ADVERTISEMENT

Senate to Vote Again on Border Deal as Democrats Seek Political Edge

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,452
60,548
113
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, plans to push forward this week with a second vote on a bipartisan border enforcement bill that Senate Republicans killed earlier this year at the urging of former President Donald J. Trump.
The measure is almost certain to be blocked again, but Democrats hope to use the failed vote to sharpen an election-year contrast with the G.O.P. on a critical issue that polls show is a major potential liability for President Biden and their candidates.
Democrats will aim to neutralize the issue by showing voters that they and Mr. Biden have tried to get migration at the U.S. border with Mexico under control, but have been thwarted repeatedly by Republicans following the lead of Mr. Trump.
“The former president made clear he would rather preserve the issue for his campaign than solve the issue in a bipartisan fashion,” Mr. Schumer wrote in a letter to colleagues that heralded the bill’s provisions and outlined his plans. “On cue, many of our Republican colleagues abruptly reversed course on their prior support, announcing their newfound opposition to the bipartisan proposal.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


After months of negotiation, Republicans and Democrats reached an improbable immigration compromise in February — one that G.O.P. lawmakers had insisted was a prerequisite for providing additional aid to Ukraine — that appeared to have a chance at passage. But Mr. Trump called it too weak and instructed his allies in Congress to vote it down. The measure failed when it fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate, with all but four Republicans voting to block it. (In the 50-to-49 vote, three Democrats and one independent also voted “no,” denying the measure even a simple majority.)
Mr. Biden, whose team helped hammer out the deal, urged support for it on Monday in a statement from Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, that said, “We strongly support this legislation and call on every senator to put partisan politics aside and vote to secure the border.”

Among other changes to immigration law, the measure would make it more difficult to gain asylum in the United States and increase detentions and deportations of those crossing into the country without authorization. It would also effectively close the border altogether if the average number of migrants encountered by immigration officials exceeded a certain threshold — an average of 5,000 over the course of a week or 8,500 on any given day. The bill also would give the president power to close the border unilaterally if migrant encounters reach an average of 4,000 per day over a week.
While crossings have fallen substantially in recent months, the average number per day over the month of March far exceeded those thresholds, at just over 6,000, according to Customs and Border Protection. Polls show Americans are deeply concerned about the state of the southern border.
The compromise measure was negotiated by Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma; Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut; and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, independent of Arizona. Mr. Murphy joined Mr. Schumer at a news conference last week to announce he was reintroducing the bill.



“If Republicans think this situation at the border is an emergency, then let’s give them another chance to do the right thing,” Mr. Murphy said.
Republicans quickly signaled that they planned to block the bill again.
“This ‘border security bill’ doesn’t secure the border. In the hands of Biden, it’d make the border far LESS secure,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, wrote on social media. “I’ll be voting ‘heck no!’”
“Should it reach the House, the bill would be dead on arrival,” Speaker Mike Johnson and the rest of the House Republican leadership team wrote in a joint statement.
Mr. Lankford spoke out last week on the Senate floor against Mr. Schumer’s plan to again bring up the bill he had helped negotiate, calling the move political.
“Why are we doing this?” Mr. Lankford said. “All the American people see it. Everybody sees this is political.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Mr. Lankford pointed to a memo written by his Democratic colleagues that credited the death of the border bill with helping Representative Tom Suozzi, a Democrat, flip a seat in New York.
“The bill that I worked with Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema on — we’re not going to be able to pass,” Mr. Lankford said. “So let’s find the sections of it that we can pass. The worst-case scenario is doing nothing. That’s what we’re currently doing.”

 
Mr. Lankford spoke out last week on the Senate floor against Mr. Schumer’s plan to again bring up the bill he had helped negotiate, calling the move political.
“Why are we doing this?” Mr. Lankford said. “All the American people see it. Everybody sees this is political.”
season 12 laughing GIF
 
Blocking that shitty deal was the correct move...
and when you wonder how a situation like our southern border can go so long without any real legislative solution - this is your answer

because the hard line people just unilaterally refuse to do anything that isn't 100% what they want

so nothing gets addressed at all and the situation just continues...but hey - at least trump has somehting to campaign on now!
 
and when you wonder how a situation like our southern border can go so long without any real legislative solution - this is your answer

because the hard line people just unilaterally refuse to do anything that isn't 100% what they want

so nothing gets addressed at all and the situation just continues...but hey - at least trump has somehting to campaign on now!
been this way for 40 years. You’d think you’d take incremental gains when and where you can get them and then when you have total control (you know like cons had during Trumps first two years) can them have something lined up that you can pass quickly to get your way implemented. Instead nothing ever gets done.
 
been this way for 40 years. You’d think you’d take incremental gains when and where you can get them and then when you have total control (you know like cons had during Trumps first two years) can them have something lined up that you can pass quickly to get your way implemented. Instead nothing ever gets done.
i think some republicans legit want to do something on the border...and i'm sure a lot of them don't love everything about the senate bill

unfortunately for them, their party takes its direction from the most transparently cynical politician i've ever seen. he exists solely to get elected and solutions to problems that end up taking away a campaign issue (or giving a campaign issue to someone else) are seen as worse than the problem itself

i'm sure trump learned from the reversal of roe that these legislative/judicial "wins" can really backfire - especially when you care exponentially more about your ability to get elected than you do for the problem itself
 
and when you wonder how a situation like our southern border can go so long without any real legislative solution - this is your answer because the hard line people just unilaterally refuse to do anything that isn't 100% what they want so nothing gets addressed at all and the situation just continues...but hey - at least trump has somehting to campaign on now!

This bill was 200% not what we needed,.. Implement that bill with the Biden administration in charge and things would be even worse now,.. There will be more acceptable solutions on the horizon.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, plans to push forward this week with a second vote on a bipartisan border enforcement bill that Senate Republicans killed earlier this year at the urging of former President Donald J. Trump.
The measure is almost certain to be blocked again, but Democrats hope to use the failed vote to sharpen an election-year contrast with the G.O.P. on a critical issue that polls show is a major potential liability for President Biden and their candidates.
Democrats will aim to neutralize the issue by showing voters that they and Mr. Biden have tried to get migration at the U.S. border with Mexico under control, but have been thwarted repeatedly by Republicans following the lead of Mr. Trump.
“The former president made clear he would rather preserve the issue for his campaign than solve the issue in a bipartisan fashion,” Mr. Schumer wrote in a letter to colleagues that heralded the bill’s provisions and outlined his plans. “On cue, many of our Republican colleagues abruptly reversed course on their prior support, announcing their newfound opposition to the bipartisan proposal.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


After months of negotiation, Republicans and Democrats reached an improbable immigration compromise in February — one that G.O.P. lawmakers had insisted was a prerequisite for providing additional aid to Ukraine — that appeared to have a chance at passage. But Mr. Trump called it too weak and instructed his allies in Congress to vote it down. The measure failed when it fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate, with all but four Republicans voting to block it. (In the 50-to-49 vote, three Democrats and one independent also voted “no,” denying the measure even a simple majority.)
Mr. Biden, whose team helped hammer out the deal, urged support for it on Monday in a statement from Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, that said, “We strongly support this legislation and call on every senator to put partisan politics aside and vote to secure the border.”

Among other changes to immigration law, the measure would make it more difficult to gain asylum in the United States and increase detentions and deportations of those crossing into the country without authorization. It would also effectively close the border altogether if the average number of migrants encountered by immigration officials exceeded a certain threshold — an average of 5,000 over the course of a week or 8,500 on any given day. The bill also would give the president power to close the border unilaterally if migrant encounters reach an average of 4,000 per day over a week.
While crossings have fallen substantially in recent months, the average number per day over the month of March far exceeded those thresholds, at just over 6,000, according to Customs and Border Protection. Polls show Americans are deeply concerned about the state of the southern border.
The compromise measure was negotiated by Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma; Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut; and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, independent of Arizona. Mr. Murphy joined Mr. Schumer at a news conference last week to announce he was reintroducing the bill.


“If Republicans think this situation at the border is an emergency, then let’s give them another chance to do the right thing,” Mr. Murphy said.
Republicans quickly signaled that they planned to block the bill again.
“This ‘border security bill’ doesn’t secure the border. In the hands of Biden, it’d make the border far LESS secure,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, wrote on social media. “I’ll be voting ‘heck no!’”
“Should it reach the House, the bill would be dead on arrival,” Speaker Mike Johnson and the rest of the House Republican leadership team wrote in a joint statement.
Mr. Lankford spoke out last week on the Senate floor against Mr. Schumer’s plan to again bring up the bill he had helped negotiate, calling the move political.
“Why are we doing this?” Mr. Lankford said. “All the American people see it. Everybody sees this is political.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Mr. Lankford pointed to a memo written by his Democratic colleagues that credited the death of the border bill with helping Representative Tom Suozzi, a Democrat, flip a seat in New York.
“The bill that I worked with Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema on — we’re not going to be able to pass,” Mr. Lankford said. “So let’s find the sections of it that we can pass. The worst-case scenario is doing nothing. That’s what we’re currently doing.”

Now Lankford doesn't even like his own bill. Republicans are toolbags. He knows damn well it's as good of a border bill they will ever get, but is too chickenshit to do the right thing.
 
No compromise whatsoever! The border must be locked down and the trash that has crossed needs to GTFO! Anything else is Dim desperation leading up to November!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: your_master5
Blocking that shitty deal was the correct move...
I don't think you understand the word "bipartisan" in this case. Both sides agreed to it, both were getting things they wanted. It wasn't perfect, but they at least worked together to compromise. When was the last time that happened in Washington?

It will be a campaign issue, and both sides will have ammo to lob at the other on why nothing has been done.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you understand the word "bipartisan" in this case. Both sides agreed to it, both were getting things they wanted. It wasn't perfect, but they at least worked together to compromise. When was the last time that happened in Washington?

It will be a campaign issue, and both sides will have ammo to lob at the other on why nothing has been done.
Do you really believe any of this? 🤡
 
It’s a piece of shit bill that does NOTHING to stop illegals from entering our country. Stop that first then we can address other issue regarding immigration.
At the time Republicans in the Senate said it was the best border bill they will ever get. Trump said no. YOUR GUY said no. Not to mention the exaggeration by you guys about open borders and millions a day streaming into the country...which is freaking nonsense.
 
At the time Republicans in the Senate said it was the best border bill they will ever get. Trump said no. YOUR GUY said no. Not to mention the exaggeration by you guys about open borders and millions a day streaming into the country...which is freaking nonsense.
but that's emblematic of why the border is the problem it is today...because people actually believe that stuff

when those people are driving the conversation on immigration - nothing is going to happen
 
And your point is?...
you really don't know what point I'm making here?

i wouldn't be shocked that you don't get it, but that's not something i'd be broadcasting if i were you

the person you called "a republican idiot" had trump's endorsement - and specifically regarding being "strong on the border" - just before he was in the process of negotiating the bill
 
The one and only reason for the Republican approach to a border deal is Trump thinks it's his strongest campaign issue.

Nothing to do with whether or not it's a shitty plan.

Rifler and others trying to excuse away GOP action is comical.
Well it certainly is easier to campaign on that rather than how he got indicted almost 90 times from his first Presidency.
 
you really don't know what point I'm making here?

i wouldn't be shocked that you don't get it, but that's not something i'd be broadcasting if i were you

the person you called "a republican idiot" had trump's endorsement - and specifically regarding being "strong on the border" - just before he was in the process of negotiating the bill

You make it sound like I put should some level of value in comments made by Donald Trump,.. I don't. Trump's just a short term politician who occasionally gets things right,.. Lankford, the Republican idiot, has never been particularly strong on the border.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
Biden needs to use executive order and deploy the armed forces.

That would shut up everybody and show how tough he is. We already know the tactics of proposed bills don’t work in terms of public opinion.
 
It’s a piece of shit bill that does NOTHING to stop illegals from entering our country. Stop that first then we can address other issue regarding immigration.
LOL...so it's your contention that Sen. Lankford (R-OK) was negotiating this bipartisan bill with absolutely zero input from the GOP caucus...he was playing the wildcard and was telling them nothing about what was in it.

Here's what was in it: there was money...
  1. to build more border barriers
  2. to greatly expand detention facilities
  3. to hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents,
  4. to hire more asylum officers and immigration judges to reduce the years-long backlog in cases to determine asylum eligibility
  5. to expedite the asylum process, essentially ending — in most cases — the so-called “catch and release” policy whereby migrants are released into the U.S. pending asylum hearings
  6. to increase the standard of evidence needed to win asylum status
The bill also would have supplied more funding to interdict fentanyl and human trafficking. And, as Sen. Lankford said, “It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous. The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.

So when you claim it would do "NOTHING to stop illegals from entering our country", you're simply lying.
 
Make them mothers wish they had never heard of the US of A and jo biden's welfare for all programs!
 
LOL...so it's your contention that Sen. Lankford (R-OK) was negotiating this bipartisan bill with absolutely zero input from the GOP caucus...he was playing the wildcard and was telling them nothing about what was in it.

Here's what was in it: there was money...
  1. to build more border barriers
  2. to greatly expand detention facilities
  3. to hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents,
  4. to hire more asylum officers and immigration judges to reduce the years-long backlog in cases to determine asylum eligibility
  5. to expedite the asylum process, essentially ending — in most cases — the so-called “catch and release” policy whereby migrants are released into the U.S. pending asylum hearings
  6. to increase the standard of evidence needed to win asylum status
The bill also would have supplied more funding to interdict fentanyl and human trafficking. And, as Sen. Lankford said, “It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous. The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.

So when you claim it would do "NOTHING to stop illegals from entering our country", you're simply lying.
Who gives a rat's ASS about who was giving input in the uniparty DC apparatus. No bill is needed to get the border under control.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tom Paris
LOL...so it's your contention that Sen. Lankford (R-OK) was negotiating this bipartisan bill with absolutely zero input from the GOP caucus...he was playing the wildcard and was telling them nothing about what was in it.

Here's what was in it: there was money...
  1. to build more border barriers
  2. to greatly expand detention facilities
  3. to hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents,
  4. to hire more asylum officers and immigration judges to reduce the years-long backlog in cases to determine asylum eligibility
  5. to expedite the asylum process, essentially ending — in most cases — the so-called “catch and release” policy whereby migrants are released into the U.S. pending asylum hearings
  6. to increase the standard of evidence needed to win asylum status
The bill also would have supplied more funding to interdict fentanyl and human trafficking. And, as Sen. Lankford said, “It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous. The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.

So when you claim it would do "NOTHING to stop illegals from entering our country", you're simply lying.
Because when the left spends more and more and more it always works? lol Bullets are cheap!! https://www.usdebtclock.org/
 
  • Like
Reactions: your_master5
LOL...so it's your contention that Sen. Lankford (R-OK) was negotiating this bipartisan bill with absolutely zero input from the GOP caucus...he was playing the wildcard and was telling them nothing about what was in it.

Here's what was in it: there was money...
  1. to build more border barriers
  2. to greatly expand detention facilities
  3. to hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents,
  4. to hire more asylum officers and immigration judges to reduce the years-long backlog in cases to determine asylum eligibility
  5. to expedite the asylum process, essentially ending — in most cases — the so-called “catch and release” policy whereby migrants are released into the U.S. pending asylum hearings
  6. to increase the standard of evidence needed to win asylum status
The bill also would have supplied more funding to interdict fentanyl and human trafficking. And, as Sen. Lankford said, “It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous. The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.

So when you claim it would do "NOTHING to stop illegals from entering our country", you're simply lying.


You’re a partisan tool. Close the border completely, it’s not hard if the POTUS wants to do it. Do that then we can talk.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT