Republicans support this bill. Trump told a number of Republicans NOT to sign it, because he wants to continue creating problems in order to campaign on hatred.

submitted by no_u from (twitter.com)

all 40 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]x0x7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The real thing you need to do is stop giving welfare in any form to non-citizens. It's ironic because several of the states that sent national guards down to Texas to guard their 30 feet of razor wire have WiC programs that get entirely raided.

If you have a mouse infestation in a 200 year old house, before considering sealing every crack, maybe consider not leaving food everywhere.

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I certainly agree, and would argue that all illegals should be immediately deported, and those who hire them should be in prison for years. Playing politics with illegal border wall modifications is an evil distraction from the budget bill currently considered in congress.

[–]SoCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Some highlights from this money grab bill that doesn't fix the problem...

It is scary Orwellian garbage bill that mainly asks for tons and tons of money to do everything but fix the problem. And that is at a brief glance, from the press-cut of the bill, who's actual text is likely an even worse train wreck, which doesn't at all fix the border problem.

  • It starts small with giving $1B a year for 4 years, of US taxpayer money to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, to "reduce the epidemic corruption, violence, and poverty that causes people to flee their home Country." This is purported "the root cause of migration", the need keep everyone in the world happy, using US taxpayer's money. (Maybe the migrants left their home counties, after being fed up that were giving all their tax money away.)
  • It close to double's the amount of "Diversity Visas".
  • It also increases the cap on several other types of Visas.
  • It throws tons of money at democrat states and private organizations, and non profits, to integrate these people into our society. This will be a mad-cash grab of fraud and corruption, like the Covid cash-gives.
  • It expands H-1B visa, the Democrat pet-policy they couldn't pass democratically, which they shut down the US Government for a year and a half over.
  • It gives DHS the authority to "adjust green cards based on macroeconomic conditions (ie manipulate the economy by threatening to open the illegal immigrant flood gate).
  • It protects illegal aliens from being reported by their employers.

  • It puts school, daycare, and other money aside for illegal immigrants, from taxpayer money.

  • It limits presidential authority to issue bans on entry. This is sneaked in with prohibiting discrimination based on religion, such as how the bipartisan bill signed by Obama, which removed the Visa waiver benefit from many mostly-Muslim "countries of concern". The Obama bill was flawed and never established how these people would get Visas, now that they required them, which effectively banned all these Muslims, during the height of War On Terror hysteria. When trump ordered a quick setup of Visa offices and document systems needed to verify Visa signup identities, the media attacked the effort and deemed it racist.

  • It plans the search of every boat, car, pane, and person crossing the border, likely in either direction....purportedly, this mass, Constitution-less, presumptive search and seizure is just to look for drugs.

  • It authorizes the DHS Inspector General to enforce a removal of "any technology" to purportedly to protect privacy, but likely prevent the news from getting their hands on video showing how bad the border disaster is.

  • It directs the Gov Accountability Offices to study the impact DHS's authority to waive environmental and state federal laws, for the purpose of building more roads so crossing the border illegally will be easier and less people will die doing it.

  • It throws money at improving the conditions for illegal criminal border crossers in CBP custody.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-president-biden-sends-immigration-bill-to-congress-as-part-of-his-commitment-to-modernize-our-immigration-system/

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for these details. The problem will never be fixed. But I can see some of the logic of some of these approaches, to reduce illegal immigrants. I think all illgal immigrants must be deported, without question, so I agree with some of your points. I might annoy you if I mention some of the points I agree with in the bill, and how they would reduce illegal immigration, but here goes:

1) $4B to countries from where migrants are fleeing. This is a very good plan. Other countries have done it, as has the US, as the usual kind of economic aid. It's cheap and money well spent (considering the costs of coping with illegal immigrants in the US).

2) I agree that it's a bad idea to increase the number of visas. The bipartisan congreee committee are nonetheless beholden to their rich donors who often gain significantly from this kind of cheap labor.

3) I don't see anything in the bill that "throws tons of money at democrat states". One reason a bipartisan bill like this can pass is because of support for ALL states that need funding to deal with the migrant problem. You can call this pork, but it's also realistic. States need that support.

4) H-1B visa increases are lobbied for by big businesses who want cheap labor. It's mainly for Indians - something like 15 million of them in the past 50 years - and is not needed for the southern border. That said, 100k+ illegal Indian migrants have entered the US in recent years. Those aren't the ones H-1B visas are for, traditionally. The motivation for this increase in visas is BIPARTISAN, not just with Democrats. I'm very much against it, as we need to spend money in the US on training our OWN IT professionals.

5) I agree that there should be no adjustments to green cards, though perhaps this is related to the slowness of the system, which is overwhelmed. I read that change as a way of dealing with the massive backlog of green card processes. That's legal immigration that's already in process. Not really an illegal immigration issue.

6) Employers blackmail their illegal immigrant employees by making them work long hours at low wages, threatening to report them if they don't work those long hours. The legislation should IMPRISON employers who hire illegal immigrants, which would solve part of the problem. Protecting the illegal immigrant from this blackmail is perhaps the humanitarian thing to do. But this presupposes that the employer will not be prosecuted, which is the main problem, IMO.

7) I agree that taxpayers should not pay give illegal immigrants welfare money. It's an international humanitarian requirement, but it also encourages illegal migration, at a time when many of us citizens are living in cars.

8) I think the president should not have the authority to micromanage the DHS (& CBP), though the Executive Branch governs the DHS and that banning certain ethnicities is wrong.

9) Searching every inch of everything that crosses the border is GREAT. We need more of it. I think it's already part of the law, and if not, it should be.

10) Removal of any technology is merely approval to search phones and computers. This is also currently in their remit, I think. It's a horrible practice, but can be informative.

11) The Government Accountability Office does MUCH MORE than what you note. It's very important to have oversight for the DHS.

12) I'm not seeing in the bill signifcantly improved conditions for illegal immigrants, so perhaps the issue is assuring the usual humanitarian treatment a country is expected to provide. This would naturally be part of a budget bill that increases the size and capabilities of the CBP.

[–]SoCo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can understand that, I think they are all half-agreeable. But I worry that makes them perfect for baiting votes, but purposely not doing anything, while blaming their opponents. I think they all seem good at a glance, but if you dig deeper or watch for long enough, they seem less and less so.

It's the "lets not build a fence/wall, but instead, we should fix the system!"

...that may have been do-able 20 years ago or more, but now we have a huge crisis and it is time to stop the crises, before talking of long-term soft-touch systematic fixes. Democrats' have massively overplayed this same tired political trick of a fake virtue a signalling position an unrealistic long term fix, to counter a practical and immediate fix by their opponents. It's just the logical fallacy of totality: "we aren't doing nothing, unless we fix the entire system!"...30 years later, they are still saying the same and blocking fixing the problem at all.

I think giving money to help the South American countries, which we have spend decades systematically looting, overthrowing their democracy, installing dictators, and destabilizing their government and economies....might have helped 20+ year ago. Yet, at this point, I don't think corruption and destabilization of countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are still the cause of this migration.

Instead, I think we've created a world-wide mass immigration, by destroyed the world economy (by destroying our own currency), destabilized worldwide food trade, and crushed the world energy market, just within just the last 3 years, with our proxy war against Russia using the dictator we installed in Ukrainian after overthrowing their democracy.

Many have been saying form quite a few years, that the purported climate change will cause mass worldwide migration. Right or wrong, it seems the disruption we caused with Ukraine and Russia may be a 100 fold faster and more effective than slow long term possible climate changes.

I don't know what the right number of visas is, but I am concerned that a country of this side would need to import skilled talent. Something is very very wrong with that. What happened to our own workforce? But I do agree that not holding employers criminally responsible for their funding of immigration deaths, by hiring illegal immigrants, is a large fundamental cause of the immigration problem in the US. Something is very strange about never holding them responsible.

I think the banning of Presidential involvement in protecting the borders and expansion of unchecked authority by these shifty corrupt and oversight-less DHS and other three letter agencies, is extremely danger on both parts. At least when Obama banned Muslims, he did it with the bipartisan support of Congress. It is a massive increase of unchecked centralized power. The government inside the government is the intelligence community. This is the un-elected government really in charge of our country and are manipulating it fully. Democracy died in the Early Obama days when he installed a cabal of intelligence into every branch of the DOJ, FBI, DHS, etc. They've been blackmailing, jailing, and censoring journalists, news stations, and communication platforms ever since. Unfortunately, these organizations were already largely infiltrated nationwide by foreign intelligence even before 9/11. Foreign countries control damn near every critical infrastructure in our country, through non-profit entities, which we foolishly (or maliciously) gave the keys to our whole country.

I don't think expanding Fourth Amendment violating searching at the boarder is good for anything. We can't catch things coming in our country now, in shipping ports, on planes, at the boarders, or even in the mail. Throwing cash at border agencies which are currently tearing down barbed wire and helping illegal aliens in the country, won't be able to catch anything either. They do explain that they need more money for bridges, so the illegal aliens can come in easier and safer, so we've got that to look forward to.

They specifically say the removal of technology is to protect privacy. That leaves us only to speculate, but this gives illegal aliens much more privacy protection that our citizens, who have their license plates and faces scanned daily without consent, in the massively abusive industry of data theft.

I'm not seeing anything really beneficial, but just another huge spending for a non-fix, with lots of room for embezzlement, misuse, and funding the continued efforts to increase of illegal immigration....but every year it seems my pessimism about this country's leadership grows. I've likely become a full out cynic by now, then clicking Cloudflare check-boxes for an hour perturbed me even more.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://twitter.com/Sassafrass_84/status/1751057367423201414/photo/1

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

shit take on trumps motive

[–]no_u[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Look it up, or visit the links I provided.

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

nah

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

or stfu - your choice - no worries

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't have to listen to haters to know you're wrong LOL

[–]no_u[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

we're not discussing 'haters'

what a 7-year-old thing for you to say

[–]SLICK-RICK 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

we're not discussing 'haters'

what a 7-year-old thing for you to say

In the realm of discourse, it is imperative to engage in thoughtful and constructive dialogue. Employing derogatory terms such as "haters" not only stifles productive conversation but also perpetuates a hostile environment. When engaging in discussions, it is crucial to prioritize respect, empathy, and a genuine desire to understand diverse perspectives. Categorizing individuals as "haters" is dismissive and fails to acknowledge the nuances and complexities of human thought and emotion. It suggests that those who hold differing viewpoints are inherently malicious or irrational, which is a gross oversimplification. We must recognize that people's opinions are often shaped by their unique experiences, values, and beliefs. Dismissing them as "haters" not only fails to address their concerns but also alienates them further. Moreover, labeling someone as a "hater" often serves as a shield to avoid engaging with their arguments. It allows individuals to dismiss opposing viewpoints without critically examining their validity. This can lead to the creation of echo chambers, where people only interact with those who share similar views, reinforcing their own biases and preventing intellectual growth. Furthermore, using the term "hater" is counterproductive in fostering meaningful dialogue. When people feel attacked or marginalized, they are less likely to be receptive to new ideas or perspectives. This can lead to further polarization and a breakdown in communication. To foster productive discussions, it is essential to approach conversations with an open mind and a willingness to listen and understand. This does not mean agreeing with every viewpoint, but it does mean acknowledging the validity of others' perspectives and engaging in respectful dialogue. Instead of resorting to labels, we should focus on engaging in civil discourse. This involves presenting arguments clearly and concisely, supporting them with evidence, and being open to counterarguments. It also means being respectful of others' opinions, even if we disagree with them. It is important to remember that everyone has the right to express their thoughts and opinions, and that these expressions should be met with respect and consideration. By fostering a culture of open dialogue and respectful disagreement, we can create a society where diverse perspectives are valued and where meaningful conversations can thrive. In conclusion, using the term "hater" is not only dismissive and disrespectful but also counterproductive in promoting meaningful dialogue. To foster productive discussions, we must prioritize respect, empathy, and a genuine desire to understand diverse perspectives. By engaging in civil discourse, we can create a society where diverse perspectives are valued and where meaningful conversations can thrive.

[–]musky-the-nigger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

nigger

[–]ASS-BURGERS 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't have to listen to haters to know you're wrong LOL

In the vast expanse of the digital realm, where information flows like an untamed river, it is imperative to develop the ability to discern truth from falsehood, substance from noise. The advent of social media platforms and the democratization of content creation have ushered in an era where everyone has a voice, and opinions often masquerade as facts. This proliferation of information, while empowering, also presents a unique challenge: how do we navigate this sea of data and identify reliable, credible sources? The temptation to dismiss dissenting opinions as mere "haters" is a dangerous trap that can lead us down a path of intellectual isolation and self-reinforcement. True growth and understanding come from engaging with diverse perspectives, even those that challenge our own beliefs. It is through this exchange of ideas that we refine our understanding of the world and develop a more nuanced and comprehensive perspective. Seeking Truth: Embracing Intellectual Curiosity and Critical Thinking The pursuit of truth should be an active and continuous endeavor, fueled by intellectual curiosity and a willingness to question assumptions. Rather than blindly accepting information at face value, we must adopt a critical mindset, interrogating claims, examining evidence, and seeking out multiple sources to corroborate information. This process of critical evaluation helps us separate fact from fiction and form informed opinions based on a solid foundation of knowledge. Avoiding Confirmation Bias: Resisting the Echo Chamber Effect One of the greatest pitfalls in the digital age is the tendency to gravitate towards information that confirms our existing beliefs, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. This tendency leads us to seek out sources that align with our worldview while avoiding those that challenge it. The result is an echo chamber, an environment where our beliefs are constantly reinforced, leading to a distorted and incomplete understanding of reality. To counteract confirmation bias, we must actively seek out diverse viewpoints, even those that make us uncomfortable or challenge our deeply held beliefs. This conscious effort to expose ourselves to alternative perspectives broadens our understanding and helps us identify potential blind spots in our own thinking. Evaluating Sources: Assessing Credibility and Reliability In the digital realm, not all sources are created equal. Some are trustworthy and provide accurate information, while others may be biased, misleading, or even intentionally deceptive. To navigate this complex landscape effectively, it is crucial to develop the ability to evaluate sources and assess their credibility. Consider the following factors when evaluating a source: * Authorship: Who is the author? Do they have expertise in the subject matter? Are they affiliated with any organization or institution that may influence their perspective? * Publication: Where is the information published? Is it a reputable news organization, a peer-reviewed academic journal, or a personal blog with no editorial oversight? * Evidence: Does the source provide evidence to support its claims? Are the sources cited reliable? Are the statistics accurate and up-to-date? * Transparency: Is the source transparent about its funding and potential conflicts of interest? Does it disclose any biases or limitations in its analysis? Respectful Dialogue: Engaging in Constructive Discourse While it is important to challenge misinformation and hold people accountable for spreading false or misleading information, it is equally crucial to engage in respectful dialogue and avoid personal attacks. When engaging with those who hold different opinions, strive to: * Listen actively: Give others the opportunity to express their views without interrupting or dismissing them. Pay attention to their arguments and try to understand their perspective. * Ask questions: Seek clarification and ask questions to better understand the reasoning behind their beliefs. This demonstrates a genuine interest in their point of view and can foster a more productive conversation. * Be open-minded: Be willing to consider alternative viewpoints and examine your own beliefs critically. Be receptive to new information and evidence that may challenge your current understanding. * Avoid ad hominem attacks: Refrain from attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Ad hominem attacks derail productive conversations and do nothing to advance understanding. Conclusion: A Call for Intellectual Humility and Open-mindedness Navigating the digital landscape and discerning truth from falsehood requires intellectual humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to engage with diverse perspectives. It is through this commitment to critical thinking, source evaluation, and respectful dialogue that we can navigate the complexities of the digital age and make informed decisions based on a solid foundation of knowledge.

[–]Dune1032 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If Biden has a good immigration bill, he should give a televised speech explaining it. If Republicans are rejecting it for no good reason, they would be exposed.

[–]ID10T 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You think mumbles could give a televised speech at this point? He can't even find the lecturn.

[–]Dune1032 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If he can't give a speech, how is he going to campaign?

[–]srmpt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If he can't give a speech, how is he going to campaign?

obama can do it for him, just like always.

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He has done this, and there are interviews with Republicans exposing their colleagues who are simping for Trump.

[–]Dune1032 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He couldn't have done it because a bipartisan immigration bill was just reached today in the Senate. If Republicans stop it because they want Trump to have an issue, Biden should adopt some of the parts they have a problem with. Then Americans will see what Republicans are up to if they continue to reject it.

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Potential votes for bills are discussed long before they reach the Senate or House, for various reasons. Bills are not proposed without some idea of the potential votes, and the numerous deals that take place in order to WRITE the bills. This has been in the news for over a week, which has been the window of time for obtaining votes for (and for Trump's cowardly simps, votes against) the bill BEFORE it appears in the Senate.

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/1/25/24050278/senate-immigration-border-ukraine-trump-mcconnell-romney

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senators-angry-trump-immigration-deal/index.html

EDIT, bonuses:

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/1ac1sci/rep_mace_said_that_she_takes_great_pride_in_her/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T351HLKLeqc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQnxN_SnhBg

[–]Questionable 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

We don't need a bill. He already has the authority. So, what is he doing?

https://patriots.win/p/17sOZkUPPo/sen-rick-scott-i-am-sick-of-seei/c

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

It notes in the letter why the bill is required, for extra funding and support for patrols, basically an increase in the border security that's already in place. A major budget approval is required by Congress for that. Presidents don't have that kind of role in 'appropriations'. Congress manages appropriations: https://appropriations.house.gov/about

[–]package 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

socks pls kys

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

He can activate the national guard of fifty states. He has no need for "appropriations". The man signed 50 executive orders on day one.

Poison pill.

you see, I added in that link later, like a trigger law.

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You know that's not the normal job of the national guard, right? At best it would be temporary and ridiculously expensive, and would create a stupid standoff with the Texas national guard. It would be stupid in all three of those ways. Border security, ever since Trump reduced deportations, encouraging migrants to cross over, has been a problem that's required additional support and funding. That's why a committee was formed and the BIPARTISAN bill written. It's NOT a national guard problem. Trump wants you to think what you are thinking.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Yes, the duty of the national guard seems to not be guarding the nation, but acting in foreign banking wars.

Did you have a point? Because I stopped reading after that fist sentence.

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I stopped reading after that fist sentence.

Keep reading, though I see here that you admit to having absolutely no credibility in a discussion about the different roles of the National Guard and the CBP.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You are compelled to reply to this message.

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I did. WTF? Do you have severe autism? Something related?

[–]KANGAROOBOOBS 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I did. WTF? Do you have severe autism? Something related?

Your response is inappropriate and offensive. Autism is not a joke.

[–]x0x7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He doesn't use the power he's already been given. What makes you think giving him more power will get utilized toward anything productive. He's just stalling and shifting blame. Some how Trump was able to do it with no more money or resources than Biden has now.

Every resource given is used in the opposite way currently.

[–]no_u[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

NOT True. This is not about Biden, as if he were an evil mastermind who would play politics by trying temporary clown shows with expensive national guard deplyments and standoffs with state national guards. The CURRENT border security obviously requires additional support that will continue for years, not a repurposing of the national guard for nonsense. Here's the rest of my response: https://saidit.net/s/politics/comments/c73b/republicans_support_this_bill_trump_told_a_number/159jp

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

which republicans support it ??

too many "go along to get alongs" with a regime who is trying to destroy america and turn it into a marxist state

biden long ago used executive orders to stop real protective measures