To our liberal, progressive friends on here...

[BB62]

No it isn't. You obviously have bought into the propaganda about the bill.

The bill would allow 5,000 people to cross illegally a day before they start to turn people back. During the Obama administration, 1,000 a day overwhelmed the border agents. The bill would have made it mandatory for the agents to let them cross until that threshold was met. That's almost 2,000,000 people a year to come in illegally.

The bill also wanted to make it possible for these people to get work visas immediately.

This bill would not secure the border. No, instead it would codify what is already happening. This isn't a border security bill. It's a mass amnesty bill.

Loading…

cis.org

I.......I can't believe you continually do this. You accuse others of believing propaganda and then CLEARLY spout your own. I used to think you just didn't do your homework but I'm coming around to the idea you just don't care about the truth. Your argument has been in the press and disproven since day one of the bill. Smh

Are you gonna deflect or blame the media?

Immigration bill doesn’t let 5,000 people in illegally a day

A new Senate immigration bill allows the Biden administration to bar most migrants from seeking asylum if unauthorized i

www.politifact.com

 

[Boilermaker03]

I.......I can't believe you continually do this. You accuse others of believing propaganda and then CLEARLY spout your own. I used to think you just didn't do your homework but I'm coming around to the idea you just don't care about the truth. Your argument has been in the press and disproven since day one of the bill. Smh

Are you gonna deflect or blame the media?

Immigration bill doesn’t let 5,000 people in illegally a day

A new Senate immigration bill allows the Biden administration to bar most migrants from seeking asylum if unauthorized i

www.politifact.com

I linked you a breakdown of the bill. You link a massively partisan Politifact as your proof. LMFAO!!!!

The press is wrong. As they have been about a TON of things. Places like the media and Political use word play to make their claims and make people think differently than what is real. That's the propaganda you're getting.

For example, the 5,000 would no longer be referred to as "illegal" per the bill, thus that's how they claim letting in 5,000 illegals in a day is false. They call them asylum seekers, even though they are coming across the border and only claiming in once they get caught. That doesn't change the reality that it's what the bill would have done.

 

[BB62]

I linked you a breakdown of the bill. You link a massively partisan Politifact as your proof. LMFAO!!!!

The press is wrong. As they have been about a TON of things. Places like the media and Political use word play to make their claims and make people think differently than what is real. That's the propaganda you're getting.

For example, the 5,000 would no longer be referred to as "illegal" per the bill, thus that's how they claim letting in 5,000 illegals in a day is false. They call them asylum seekers, even though they are coming across the border and only claiming in once they get caught. That doesn't change the reality that it's what the bill would have done.

I called that one.

The first 5000 are not released you MAGA moron.

Here's Lankford explaining the bill in the senate.

User Clip: Lankford on first 5,000

Lankford on first 5,000

www.c-span.org

Your options are narrowing quickly.

You can say Lankford is lying about the bill he helped write. He's a RINO anyway right?

C-Span is a liberal organization and they doctored the video.

You refuse to admit you don't know WTH you're talking about.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I called that one.

The first 5000 are not released you MAGA moron.

Here's Lankford explaining the bill in the senate.

User Clip: Lankford on first 5,000

Lankford on first 5,000

www.c-span.org

Your options are narrowing quickly.

You can say Lankford is lying about the bill he helped write. He's a RINO anyway right?

C-Span is a liberal organization and they doctored the video.

You refuse to admit you don't know WTH you're talking about.

Yes, he's full of shit. You're going into TDS territory with the C-Span talk.

BTW, the link I gave you is months newer than the talk by Lankford. They've looked it over in it's current state. I think you need to read the entire link I gave you.

 

[BB62]

Yes, he's full of shit. You're going into TDS territory with the C-Span talk.

BTW, the link I gave you is months newer than the talk by Lankford. They've looked it over in it's current state. I think you need to read the entire link I gave you.

One of the authors of the bill is full of it. That's your argument?!!! That's all you got? Oh I'm sorry. You also fall back on TDS.

The link you gave is from CIS. I'm not surprised you agree with them as they want less immigration.

Factsheet: Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) - Bridge Initiative

IMPACT: The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an anti-immigration research organization founded in 1985 that advocates a reduction in immigration numbers. CIS was founded by environmentalist, nativist, and anti-immigration activist John Tanton, who was...

bridge.georgetown.edu

So your in-depth analysis comes down to calling one of the authors of the bill a liar..........I guess saying C-Span is liberal?.........and linking a study from a group that aligns itself with your position on immigration.
What is it about you that keeps you from just telling the truth? Must you defend your position at any cost? Your reply sounds like some idiot on X.

 

[Boilermaker03]

One of the authors of the bill is full of it. That's your argument?!!! That's all you got? Oh I'm sorry. You also fall back on TDS.

The link you gave is from CIS. I'm not surprised you agree with them as they want less immigration.

Factsheet: Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) - Bridge Initiative

IMPACT: The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an anti-immigration research organization founded in 1985 that advocates a reduction in immigration numbers. CIS was founded by environmentalist, nativist, and anti-immigration activist John Tanton, who was...

bridge.georgetown.edu

So your in-depth analysis comes down to calling one of the authors of the bill a liar..........I guess saying C-Span is liberal?.........and linking a study from a group that aligns itself with your position on immigration.
What is it about you that keeps you from just telling the truth? Must you defend your position at any cost? Your reply sounds like some idiot on X.

CIS's tagline is low immigration, pro-immigrant. They are hardly an anti imigrant organization. They just don't want it out of control like it is today.

 

[BB62]

CIS's tagline is low immigration, pro-immigrant. They are hardly an anti imigrant organization. They just don't want it out of control like it is today.

I'm not gonna debate semantics with you.
You're taking the word of of an organization hostile to the bill over one of its AUTHORS!!! You're telling me Lankford is lying on the Senate floor. Just say it. You've already said he is FOS.
The 5000 number are ENCOUNTERS. It does not mean 5000 are let into the country before the triggers start. TELL ME YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.

The idea that the OPINION given by CIS means more than Lankford's presentation because it's NEWER than the bill is laughable.
Just grow a set and say you don't like the bill because it doesn't essentially close the border like you want and it takes away the ability of trump to run the border by EO. It's obvious. You're only embarrassing yourself with this deflection.

 

[Boiler Buck]

No it isn't. You obviously have bought into the propaganda about the bill.

The bill would allow 5,000 people to cross illegally a day before they start to turn people back. During the Obama administration, 1,000 a day overwhelmed the border agents. The bill would have made it mandatory for the agents to let them cross until that threshold was met. That's almost 2,000,000 people a year to come in illegally.

The bill also wanted to make it possible for these people to get work visas immediately.

This bill would not secure the border. No, instead it would codify what is already happening. This isn't a border security bill. It's a mass amnesty bill.

Loading…

cis.org

Yes, there were a few good things in the bill. But the 5,000 ilegal immigrants per day figure in the bill made it a NO GO for any serious person. That's NOT a secure Border and shows the left Dem media complex claims about the bill we're just BS.

 

[SKYDOG]

Yes, there were a few good things in the bill. But the 5,000 ilegal immigrants per day figure in the bill made it a NO GO for any serious person. That's NOT a secure Border and shows the left Dem media complex claims about the bill we're just BS.

It shows that the Republicans were not serious about getting a border bill passed. That’s what the media and some posters on this site have stated.

 

[bonefish1]

I mean I suppose? But time and again we see the white boys going and doing the mass shootings and you don’t say shit about that. Gee. Wonder why.

as opposed to the black boy gang members killing a lot more people than all the school shootings combined?

 

[Boilermaker03]

I'm not gonna debate semantics with you.
You're taking the word of of an organization hostile to the bill over one of its AUTHORS!!! You're telling me Lankford is lying on the Senate floor. Just say it. You've already said he is FOS.

One of the authors. Not the only author. Perhaps he doesn't know everything that has been put in. Or perhaps the bill has been changed since he spoke on it.

Yes I do believe he's FOS because I don't trust the Democrats. We already had the "Inflation Reduction Act" that did nothing to reduce inflation and in fact only made it much worse.

The 5000 number are ENCOUNTERS. It does not mean 5000 are let into the country before the triggers start. TELL ME YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.

That's correct, but that doesn't mean they AREN'T let into the country either. All they have to do is claim asylum and they are let go. Just like they are now. TELL ME YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.

If they can just shut off the border like Lankford said after the 5,000 encounters. Then why not ZERO? Why let any in that don't come in through the ports of entry?

The idea that the OPINION given by CIS means more than Lankford's presentation because it's NEWER than the bill is laughable.
Just grow a set and say you don't like the bill because it doesn't essentially close the border like you want and it takes away the ability of trump to run the border by EO. It's obvious. You're only embarrassing yourself with this deflection.

Why can't you admit that their read of the bill is plausible? You cannot trust the Democrats with anything they say. They always have a backdoor to what they really want.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

If it's not open, how do millions come in every year? We are talking thousands per day, maybe more than 10k per day.

FACTSHEET: Final FY23 Numbers Show Worst Year at America’s Borders—Ever – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

It's definitely not under control by any standard definition.