Posted on 02/14/2019 2:30:49 PM PST by rintintin
The text of the funding bill was released last night/this morning, and lawmakers are expected to vote on the 1,169-page measure as early as this evening. The bill is disappointing in many respects, but if it had been as advertised earlier, it might have been tolerable.
But my fears that senators Durbin and Leahy would trick the Republican conferees (none of whom knows the first thing about immigration policy) were realized. Standing out among the many distasteful provisions are two poison pills that I hope the Republican committee members either didn’t know about or didn’t understand.
The first regards the fence. I’m not fence-first guy, but physical barriers really are needed on some parts of the border, and the president has been flexible on this in the face of implacable Democratic opposition. Thus the news that the Dems agreed to $1.375 billion for the construction of “primary pedestrian fencing” (i.e., high barriers, not the low ones intended simply to stop vehicles, in places where there’s none now) seemed like a win.
It’s not. That’s because the bill allows the fencing to be built only in the Rio Grande Valley Sector in South Texas. It’s surely needed there, but real barriers are also needed elsewhere, such as the parts of the Arizona or New Mexico borders where there’s only vehicle fencing.
But the Democrats had a reason for this limitation...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
USE THE EL CHAPO $$$$
Screw process , just use it !
Stupid GOP controlled senate has already passed the bill.
McConnell has set Trump up intentionally.
Trump should veto on the basis that there’s NO WAY congress has had the time to read the 1200 page bill and demand a one week continuing resolution to study it.
“Stupid GOP”
No, crafty GOP - well-serving their open-borders masters, big donors
Yes, exactly.
Anything like this that the other side is rushing through without time to study it should be vetoed.
Maybe construction of the wall only costed the $1.7 billion, and not the $5.7.
As for the jurisdictions alongside the border, they have no standing at all. They can't sue the federal government per the 1996 Immigration law that Clinton signed.
So, let's just wait and see what develops. Anyone who is now going to stay home in 2020 might as well write in Hillary.
When I saw the word ‘’landmines’’ I thought... nah. Not real ones. Right?
As the author says, Trump needs to VETO this bill, sign off on a Continuing Resolution to keep the government running, then work on stripping out the poison pills.
That puts the responsibility for keeping the precious Federal Government going where it belongs, on the RAT party.
We don’t need mines, we need a canal filled with sharks and some bridges.
Revolutions have started for less.
All anyone had to know about how this bill would turn out was to look at who the Dems put on the conference committee and who the Repubs put on it. Dems put senior people, common names while McCarthy and McConnell put junior people and unknowns. Neither McCarthy nor McConnell support Trump in building the wall. Both give lip service but work behind the scenes to thwart the wall.
We need GUARD TOWERS MOUNTED ON RAILS that can move to areas of heavy traffic and SHOOT INVADERS ON SIGHT, just as anyone hopping the fence at AREA 51 IS SUBJECTED TO!
Laura Ingram is in disbelief
https://mobile.twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/1096150607772176386
Does Trump plan to even run-in 2020 ?
I am going to keep asking these 4 questions in hopes there is a legal expert in FReeper land who will see and answer them.
1) This is an appropriation bill. There are authorization bills and appropriation bills. Authorization bills are one of the many law bills that Congress can pass. Authorizations requiring funding must be followed by appropriation bills to allocate the funds. That is what this is supposed to be, I think. Some are crying this bill includes crap like law changes to the detention of families with minors, etc. Is that even possible given its an “appropriation” bill?
2)If Trump signs this crap sandwich bill, does he actually have to spend the monies allocated to the crap sandwich stuff like foreign aid and illegal immigrant support? Congress approves and appropriates funding, but in cases where the money doesn’t get spent in the timeframe allocated (a year or two???) it must be returned to the treasury. What keeps POTUS Trump from just having his secretaries not spend the money? Would he get his $1.4B wall money and be able to simply not execute the other crap?
3) provisions like allowing local city mayors to veto wall building on the border towns sound like unconstitutional provisions. Its already established (by democrats) that states can not enforce immigration, that immigration is a federal jurisdiction. So maybe some delays, but a run up to the Supreme Court would seem to strike those provisions...or would it strike the entire crap sandwich bill?
4) it would seem Trump has a lot of legal power already in law under the emergency powers act, but I wonder what specifically he is allowed to do with regards to reallocating/redirecting funds and with regard to squelching the lawsuits that will no doubt come.
Legal scholars please respond.
“...Folks, there’s gotta be a reason why Trump signed it...”
As far as I know, President Trump hasn’t signed anything yet....
“well-serving their open-borders masters, big donors”
No more tax cuts for big donors than. You want a democrat party practicing socialism then that is what you get(to pay for it).
I read the 224a
does this just mean you cannot deport them by money in this bill, but you still can deport them by other money
This revolution is over. We didn't win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.