John R. Houk, Blog Editor
February 7, 2024
As I recall, Senator James Lankford began expressing subtle
anti-Trump commentary after the 2020 Election Coup. I made up my mind in 2022 I
was voting AGAINST Lankford in that year’s GOP Primary – I was a Jackson Lahmeyer voter.
I was saddened that my fellow Okies were so Incumbent-brainwashed that Lankford
won that Primary handily.
Now that Lankford’s
so-called Bipartisan Senate Immigration Bill is exposing Lankford’s
RINO inner man so blatantly, I feel very much vindicated for my Primary
choice. Since the Dem Party is essentially a closet Communist Party in this day
and age, I reluctantly voted for James Lankford’s reelection in the 2022
General Election. I won’t make that mistake in 2028 (i.e., if America
is still a United States Republic). If there still are USA elections in
2028, I will be writing-in an alternative Candidate to Lankford if he survives
yet another Primary.
With those Oklahoma Voter sentiments, I’m going to share
three posts that I pray Oklahoma Voters at least understand make Senator
Lankford an unacceptable RINO to NOT BE TRUSTED!
JRH 2/7/24
PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers to chip in $5 -
$10 - $25 - $50 - $100. PLEASE YOUR generosity is NEEDED. PLEASE GIVE to
Help me be a voice for Liberty:
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on
all social media platforms!
*************************
8 Items in the Senate Border Bill
Border Wire – (Photo by Mark Otte on TWS)
February 6, 2024
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Sunday released
long-awaited text for
a compromise bill to address the crisis at the southern border. Senate
President Pro Tempore Patty Murray (D-Wash.) filed an “amendment in the nature
of a substitute” to H.R. 815, a bill that had dealt with veterans’ health care.
In addition to border issues, the 370-page bill also authorizes additional
funding for Ukraine, Israel, the military, and other issues. A Washington Stand
analysis found the bill’s contents to include the following items.
1. Border Emergency Authority Created
The bill would create a new “border emergency authority”
that, when activated, would give the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS
Secretary) “authority, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, to
summarily remove from and prohibit, in whole or in part, entry into the United
States of any alien identified in subsection (a)(3) who is subject to such
authority.”
The authority must be activated if “during a period of seven
consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are
encountered each day” or, “on any one calendar day, a combined total of 8,500
or more aliens are encountered.” The DHS Secretary must “implement the
authority within 24 hours of such activation” and may keep it in operation for
weeks. If average encounters over a seven-day period fall below 75% of the
activation threshold, the DHS Secretary must suspend the activation within 14
days.
The bill would gradually reduce the amount of time the
border authority can be implemented, from three-quarters of the year to
one-half, over a three-year period. The DHS Secretary is allotted 270 calendar
days in the first calendar year, 225 days in the second year, and 180 days in
the third year, in which he can implement the border authority.
The DHS Secretary has discretion to activate the emergency
authority at a slightly lower threshold, “if, during a period of 7 consecutive
calendar days, there is an average of 4,000 or more aliens who are encountered
each day.”
The border authority is automatically triggered at this
lower threshold (average 4,000 daily encounters) for the first third of the DHS
Secretary’s allotted days for the year (90 days in the first year, 75 days in
the second year, 60 days in the third year). The border authority is also
automatically triggered at this lower threshold if the number of days left in
the year equals the number of used days left of the DHS Secretary’s allotment.
Three provisions in the bill limit the scope of this border
emergency authority. First, the bill excepts certain categories of persons
without proper documentation, including unaccompanied alien children, human
trafficking victims, “alien[s] who present[] at a port of entry,” or aliens
whom two immigration officers “determine[] … should be excepted from the border
emergency authority based on the totality of the circumstances” or “due to
operational considerations.” Second, the president may temporarily suspend the
border emergency authority for up to 45 days if he “finds that it is in the
national interest.” Third, even while the authority is activated, “the
Secretary shall maintain the capacity to process, and continue processing … a
minimum of 1,400 inadmissible aliens each calendar day.”
Jeh Johnson, DHS Secretary under President Obama, said that
when illegal border crossings exceeded 1,000 per day, that number “overwhelms
the system.”
2. Catch-and-Release Codified
One of the largest sections of the bill legislated new
procedures for “noncustodial removal proceedings.” Under these new rules,
migrants who show up at the southern border and claim asylum are “release[d]
from physical custody” until their “protection determination.” The bill also
adopted lengthy rules whereby a migrant could voluntarily withdraw an asylum
claim and/or depart the country.
Under current law,
any alien seeking asylum “shall be detained pending a final determination.”
The bill spells out detailed procedures for what constitutes
due process at these hearings. If denied asylum, migrants can petition the DHS
Secretary to have their case re-tried. The bill would prevent the DHS Secretary
from “impos[ing] restrictions on an asylum officer’s ability to grant or deny
relief sought by an alien in a protection determination or protection merits
interview based on a numerical limitation.”
The protection determination would take place at a hearing
scheduled within 90 days of a migrant’s release from custody. As part of the
due process included in the bill, migrants would have access to information
about the proceedings and to legal counsel. “The protection determination of an
alien shall not occur earlier than 72 hours” after they receive that
information, to give them time to confer with immigration lawyers.
3. Appellate Jurisdiction Reassigned
Under the bill, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia would “have sole and original jurisdiction to hear
challenges, whether constitutional or otherwise, to the validity” of the new
asylum hearing rules “or any written policy directive, written policy
guideline, written procedure, or the implementation thereof.”
Instead of appeals rising in the local appellate
jurisdiction, such as the conservative Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas,
disputes about immigration law would be centralized in the D.C. District Court,
which is far removed from the border and is among the country’s most liberal.
4. Migrant Work Authorization Granted
If a migrant’s asylum claim is approved, he or she would
automatically “be issued employment authorization,” renewable at two-year
intervals. If the migrant appeals a denied claim, he or she can receive work
authorization “while the outcome of the protection merits interview is under
administrative or judicial review.”
Before the migrant’s hearing, the bill allows the DHS
Secretary to grant work authorization but does not require it. “An applicant
for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization
may be provided by the Secretary of Homeland Security by regulation.”
5. Limited Legal Representation Provided
The bill would generally require migrants to obtain their
own legal counsel or represent themselves; however, it would authorize
immigration judges to appoint legal representation in limited circumstances.
Judges can appoint counsel for an alien minor or a migrant deemed
“incompetent,” which means they can’t reasonably understand the proceedings or
represent themselves, due to a language barrier, illiteracy, or other factors.
The bill required this legal representation to be “pro bono” where possible, but
the federal government would cover the legal costs in some cases.
6. Miscellaneous Immigration Policies Proposed
In addition to the policies described above, the Senate’s
bill includes more than 100 pages of other border policies. These include
slashing red tape to allow America’s Afghan allies to immigrate, authorizing
financial sanctions of fentanyl trafficking and related money-laundering,
streamlining hiring and training, approving work authorization for persons
married or engaged to a U.S. citizen, and various reporting requirements.
7. $21 Billion for Border Allocated
The bill would allocate approximately $21 billion for the
border and other immigration-related policies. However, not all this money
would go directly to border security. Approximately $13.9 billion would be for
to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), border infrastructure, deportation, and law enforcement. Nearly $1.3
billion of that money would go to the State Department, for projects in the
Western Hemisphere. More than $4.6 billion would go to housing migrants. Other
accounts would go to legal fees, oversight, and other types of processing.
However, it’s not clear that every spending account in this
bill would necessarily be enacted. The bill explicitly ignores the budgetary
effects, invoking an emergency requirement in “the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.” Therefore, it stipulates, “Each amount
designated in this Act by the Congress as being for an emergency … shall be
available (or repurposed or rescinded, if applicable) only if the President
subsequently so designates all such amounts and transmits such designations to
the Congress.”
8. $96 Billion Otherwise Allocated
Although pitched as a border bill, the Senate text would
allocate nearly five times as much money in other areas, mostly dealing with
defense and foreign aid. The bill would allocate more than $59.4 billion in aid
to Ukraine, $14.0 billion in aid to Israel, and $1.9 billion in aid to Taiwan.
It also allocated $6.6 billion to U.S. military, beefing up U.S. Central
Command (which covers the Middle East) and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (which
covers Taiwan). It also distributed roughly $14.2 billion in other foreign aid
and security programs, including another $3.5 billion for refugees in and
around Ukraine and Israel and $2 billion for the Indo-Pacific.
Notably, the bill affixed accountability requirements to
this money, demanding an accounting of all money spent in Ukraine and ongoing
monthly reports, as well as a strategy for Ukraine that would “establish
specific and achievable objectives define and prioritize United States national
security interests, and include the metrics to be used to measure progress in
achieving such objectives.” The bill would also require the State Department to
brief Congress on the status and welfare of hostages in Gaza and formulate
policies to “prevent the diversion, misuse, or destruction of assistance” to
terrorists in Gaza.
Joshua Arnold is a
senior writer at The Washington
Stand.
ABOUT
The Washington
Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a
biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is
published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in
public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand
with us by partnering with FRC.
©2024 Family Research Council
++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Terrible No-Good “Bipartisan” Border Bill
%20Joe%20Speaking.jpg)
(Dementia) Joe Speaking (AMAC Photo)
By Shane Harris
February 6, 2024
Association
of Mature American Citizens (AMAC)
President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats are once
again attempting to pin blame on Republicans for a crisis they created, this
time by blasting House and Senate conservatives for refusing to back a “border
security” bill that would make the border worse.
Shortly after the Senate unveiled a $118 billion bill to
supposedly “overhaul” immigration policy on February 4, House Speaker Mike
Johnson declared that the legislation would be “dead on arrival” if it ever
reached the House. “I’ve seen enough,” Johnson said in a statement on X. “This bill is even worse than
we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the
President has created. As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this
legislation, ‘the border never closes.’”
Notably, $60 billion of that total will go to security
assistance for Ukraine, while $14 billion will go to Israel and $10 billion
will go to “humanitarian aid” for Gaza. Only $20.2 billion is actually labeled
for border security—and much of the funding designated as “border security”
would in fact be used to process illegal aliens and release them into the
United States. In other words, Congress would be appropriating more than three
times more money for the security of foreign countries than for the security of
the United States.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise confirmed that the
legislation would not receive a vote in the House. “Here’s what the people
pushing this ‘deal’ aren’t telling you,” the Louisiana lawmaker said. “It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day
and gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients—a magnet for more illegal
immigration.”
Indeed, the legislation would explicitly allow the Biden
administration to continue admitting up to 5,000 illegal aliens every single
day before turning anyone away – for a total of more than 1.8 million people
per year.
But Scalise’s comments barely scratch the surface of the
problems with the bill.
For starters, while proponents of the legislation suggest
that it would crack down on illegal immigration by placing daily limits on
admissions and stiffening asylum requirements, the bill also includes a
provision which states: “If the President finds that it is in the national
interest to temporarily suspend the border emergency authority, the President
may direct the Secretary [of Homeland Security] to suspend use of the border
emergency authority on an emergency basis.” In other words, Biden or any other
president can unilaterally ignore every border security measure contained in
the bill simply by claiming that it is in “the national interest” to do so.
As Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton posted on X, the bill also gives DHS Secretary
Alejandro Mayorkas – who is currently facing an impeachment vote in the House –
virtually unlimited authority to grant asylum to illegal aliens (the first step
toward a green card and citizenship), “codifies catch-and-release under
so-called ‘alternatives to detention’ for any alien who says they intend to
apply for asylum or another protection,” “gives immediate work permits to
everyone who says they want asylum,” and “grants 50,000 extra green cards per
year for no apparent reason.”
As several Republican lawmakers have noted, the bill’s
significant expansion of the Biden administration’s authority to quickly grant
asylum claims will allow the White House to claim that it has “solved” the
border crisis merely by declaring that everyone who crossed the border
illegally is now here legally.
Moreover, the bill would hand $1.4 billion to immigration-related
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and nonprofits. As AMAC Newsline reported in
January, many of these groups are actively facilitating the border crisis under
the guise of offering “humanitarian assistance” to migrants, including by
offering illegal aliens advice and assistance in evading existing U.S.
immigration laws.
In addition, the bill would exempt families from detention
requirements, further incentivizing human smuggling operations to pair minors
with single adults – a practice that has led to horrific suffering for vulnerable migrant
children.
As even CNN admitted, “It’s unlikely that the deal could take
immediate effect even if it were passed, as it would require an immense number
of resources, including the hiring of additional personnel, which often takes
months.” This means that Biden and Democrats could claim victory on the border
while continuing to allow unprecedented numbers of people to cross the border
illegally. Moreover, the bill would be in effect until 2029 – meaning that if
former President Donald Trump were to win this November, he would be bound by whatever
is in it.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump offered perhaps the best
summary of the bill: “The ridiculous ‘Border Bill’ is nothing more than a
highly sophisticated trap for Republicans to assume the blame [for] what the
Radical Left Democrats have done to our Border, just in time for our most
important EVER Election. Don’t fall for it!”
The bill is a product of negotiations between Senate
Democrats and a small group of Senate Republicans led by James Lankford of
Oklahoma. While Lankford has in the past been by and large a principled
conservative, in this case he appears to have been had by his Democrat
colleagues.
Democrats and the corporate media have predictably attacked
Republican opposition to the bill as evidence that the GOP has no interest in
actually solving the border crisis and instead only wants to take advantage of
it as a 2024 campaign issue. Biden has accused Republicans of wanting to “keep
playing politics with the border,” while the Huffington Post declared Republicans are “going ballistic over
bipartisan border bill they demanded.”
It is currently unclear if the bill can even clear the
Senate’s 60-vote threshold for passage, with some Democrats also expressing
their opposition. Even if it does, however, House Republican leadership has
made clear that they have no intention of bringing it up for a vote. Their
position remains that the Senate must pass H.R.-2, a far more robust border
security package that does not give the Biden administration any loopholes to
avoid enforcement.
The next major question will be how both parties spin this
debacle from a public relations perspective. Democrats have successfully
cornered Republicans into blocking a bill that has the ostensible veneer of
doing something about the border. It will now be up to the GOP and their
conservative allies in the media to make clear to the American people that the
bill would actually be a disaster for the country, and that change in
leadership is needed for real progress on the border crisis.
Shane
Harris is a writer and political consultant from
Southwest Ohio. You can follow him on Twitter @ShaneHarris513.
Copyright © 2023
AMAC, Inc. / AMAC Senior Resources
Network. All rights reserved.
AMAC Newsline HOMEPAGE
++++++++++++++++++++++
Senate border bill hits wall of bipartisan blowback
A Border Patrol agent asks asylum-seeking migrants [Blog Editor: AKA Illegal Immigrants] to line up in a makeshift, mountainous campsite after the group crossed the border with Mexico, Friday, Feb. 2, 2024, near Jacumba Hot Springs, Calif. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull – Washington Times)
By Ramsey
Touchberry and Stephen Dinan
February 5, 2024
A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat
Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered
directly to your inbox each weekday.
The walls are closing in from both sides of the aisle on
the Senate border
security bill, as liberals and conservatives say they can’t stomach the policy
changes.
Party leaders pleaded with lawmakers Monday to give the
bipartisan deal a chance. They said it’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity to
fix years of problems at the southern border as part of a $118 billion national
security spending bill that also includes aid for Ukraine and Israel to
pursue wars.
A crescendo of conservative senators and some key liberal
lawmakers announced they would oppose the bill in Wednesday’s first test vote
because of the border security provisions.
In a gut punch to Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, all his top deputies were either
opposed or on the fence:
• Sen. Steve Daines of Montana,
chair of Senate Republicans’
campaign arm, is opposed.
• Minority Whip John Thune of South
Dakota and Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, both McConnell confidantes, expressed
pessimism about the bill passing.
• Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, an
adviser to Republican leadership, said he has “questions and serious concerns.”
• Sen. Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina, a vocal proponent for new border policies, said a “robust debate and
amendment process” will be needed to stiffen the proposal or else “the bill
will die.”
• Sen. Rick Scott, Florida
Republican, said: “This isn’t border security. It’s surrender.”
• Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican,
went so far as to accuse Republican leadership of “disqualifying betrayal” over
the deal.
“The ‘border deal’ is an easy NO,” Sen. Marco Rubio, the
Florida Republican who attempted immigration reform with Democrats more than a
decade ago, wrote on social media. “It reads like a parody of an actual border
security bill.”
DOCUMENT: Border security deal summary
At least 20 Republicans were already on record as opposed to
the bill, and others are expected to follow. Mr. McConnell and lead Republican
negotiator Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma were on an island of their own as no
other Republican senators appeared willing to give it their blessing.
Seeing the writing on the wall ahead of a procedural vote
Wednesday, Mr. McConnell reportedly told colleagues during a closed-door
meeting Monday evening to vote against advancing the legislation, thereby
giving members more time to review and pressure Democrats for amendments.
Mr. Lankford conceded it is unlikely to get the needed 60
votes and suggested he may even vote against advancing his own bill.
Mr. McConnell has pitched that the deal was as good as it
would get with a divided government.
“The gaping hole in our nation’s sovereign borders on
President Biden’s watch is not going to heal itself,” Mr. McConnell said. “And
the crater of American credibility after three years of the President’s foreign
policy will not repair itself, either.”
Mr. Lankford vented about his conservative colleagues being
quick to torch his work.
“There’s a lot of folks that are looking at Facebook and
Twitter for their fact base,” he said. “How do we move from doing press
conferences about border problems to actually solving some of these border
problems?”
The fury was just as palpable among liberals and immigrant
rights groups that whacked the proposal as “a disgrace,” “heartlessness” and
“racism.”
“We need real, humane immigration solutions that are
centered in dignity and justice — NOT exclusionary, enforcement-only policies,”
said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Washington Democrat and chair of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus.
The bill would expand the government’s deportation force,
speed up asylum hearings and give President Biden new powers to block illegal
crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border. Those authorities wouldn’t kick in until
the flow averages more than 4,000 migrants per day.
It would trim some of Mr. Biden’s expansive use of “parole”
to catch and release migrants at the border but would also affirm his powers to
use parole for migrants who skip the border and fly directly into the U.S.
The deal would stiffen the standards for claiming asylum but
shift the decisions away from immigration courts and to asylum officers, who
are seen as more favorable to migrants. It also expands legal immigration by
50,000 spaces a year, grants immediate work permits to those who clear the
initial asylum hurdle, and creates a pathway to citizenship for tens of
thousands of Afghans airlifted out of their country during the U.S. troop
withdrawal.
Senate Majority
Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, wants quick action. He set up a
vote for Wednesday to try to head off an initial filibuster. Sixty votes,
including many from Republicans, will be required to clear the initial hurdle.
The vote on Wednesday is far too soon for many Republicans
on the fence, who said they would need a robust amendment process before they
would be willing to support it.
Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, who has been Senate Democrats’
leading voice on immigration for years, was lukewarm on the legislation. He
said it “may help” at the border but falls short of what he wants to see in
terms of legal status for illegal immigrants.
Still, he challenged Republicans to accept the deal as a way
to unlock the money for Ukraine, Israel and
Taiwan.
“To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: think long
and hard about showing weakness to despots like Vladimir Putin,” he said.
“Democracy and the rule of law is worth the battle.”
Mr. Durbin, his party’s vote counter in the Senate, must
also watch his left flank. Some influential voices said the deal betrays
immigrants.
“This was not a negotiation, and the final product shows
that,” said Rep. Nanette Barragan, California Democrat and chair of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “But we cannot just throw up our hands and
accept bad immigration policies that gut asylum and could set back real
bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform 10 to 15 years, for temporary aid.”
Sen. Robert Menendez, the embattled New Jersey Democrat who
has pleaded not guilty to public corruption charges and acting as a foreign
agent, and Sen. Alex Padilla, California Democrat, blasted negotiators for
excluding those with Hispanic roots.
“Could you imagine a voting rights
deal coming together without start-to-finish input from the Congressional Black
Caucus? Unimaginable!” Mr. Menendez said.
• Stephen Dinan
can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.
• Ramsey
Touchberry can be reached at rtouchberry@washingtontimes.com.
All site
contents © Copyright 2024 The Washington Times, LLC
No comments:
Post a Comment