Biden's Border "Victory"

Republicans torpedo their own bill?

www.wsj.com/articles/senate-border-secur...trol-asylum-bc2f9543

The bill, which was hammered out by Sens. James Lankford (R-OK), Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), and Chris Murphy (D-CT), completely forgoes a longtime demand from Democratic lawmakers for a pathway to citizenship to undocumented immigrants who were brought to America as children and who have spent the vast majority of their lives in the United States.

Republicans demanded border measures last year as the price for passing military aid for Ukraine, Israel and Pacific allies. Democrats resisted at first but later agreed to negotiate and have made concessions that are infuriating the open-borders left. Will Republicans now abandon what they claimed to want?

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

koobookie wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Because the Democrats want tens of millions of illegals here.

Prove your assertion. Back it up with facts and show your work.

I just showed you the chart that proves it. Under President Trump, despite a horrible worldwide economic downturn, illegal immigration was very low. President Biden gets in and it increases rapidly to record highs.

Sanctuary cities and states? Democrat mayors and governors created these because they want more illegal immigrants.

Face it, Democrats want more illegals. This goes all the way back to the 1960's and Teddy Kennedy's bill that made it easier to get amnesty.

Your assertion is the Democrats want more illegals. I don't believe that, so that is what I want you to prove.

Rick,
The SC said that it is within the purview of the federal government to protect our borders. More importantly, they did not say that the state of Texas cannot put up the slinky (razor wire). Slo Joe's administration has done nothing to remove the barrier as of this writing. In effect, a ruling without substance. Slinky's continue to be installed on the Texas border, similarly the water barriers have not been removed from the Rio Grande.


Kooobookie,
I disagree with your characterization that not supporting funds for Ukraine threatens U.S. security.
I suspect that you also subscribed to the Domino Theory of communist take over in
Southeast Asia. 55,000 (KIA and countless wounded) lives later we left the theater.
$60+ billion more to Ukraine is not an option that the U.S. should choose. However, Slo Joe is indebted to Ukraine and must satisfy Hunter's obligations.
Do tell as to how not giving Ukraine $60 billion is a national security crisis for the U.S.

On top of the tens of billions we have already sent to corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs. What have they done with it all?

Wikipedia says the Russian entire military budget for 2024 is 84 billion dollars. Why do the Ukrainians need 80 billion more just from the US? Europe has promised them 50 billion more.

ramage wrote: $60+ billion more to Ukraine is not an option that the U.S. should choose. However, Slo Joe is indebted to Ukraine and must satisfy Hunter's obligations.
Do tell as to how not giving Ukraine $60 billion is a national security crisis for the U.S.

Prove that President Biden is indebted to Ukraine because of Hunter. Provide facts and show your work. Thanks.

It has been reported that Ukraine is running out of ammunition and that Russia is taking back some of the territory that Ukraine forces had previously reclaimed. If this continues, which it will without outside funding, then Putin will conquer Ukraine. Then what is to stop him from annexing more countries? If he marches on other countries, then the likelihood that the U.S. will get involved with boots on the ground is greater. What happens if Putin invades a NATO country? We will definitely get involved, as that is our treaty with those countries.

Won't happen, you say? Well, that's what triggered WW2. Come on, this isn't that difficult to figure out. Do you really want Putin to invade and conquer any country he wants? You want Russia to win?

Senator McConnell has just declared the bill is dead. The current Speaker of the House refuses to put the passed Senate version up for a vote in the Republican majority House.

"Show me you work" sound like show me yours I'll show you mine from junior HS. Briefly, Slo Joe told Ukraine if you don't fire the investigator you won't get the billion+ from the U.S. Is that clear enough for you:?
As to the Russian goals. What makes you think that they want to conquer Ukraine other than the provinces that voted to be part of the Russia?
Stop with the simplistic WWII analogy.. Why stop there? What about WWI?
Do you have any comprehension as to what would be required for a Russian offense other than the SMO?
I don't think so. You simply show that you are only able to parrot MSM talking points. Do you have any independent thoughts?

ramage wrote: "Show me you work" sound like show me yours I'll show you mine from junior HS. Briefly, Slo Joe told Ukraine if you don't fire the investigator you won't get the billion+ from the U.S. Is that clear enough for you:?
As to the Russian goals. What makes you think that they want to conquer Ukraine other than the provinces that voted to be part of the Russia?
Stop with the simplistic WWII analogy.. Why stop there? What about WWI?
Do you have any comprehension as to what would be required for a Russian offense other than the SMO?
I don't think so. You simply show that you are only able to parrot MSM talking points. Do you have any independent thoughts?

OH LET ME SHOW U......IN HIS MIND'S EYE IT IS THE MOTHERLAND THAT HAS BEEN SEPARATED
AND REQUIRES BEING UNITED TO BRING A COMPLETE COUNTRY UNDER ONE NAME...(it was stolen)

www.businessinsider.com/why-did-russia-i...s-motive-2023-6?op=1

aylor said the invasion of Ukraine reflects Putin's "grievances that have been brewing for a long time."

For Putin, "Russia has a right to rule Ukraine. Russians and Ukrainians are one nation and one people. They were illegitimately and artificially separated when the Soviet Union collapsed, and he blames the West for trying to pull Ukraine out of Russia's natural friendship," Taylor said.