He has. H.R. 2, May 2023.
2 Likes
If the bill had said those things it would be everything Trump wanted, it wouldn’t be a compromise. So that’s not realistic in the current political environment. I didn’t say Trump killed the bill, but I stand by what I said that he doesn’t want a bill until he is president. Nothing is more important to him than getting re-elected, in my opinion, and from a Republican perspective, I would agree with him. Replacing Biden with Trump is more important than one border bill, even a “perfect” border bill.
Except for Brandon and his boi for 3 years.
Why does there need to be a compromise if dems want a secure border?
4 Likes
Trump wants more. I want more.
But that’s not the question I was addressing. You said Trump does not want border legislation now. Nor do the Republicans.
I gave you an example of what they would accept. It’s not the only example.
Your statement was grossly wrong. And I showed you why. Now you’re trying to move the goalposts.
The legislation recently proposed comes nowhere near what most republicans could accept. You are trying to add in “compromise” where nothing of the sort is in it. It’s garbage. It’s dead.
2 Likes
Ask Schumer. It has not even made it out of the senate.
1 Like
Of course, if you give Republicans literally everything they want they would accept it. But I thought we were talking about reality? Yes, the bill is dead and I think it should stay that way.
1 Like
Already said it was not everything. So why would you repeat what you know is a lie?
In fact, I contend that if they had just put “stay in Mexico” in the “compromise” bill, it would have been good enough. Instead they put “bring in 2 million more”.
2 Likes
That wouldn’t do anything. Would you agree to the senate bill if it was added to it?
Per year!
Adding it to the Senate bill would have to supplant the ridiculous 5000-per-day open door. That would add a huge positive, and remove a huge pile of crap that makes the bill suck. I could get behind that!
The bill has to speak for itself, so it is not relevant to the value of the bill as to who supports it and who doesn’t.
The bill limits the number of days per year that the border can be what they loosely call closed (half the year by the third year). So even if the border is closed half the year, do you expect Venezuelan criminals to go back to their jail cells in Venezuela or wait and cross on open days?
The bill also says that the border can be closed by the President when it is somehow determined more than 3,999 migrants are crossing in a day. That will be argued (correctly) that this demands what are now illegal crossings be allowed until the 4,000 level is reached, thus tying the hands of future Presidents to really close the border.
That is what is important, not who agrees or disagrees with the bill.
1 Like
What do Democrats really want? Why do they consider it a concession on their part to enforce currently existing border laws that have already been agreed to by congress and the executive?
If they don’t enforce current negotiated compromises in our border laws, why should it be expected Biden would enforce the parts of a new law that he didn’t like?
4 Likes
4 Likes
Looked pretty accurate to me.
1 Like
well except for senator lankford
Allan.
He ignores the SC for crying out loud. He certainly wouldn’t enforce a new law.
The only solution is to remove him from office and put someone in who will.
I agree with you. As I said several times in this thread, this administration has been derelict in it’s duty when it comes to the border. If it were up to me, literally zero people would cross the border illegally. And yet Biden is still president, he might win again in November, and even if he doesn’t, it’s unlikely that Republicans will have enough political power to pass immigration legislation without the help of Democrats. So compromise is needed unless you think the status quo is just fine. I’m talking about reality, not pie-in-the-sky wishes about Democrats passing legislation that includes everything Republicans want.
We do not need a new law that is not an improvement of the current law. We only need to take the executive branch in the next election and enforce the current law. The big problem is not the law but the enforcement thereof, or rather the lack of enforcement. Current laws already incorporate the compromises that were made when those laws were passed.
For example: the new law says the border can be closed when 4000 per day are crossing. That is no compromise. The current law says the border can be closed when one a day is crossing illegally. Need money to enforce it? For half of the border all the President has to do is tell Texas to go ahead and close it.
1 Like
I get what you’re saying, and I agree to an extent. But Republicans will not always hold the executive branch, no matter what happens in the next election. So it seems to me that new legislation is needed to require the next Democratic president to “enforce the current law,” as you put it.
