those already dumped into the country. Find them, judge them and export them.
Fourth, under no circumstances does anyone who cares about controlling our border sign off on a law that “normalizes” 5000 illegals at our border every day. Another ridiculous proposal. But we can begin to work on immigration law after the border is controlled.
So you agree with me but didn't like the verbiage. Now that they've decided they're going to kill the bill before they ever read it, over the week-end they said they would vote on aid for Israel in a stand alone bill. No Ukraine aid. Trying to gift Ukraine to Putin.
And when are you gonna figure out that we are not talking about “immigration laws”, we are talking about border control. Let’s make it really simple.
Immigration laws are the very tools used to protect the border. Dear Lord man. Somehow you think it needs to be made simpler than that.
From the guy that won't own a single one of the 93 actions overturned by Sleepy Joe in his first week... the policies that all have to do with controlling the border... and instead screams "Congresssss!!!!"
So you agree with me but didn't like the verbiage. Now that they've decided they're going to kill the bill before they ever read it, over the week-end they said they would vote on aid for Israel in a stand alone bill. No Ukraine aid. Trying to gift Ukraine to Putin.
Turning something inside-out is not "verbiage".
"They've, they're, they, they, they"... are these individual boogeymen or a slow-moving amoeba?
Arch I do not care if there is not even one piece of bacon in that so called “border control bill”. What has be n leaked previously seems to have been accurate. Normalizing 5000 illegals per day. If it exceeds that number for 7 days in a row the border can be “shut down”, defined as returning the number of illegals back to 5,000 per day. However, the law allows the president to postpone that “border shutdown “ for up to 45 days , rendering it essentially meaningless. There are other parts of that “bipartisan “ law that stink and have no business being even considered as law. I have not read the whole thing but it will not surprise me at all if amnesty for illegals is in there.
Every one of the sorry immigration reform proposals I can remember had “bipartisan “ attached to them. And they were all horrible. We need people negotiating immigration that actually believe our border should be protected and controlled. Like almost all countries do.
I just explained what they did. You can place any label on them you wish to for their actions. It's rather odd to me that trump also asked congress to pass an immigration bill when he was president but now you're trying to pretend that only now did the GOP figure out one was needed because you know... Biden.
Trump had the border controlled. About 45,000 encounters per month during his time. Under Plugs, 200,000 to 300,000+ per month. Until the border is controlled we do not need to do anything with immigration law. Sadly most lefties don’t really care if the border is controlled. So it takes a strong president to make it happen.
Such bologna. Gop’ers had not even seen the bill. When stuff started leaking out I saw very few who had anything positive to say about. Now that much of it has been released it is with good reason they oppose it. It is a pathetic excuse for a “border control bill”.
Then why did trump request congress to reform immigration laws? Please try to address the question this time.
Trump ends DACA — and pressures Congress to pass immigration reform
“We’ve got to do an overall immigration reform that’s responsible and, frankly, that’s lawful, and that’s what the president wants to see Congress do,” she told reporters. “We can’t just have one tweak to the immigration system. We need really big fixes and big reform in this process.”
And BTW- Only in the past week or so did the GOP start claiming they were going to reject the bill before they even saw it. And many of them have came right out and said they wouldn't consider it because it might help Biden in the election. Many more came out claiming they wouldn't support the bill after trump told them not to. And he also stated the reason was because he wanted to use it as an election issue.
You seem to be supporting what those putting politics over country are doing right now.
I did ! You just don’t want to hear it. First control the border. First!!! Then modernize immigration law. It is seriously not complicated at all. I have outlined several times what we can do to control the border. Let’s do it!
You do realize that immigration reform laws will give every president regardless of party the tools needed to control the border, right? That's why it needs to be done. You seem to be suggesting we ignore an immigration bill which will put the laws in place to help fix the problem until we fix the problem. That's backwards thinking.
"well let's fix the problem before we pass laws to help fix the problem."
Why do you lefties fear controlling the border. Trump did it and it can be done again. We don’t need changed immigration laws. We need to stop dumping millions of uneducated peasants into our country. Now!
Lankford defends border bill amid GOP criticism: ‘Don’t just go off of Facebook’
Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), the lead GOP architect of the bipartisan Senate border security deal, pushed back on Republican critics, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for rushing to condemn the legislation.
Lankford during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” also responded to the scathing criticism of the legislation by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who panned the proposal Sunday as the “Border Capitulation Bill” and more bluntly as a “crap-sandwich of a border bill.”
Lankford noted that Lee had previously insisted on giving senators at least three weeks to review the 370-page bill but is expressing opposition after having less than a day to study it.
“He needs three weeks to be able to read it, but he’s already opposed to it. So again, people have to be able to read it and go through it themselves. Don’t just go off of Facebook post somewhere on what the bill says,” Lankford said.
Lankford, who spent four months negotiating the legislation and said it “blew up” his Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s holidays, said it’s “unfortunate” that the Speaker has declared the Senate bill is “even worse than expected” and “dead on arrival” in the House.
The Oklahoma senator lamented Johnson’s condemnation of the bill without taking more time to digest reforms such as raising the standard of migrants seeking asylum, eliminating the backlog at immigration courts and granting the president new power to expel migrants and shut down the border.
“Unfortunate that he would step out and be able to see that right away, before, obviously, he has had a chance to be able to read it as well, and to be able to go through it,” he said of Johnson’s declaration that the bill has no chance of passing the House.
Lankford said Republicans need to make a decision about whether they want to enact some meaningful border security reforms into law or to let the border crisis continue unabated and allow an average of 10,000 people to steam into the country each day, many of them unvetted.
“The key aspect of this, again, is are we, as Republicans, going to have press conferences and complain the border’s bad and then intentionally leave it open after the worst month in American history in December?” Lankford argued.
“Now we’ve got to actually determine, are we going to just complain about things? Are we going to actually … change as many things as we can if we have the shot?” he said.
Lankford has told reporters that under the bill, once the daily average of migrants encountered at the border reaches 5,000, President Biden will be forced to shut down the border until the Department of Homeland Security regains operational control.
And he has dismissed talk among some GOP lawmakers that passing a bipartisan border deal will protect Biden from attacks over his immigration record.
“I’ve had some Republicans say, ‘Well, this will make Joe Biden whole [on immigration].’ I don’t think anyone is going to see Joe Biden as the border security president. I just don’t think there’s any chance of that. Because what we’ve seen the last three years is an open border like our country’s never experienced. So I don’t think when we pass this bill everybody’s going to suddenly think he’s the savior of the closed border,” Lankford told reporters last week.
He’s just another target now. He’ll be ridiculed and threatened by the maga right. You know doing their jobs and working with dems to actually get something done. Shame on him, hang him.
One side claims they hate it because they claim it doesn't go far enough and the other side hates it because they claim it goes too far. When extremists on both sides hate something this much it must be better than the extremists on both sides claim....
Padilla criticizes border deal as ‘failed Trump-era immigration policy’
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) denounced the Senate’s bipartisan border security and foreign policy agreement Sunday, claiming the deal is nothing more than a retread of Trump administration policy.
The package includes significant reforms for the asylum process, a presidential emergency declaration to shutter the border, and other immigration changes, in addition to foreign aid funding.
“After months of a negotiating process that lacked transparency or the involvement of a single border-state Democrat or member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, it is no surprise that this border deal misses the mark,” Padilla said in a statement. “The deal includes a new version of a failed Trump-era immigration policy that will cause more chaos at the border, not less.”
The deal, announced Sunday evening, immediately faced mountains of criticism from House Republicans. Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said the House will not put the bill up for a vote if it passes the Senate, saying it does not go far enough.
House Democrats have also gone after the deal, especially members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and Progressive Caucus.
Earlier Sunday, the progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said she is unlikely to vote for the measure.
“Congressional Republicans continue to push enforcement-only strategies that have failed for decades,” she said on X, formerly known as Twitter. “The extreme MAGA Republican Party has absolutely zero interest in actually fixing our immigration system.”
In December, during early negotiations over the deal, CHC Chair Rep. Nanette Díaz Barragán (D-Calif.) joined Padilla in a joint statement criticizing an early form of the agreement.
“We are deeply concerned that the President would consider advancing Trump-era immigration policies that Democrats fought so hard against — and that he himself campaigned against — in exchange for aid to our allies that Republicans already support,” the pair wrote. “Caving to the demands for these permanent damaging policy changes as a ‘price to be paid’ for an unrelated one-time spending package would set a dangerous precedent.”
President Biden endorsed the deal Sunday, praising “around the clock” work on negotiations.
“Now we’ve reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal that includes the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades. I strongly support it,” Biden wrote in a statement.
“I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement. Get it to my desk so I can sign it into law immediately,” he said.
“Now, House Republicans have to decide. Do they want to solve the problem? Or do they want to keep playing politics with the border? I’ve made my decision. I’m ready to solve the problem. I’m ready to secure the border. And so are the American people,” Biden wrote.
As I said, it appears you haven't been keeping up and instead just keep repeating GOP talking points. It only allows for 5000 people a day to apply for asylum. After that the applications for asylum would stop for the day. There would no longer be catch and release. Those who were allowed to apply for asylum 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. In effect it would end people coming into the U.S. illegally from being released and from staying here. A few details from a longer article.....
Migrants would not just be released into the U.S.
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. What about migrants who try to cross legally with asylum claims?
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.
But migrants who passed the asylum interview would get to stay in the country for an additional 90 days until their asylum cases were decided. In the meantime, they would receive work authorizations. Once their cases were adjudicated, they would qualify for a path to citizenship. So where did this 5,000-a-day figure come from?
The bipartisan deal does include provisions that would shut down the border entirely if a certain threshold is hit, but those are border encounters, not crossings. As noted above, no migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally would be allowed into the country unless they passed asylum interviews or were being held under government supervision.
In addition to those provisions, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure. What happens if the border is closed?
If the border were shut down, up to 1,400 migrants per day who tried to enter at official ports of entry would still qualify to have their asylum claims considered. The rest would be turned away.
Migrants encountered between ports of entry would be immediately turned away. If the same person tried to cross twice when the border was shut down between ports of entry, the person would be barred from entering the U.S. for one year.
To reopen the border, crossings would need to slow to below 75% of the number that triggered the border closure for seven days. DHS would then have up to two weeks to slowly reopen the border based on capacity.
There would be a limit to how long the border could be shut down, to avoid abuse of the authority. For 2024, it would be capped at 270 days, but the number is designed to fluctuate year by year, as negotiators hope that migrant crossings would slow with the new law in place.
The bill is designed to discourage illegal crossings
Over time, negotiators believe, the legislation and ending the practice of catch and release would encourage migrants to seek asylum lawfully at ports of entry rather than try to cross illegally between ports of entry.
The bill would also raise the standard to seek asylum. And it would provide other resources for the border, including increasing detention capacity for migrants who were held pending asylum claims.
They get sent back across the border. What part of this are you missing? What do you think the end of catch and release means? I've explained this to you as simply as possible and you still don't get it.
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/42/88/cd/4288cd247827d95605d3e7085a5709c9.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.makeagif.com]](https://i.makeagif.com/media/4-22-2016/Pa4aub.gif)
![[Linked Image from 64.media.tumblr.com]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/98d21f2499b09a96ee958f559f26c61a/tumblr_mxbdstH71S1sfvpsto1_1280.gif)
![[Linked Image from media3.giphy.com]](https://media3.giphy.com/media/Wvo6vaUsQa3Di/giphy.gif)
![[Linked Image from pbs.twimg.com]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBrUhb8XkAAOWNi.jpg)
![[Linked Image from wp.nysun.com]](https://wp.nysun.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/bidens.jpg)
![[Linked Image from upload.wikimedia.org]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b2/I%27m_Just_a_Bill.png/250px-I%27m_Just_a_Bill.png)
![[Linked Image from i.makeagif.com]](https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-08-2015/8ei3_8.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.imgflip.com]](https://i.imgflip.com/6j6hau.jpg)
And just when you thought Freedumb had reached its limits, the bar gets raised again.
![[Linked Image from pbs.twimg.com]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFIEHCRXsAARIu3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from media.tenor.com]](https://media.tenor.com/3uw_NMLg_JMAAAAM/scarecrow-wizard-of-oz.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.gifer.com]](https://i.gifer.com/origin/b4/b4824feed0f70dda37959f0d1a9a067f_w200.gif)
