Border problem.
- Thread starter gopokes83
- Start date
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Pretty good read on Lankford from USA Today
Republicans tapped him to negotiate a landmark deal on the southern border. Then they tore him apart.
WASHINGTON – Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., walked into the Senate chamber Wednesday afternoon and cast a "yes" vote on a $118 billion piece of legislation he spent Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Day crafting. He was one of only four Republicans to do so.It was the conclusion of a monthslong, bipartisan project to broker a massive border security and foreign aid deal that was derailed when former President Donald Trump – with an eye on his 2024 presidential campaign – began publicly slamming the bill before it was even released.
By the time it was unveiled Sunday night, the writing was on the wall. It was rejected by Senate Republicans less than 48 hours later when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declared there was "no real chance" it would become law. Even McConnell – who tapped Lankford to negotiate the deal – voted against it, and it died on the Senate floor.
It was a stunning turnaround from just three months earlier when Republicans demanded Democrats agree to a conservative border policy in exchange for additional aid for Ukraine.
During that time, Trump commanded sweeping victories in the Iowa and New Hampshire Republican presidential primaries, consolidating his control over the party. He made it clear he planned to run on immigration and came out against the deal, and many Republicans in both chambers quickly aligned behind his criticism.
The sudden pivot put Lankford in the crosshairs, from the top of the party to the grassroots.
His efforts as the lead GOP negotiator were called into question as Trump called the bill a “horrible, open borders betrayal of America” and House Speaker Mike Johnson pledged it was “dead on arrival.”
A group of more than 170 Oklahoma Republicans voted to condemn him in an unsanctioned meeting last month, accusing him of “playing fast and loose with Democrats” to forge a deal. Conservative commentators are portraying him as an intentionally bad actor or as a “poor dupe."
"I had a popular commentator, four weeks ago that I talked to, that told me flat out... if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you," Lankford said on the Senate floor Wednesday. "By the way, they have been faithful to their promise."
And on Monday, Trump specifically targeted Lankford, telling "The Dan Bongino Show" he did not endorse the Oklahoma lawmaker in 2022, even though he did. “This is a very bad bill for his career,” he said. “This is lunacy, this bill.”
Lankford snapped back, telling CNN: “His job right now is running for president... Obviously, a chaotic border is helpful to him.”
Lankford isn't the first Republican lawmaker to be burned after working across the aisle in recent months: A handful of conservative rebels ousted former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. last year as he worked with Democrats to dodge a government shutdown. McConnell also got heat from his caucus for supporting the border deal, though there's little appetite for a similar coup in the Senate.
The Senate GOP's sudden shift has underscored the power Trump still holds over the party he has transformed since he won the presidency in 2016. And it is an unusual position for the senior senator from Oklahoma, who has for years been a steady conservative presence in the Senate.
“I feel like the guy standing in the middle of a field in a thunderstorm holding up a metal stick,” he said last week.
He said he was surprised by his fellow conservatives’ reaction to the proposal that, at the time, they still hadn’t seen. Once unveiled, the reaction was swift – within the first day of its release, at least half of the Republicans in the Senate said they oppose it or could only support it with changes.
“This is a really intense thing. It’s been divisive – that’s why we haven’t done anything in 30 years on this. Because it’s difficult to be able to do and it’s divisive.”
'Checks a lot of Republican boxes'
The wiry, red-headed senator – who before serving in Congress was a Baptist minister who led a youth camp – has a reputation as a level-headed lawmaker who is willing to work across the aisle.Immigration policy became his specialization during his tenure in Congress, and McConnell last year selected him to represent the GOP in negotiations as the top-ranking Republican on the Homeland Security panel’s Government Operations and Border Management Subcommittee.
So “I was the short straw when it came time to negotiate all this,” he told reporters. The other lead negotiators were Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., as well as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and representatives from the White House.
Experts say what the group delivered is one of the most conservative border policy proposals to emerge in decades, even with Democrats and independent voices at the table.
The $118 billion package would have implemented massive changes to U.S. border policy, vastly expanding detention capacity and making it harder for people to qualify for humanitarian asylum, though the process would have been limited to six months and allowed migrants to work in the country while their claim is processed.
It also would have created a new mechanism to temporarily shut down the border if illegal crossings reached a certain threshold, forced the Biden administration to continue building a border wall, and funded anti-fentanyl enforcement. The bill also allotted new aid for Ukraine, Israel and other U.S. allies, a longstanding request of Biden.
Meanwhile, the package left out traditional Democratic demands in immigration bills, such as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country or expanded protections for asylum seekers. However, it would have allowed migrants to work in the U.S. while they await a decision on their case. It was slammed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and progressive members of Congress as merely an "enforcement" bill that could add to the chaos on the southern border.
“Historically, looking at what both parties have wanted in a deal like this, this checks a lot of Republican boxes,” said Casey Burgat, director of the legislative affairs program at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.
A decade ago, the deal Lankford brokered would likely have been considered a victory by the GOP base. But in the politics of 2024 – where bipartisanship is often seen as a weakness and polarization has reached new heights – the end was in sight as soon as Trump began publicly criticizing it.
Many Republicans began arguing that the deal would have allowed thousands of migrants into the country per day and that Biden should close the border without Congress' help, though that is legally murky.
"We keep learning over and over that (Trump's) sway with a broad swath of Republicans is almost absolute," Burgat said. "When he speaks out on an issue there is a rush of people to support it."
contd...next post
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Some Republicans stand by Lankford
All but four of the Senate's 49 Republicans voted on Wednesday to block the border deal they requested in November, effectively ending its chances of becoming law this year.As opposition to the bill solidified over the last week, Lankford’s allies in the Senate were still quick to defend his reputation, even if they acknowledged that his efforts were likely to fall flat.
“Sometimes I hurt for (Lankford) because I know he’s working as hard as he can,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., told USA TODAY last week.
She said “there were stirrings” of concern before Trump weighed in, “so maybe he hit a vulnerable chord within the conference.” She argued that the proposal would codify some of Trump’s own policies, making it harder for Biden or other presidents to pull them back.
“I think it would be a victory for Trump policies, but he’s obviously not buying what I’m selling, I guess," she said last week. She ultimately voted against the proposal after getting "overwhelming feedback" from her constituents.
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. said Lankford “has strong conservative principles and convictions… he’s unflappable, he’s professional.”
Asked whether the lawmaker has become a cautionary tale for Republicans who want to forge bipartisan deals, Cramer said that the phenomenon of Trump’s wrath derailing policy “is not anything new for all of us.”
“It’s not an insignificant consideration for a political party trying to gain control in an election year to consider the desire of their presumptive nominee. (But) I don’t take a hiatus from policymaking because it’s inconvenient politically,” he said last week. “From that standpoint, it is kind of discouraging. But it’s also a reflection of just how narrowly divided this country is.”
Even senators who have publicly slammed the bill have tried not to pin the blame on Lankford, or shifted it to McConnell: “He was between a rock and a hard place,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., said Monday, adding the package “won’t get anything done” and won’t get his vote.
Still, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said that the flameout of the border deal won’t stop future Republicans from reaching for a bipartisan deal: “I don’t think it has any influence on the next one – for the players involved, maybe. But not for the institution.”
Lankford may already be proving him right. He spent Monday on the television circuit, pitching Americans on the deal he had lost many sleepless nights over. That evening, he emerged from a two-hour meeting acknowledging that his peers would likely kill the bill. He’s not taking the criticism personally, but said he’s not eager to seek the spotlight again.
And on Wednesday, as he headed to the Senate floor to watch his colleagues vote against his bill, Lankford said its demise reflects a problem that goes far beyond Capitol Hill.
"This is where we are as a country, more than the country wants to admit," he said. "We are a mirror... A lot of people want to solve things, but there are people on the left and the right that aren't talking to each other anymore."
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Dude is soooo frustrated with his own party over this but won't publicly condemn them for it and makes himself look and sound foolish trying to blame it on everyone but his GOP colleagues who killed the bill, even attempting to blame his OWN NO vote against the bill, on Dems. He voted No because Trump told him and all the others to vote no.
Lindsey Graham Melts Down On Senate Floor After Sinema Accuses Him of Hypocrisy For Voting to Kill Debate on Border Bill
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Krysten Sinema (I-AZ) got into a heated exchange on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Thursday as Sinema called Graham out for what she saw as hypocrisy in his stance on the bipartisan border bill.
After raging against the numbers of illegal migrants coming across the border Graham said, “Senator Murphy, Sinema, Langford, and others set out to come up with a bipartisan proposal that, I thought did a pretty good job in many ways. However, having said that, I didn’t think it was enough. I was hoping to be able to build on what they did. But here’s where we’re at. The House declared it insufficient.”
“Will the senator yield to a question?” interjected Sinema, who was in the chamber listening to Graham’s speech on the bill she helped negotiate and he voted to kill earlier in the week.
“Yes,” Graham agreed.
“Oh. Thank you. Thank you. Senator, I was just listening carefully to your speech, and you mentioned that you thought the bill that we had drafted and introduced yesterday was a good start, but not enough. Yeah. I’m wondering if if, you would remind us how you voted yesterday on the motion to proceed to the bill that had the border package that we worked on together?” Sinema asked.
“I’ll be glad to. I voted no because I didn’t see a process in place or willingness by my Democratic colleagues to allow me to express. I think it could be better, see in the Gang of Eight. You weren’t here, but Senator McCain was, we worked really hard. Senator Bennett’s been involved in all this stuff in 2013, and we let the bill come to the floor, people amend it, and we spent days and weeks. So that’s why I voted, ‘No,’” Graham continued as Sinema again pressed for a question.
“No, no, I, I am reclaiming my time,” Graham shot back, refusing another question from Sinema.
“So here’s what I’m saying. This has been a half-assed effort to deal with border security for the people,” Graham continued as Sinema kept pressing for a question.
“No, I am speaking, speak later,” Graham said to her.
“To the people in the House, we have not really tried hard to secure the border. We took a well-meaning product. People worked really hard. I applaud you and others for coming out with a product that I thought had a lot of good things in it, but not enough for me,” Graham continued.
“Yield to a question?” Sinema pressed again.
“No, to my House colleagues, you can do better than this. Don’t send us back H.R.- 2. It’s not going anywhere. You know, you couldn’t get all Republicans for H.R.- 2. We lost one Republican and got no Democrat. So this idea we’ve done enough on the border is BS. I am not done. I’m not going to help Ukraine until we first do a better job helping ourselves,” he continued.
Sinema again pressed for a question and Graham finally relented.
“Thank you. Now, Senator Graham, I know you’ve been here quite a bit longer than me, but it is my understanding that in order to get to the portion of a bill where we offer amendments on the floor, we first have to pass the motion to proceed. And it is also my understanding that it was offered by leadership and the three sponsors of the border Bill, which your team gratefully helped us create, that we would have an open amendment process. So could you help me understand why you voted against the motion to proceed?” Sinema asked again, calling Graham out for offering kind words for a bill stop from being debated.
“I’ll be glad to,” he shot back.
“Before we were able to offer any amendments, including your amendments,” Sinema added.
“Yes. I think the fix is in. I think people on our side and your side wanted to do the border thing as quick as they could, so we could get the Ukraine, and I don’t trust the system here to be able to allow us to have the debate that we had for the Gang of Eight bill,” Graham replied, becoming more and more animated:
As Graham raged on, Sinema tried for another question, which he ignored. “For those of you who want to help Ukraine, you’ve made it harder. We’re going to lose a handful of Republican votes over here, because they felt they were shut out in the debate about how to secure the border.”
“You don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting it through the house, because we took the border issue and we didn’t address it the way it should have been. We closed it out. I could see the game being fixed. I am here as a proud supporter of Ukraine, telling you that you’ve hurt the cause of Ukraine by trying to short-change a debate on the border,” Graham fumed.
PF5
Sheriff
Republicans aim to take a second swing at Mayorkas impeachment reuters
WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives will try again on Tuesday to impeach Democratic President Joe Biden's top border official, a week after their first attempt ended in a humiliating legislative defeat for Republican Speaker Mike Johnson.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stands accused by House Republicans of failing to stem record flows of migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border, in what Donald Trump views as a top issue in his campaign to unseat Biden in the November presidential election.
Mayorkas has said he does not bear responsibility for the border situation, blaming it instead on a broken U.S. immigration system that Congress has not been able to fix.
His department rejected Republican claims in a statement on Tuesday that described the Republican impeachment effort as an unconstitutional and baseless "stunt" that will only waste time that could be devoted to fixing the border.
Those claims have not dissuaded Republicans from moving forward.
"We will have our full membership back. We will vote on Mayorkas impeachment. It will pass the House," Republican Representative Byron Donalds said on the social media platform "X."
But in a narrowly divided chamber, where Republicans hold a slim 219-212 majority, partisan success is still not guaranteed.
Republicans failed to impeach Mayorkas last week in a 214-216 vote, after three party members opposed passage and a fourth changed his vote to "no" to break a tie and ensure that the measure could be brought up again under parliamentary rules.
House Republican leaders now hope they can succeed by at least one vote, with the return of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise this week from cancer treatments.
But the party could suffer other absences as a major winter storm moves up the East Coast, potentially leading to a delay.
Should Tuesday's vote be delayed, Republicans could face further complications if Democrat Tom Suozzi wins a special congressional election in New York on Tuesday night, and enters Congress in time to compensate for Scalise's vote.
If an impeachment vote does succeed, the measure would go on to the Democratic-led Senate where it is unlikely to move forward.
Tuesday's vote comes a week after hardline Republicans in the Senate defeated a bipartisan deal to address border security that would have marked an improvement over current law, according to its supporters, including Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
The bill's defeat helps keep the border issue alive as a campaign issue for Trump, the dominant Republican White House candidate.
Trump was twice impeached by the House, when Democrats held the majority, and was twice acquitted by the Senate, which was in Republican hands.
House Republicans are currently investigating whether any of Biden's past behavior before moving into the White House might have constituted a high crime or misdemeanor that could result in impeachment. Some Republicans have said they do not see such evidence yet.
WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives will try again on Tuesday to impeach Democratic President Joe Biden's top border official, a week after their first attempt ended in a humiliating legislative defeat for Republican Speaker Mike Johnson.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stands accused by House Republicans of failing to stem record flows of migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border, in what Donald Trump views as a top issue in his campaign to unseat Biden in the November presidential election.
Mayorkas has said he does not bear responsibility for the border situation, blaming it instead on a broken U.S. immigration system that Congress has not been able to fix.
His department rejected Republican claims in a statement on Tuesday that described the Republican impeachment effort as an unconstitutional and baseless "stunt" that will only waste time that could be devoted to fixing the border.
Those claims have not dissuaded Republicans from moving forward.
"We will have our full membership back. We will vote on Mayorkas impeachment. It will pass the House," Republican Representative Byron Donalds said on the social media platform "X."
But in a narrowly divided chamber, where Republicans hold a slim 219-212 majority, partisan success is still not guaranteed.
Republicans failed to impeach Mayorkas last week in a 214-216 vote, after three party members opposed passage and a fourth changed his vote to "no" to break a tie and ensure that the measure could be brought up again under parliamentary rules.
House Republican leaders now hope they can succeed by at least one vote, with the return of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise this week from cancer treatments.
But the party could suffer other absences as a major winter storm moves up the East Coast, potentially leading to a delay.
Should Tuesday's vote be delayed, Republicans could face further complications if Democrat Tom Suozzi wins a special congressional election in New York on Tuesday night, and enters Congress in time to compensate for Scalise's vote.
If an impeachment vote does succeed, the measure would go on to the Democratic-led Senate where it is unlikely to move forward.
Tuesday's vote comes a week after hardline Republicans in the Senate defeated a bipartisan deal to address border security that would have marked an improvement over current law, according to its supporters, including Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
The bill's defeat helps keep the border issue alive as a campaign issue for Trump, the dominant Republican White House candidate.
Trump was twice impeached by the House, when Democrats held the majority, and was twice acquitted by the Senate, which was in Republican hands.
House Republicans are currently investigating whether any of Biden's past behavior before moving into the White House might have constituted a high crime or misdemeanor that could result in impeachment. Some Republicans have said they do not see such evidence yet.
You’ve seen some conservatives in this very thread do the same thing.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Jeffries makes claim that he has enough bipartisan votes in the House TODAY to pass the Bipartisan Senate Border Deal TODAY if Mike Johnson will just allow a vote on it
When questioned about it Today Mike Johnson responds that the American People are on Their side and don't want the Bipartisan Senate Border Law passed
When pressed on what then will the GOP House do to fix the problem if they won't even vote on the current bipartisan Senate Bill....His response was word salad with NO plans or paths forward provided
Reporter: HR-2 is dead in the senate. You yourself were part of killing the senate compromise bill. You called it dead on arrival. So my question to you is while you say there need to be solutions, what are House Republicans doing to get to a solution on the border and on Ukraine? Or are you going to actually do nothing? What is your proposal? What are you doing?
Johnson: No, we're addressing each of those issues. They're important issues on the table. We are not going to be forced into action by the senate who in the latest product they sent us over does not have one word in the bill about America's border, not one word about security. (the latest one sent to them was a stand alone bill for funding Ukraine).......The reason that the other one was dead on arrival is because it did not meet the moment. It would not have solved the problem. You can't leave giant loopholes and codify some of the things that have gotten us into this situation. What we're doing right now is the House is working its will. The House Republican conference, we met an hour ago with all the members and there are lots of ideas on the table of how to address these issues. We will address the issues. We'll do our duty on that matter, and all that begins in earnest right now.
When questioned about it Today Mike Johnson responds that the American People are on Their side and don't want the Bipartisan Senate Border Law passed
When pressed on what then will the GOP House do to fix the problem if they won't even vote on the current bipartisan Senate Bill....His response was word salad with NO plans or paths forward provided
Reporter: HR-2 is dead in the senate. You yourself were part of killing the senate compromise bill. You called it dead on arrival. So my question to you is while you say there need to be solutions, what are House Republicans doing to get to a solution on the border and on Ukraine? Or are you going to actually do nothing? What is your proposal? What are you doing?
Johnson: No, we're addressing each of those issues. They're important issues on the table. We are not going to be forced into action by the senate who in the latest product they sent us over does not have one word in the bill about America's border, not one word about security. (the latest one sent to them was a stand alone bill for funding Ukraine).......The reason that the other one was dead on arrival is because it did not meet the moment. It would not have solved the problem. You can't leave giant loopholes and codify some of the things that have gotten us into this situation. What we're doing right now is the House is working its will. The House Republican conference, we met an hour ago with all the members and there are lots of ideas on the table of how to address these issues. We will address the issues. We'll do our duty on that matter, and all that begins in earnest right now.
Immigration Wave Delivers Economic Windfall. But There’s a Catch.
Recent migrants are expected to be lower paid and less productive than predecessors
WASHINGTON—The influx of millions of unauthorized migrants in recent years has sparked a political firestorm that has paralyzed Congress and consumed election campaigns. But it also has a benefit: a bigger, faster-growing economy.
The precise scale of that economic boost was laid out in the Congressional Budget Office’s latest long-term budget and economic outlook, released Feb. 7. It estimates the labor force will be larger by 1.7 million potential workers in 2024 and 5.2 million more—about 3%—in 2033 than the nonpartisan agency expected one year ago. Gross domestic product—the value of all goods and services produced in a year—should be 2.1% larger.
Because those extra workers will be paying taxes and generating economic activity that also yields tax revenue, the federal deficit should be smaller at 6.4% of GDP in 2033, rather than 7.3% as projected last year.
Recent migrants are expected to be lower paid and less productive than predecessors
WASHINGTON—The influx of millions of unauthorized migrants in recent years has sparked a political firestorm that has paralyzed Congress and consumed election campaigns. But it also has a benefit: a bigger, faster-growing economy.
The precise scale of that economic boost was laid out in the Congressional Budget Office’s latest long-term budget and economic outlook, released Feb. 7. It estimates the labor force will be larger by 1.7 million potential workers in 2024 and 5.2 million more—about 3%—in 2033 than the nonpartisan agency expected one year ago. Gross domestic product—the value of all goods and services produced in a year—should be 2.1% larger.
Because those extra workers will be paying taxes and generating economic activity that also yields tax revenue, the federal deficit should be smaller at 6.4% of GDP in 2033, rather than 7.3% as projected last year.
Last edited:
Polds4OSU
Marshall
The top doctor for CBP tried to order fentanyl lollipops for a helicopter mission in New York
he chief medical officer for Customs and Border Protection pressured his staff to order fentanyl lollipops for him to take to the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York in September, according to a whistleblower report sent to Congress on Friday.The whistleblowers said Dr. Alexander Eastman’s staff raised questions about why he would need to order fentanyl lollipops to take with him, and he answered that it was part of his duties to make sure that any injured CBP operators were cared for, making the argument that the lollipops would be necessary for pain management should an emergency occur.
“Eastman spent copious hours of his and Office of the Chief Medical Officer staff time directing the OCMO staff to urgently help him procure fentanyl lollipops, a Schedule II narcotic, so that he could bring them on the CBP Air and Marine Operations helicopter on which he would be a passenger in New York City,” the whistleblowers said in the report. “Dr. Eastman claims that his possession of fentanyl lollipops was necessary in case a CBP operator might be injured, or in case the CBP Air and Marine Operations team encountered a patient in need.”
Customs and Border Protection is the chief agency responsible for detecting and stopping the illegal flow of fentanyl into the U.S. across international borders.
Eastman’s staff initially responded to his request by explaining that Narcan, which can save the lives of those who overdose on fentanyl, has been requested for CBP operations in the past, but not fentanyl itself. The whistleblowers say staff members raised questions about how he would store the lollipops and what he would do with unused fentanyl at the end of the operation, according to the report.
The Black Feet Reservation in northern Montana is beautiful and
Eastman responded by writing his own policy regarding procurement of Schedule II narcotics, which omitted any mention of how narcotics were to be stored and disposed of, the whistleblowers allege.
Eastman was ultimately unsuccessful in procuring fentanyl lollipops, because a vendor could not be found in time for the U.N. General Assembly.
It was unusual for the medical officer of CBP to attend the General Assembly, a meeting of diplomats and heads of state to discuss international issues, but Eastman made the argument to his staff that his presence was needed because CBP’s Air and Marine Operations division was helping the secret Service with security.
With the opioid crisis ravaging the US,
The whistleblowers, represented by the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, also allege Eastman was under investigation by CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility at the time regarding improper ordering and securing of narcotics for a friend who is a pilot for Air and Marine Operations. The friend worked as a helicopter pilot for Air and Marine Operations in New York during the General Assembly, the report says.
Eastman was installed as acting chief medical officer in June, when the agency made an abrupt change in medical leadership following the death of an 8-year-old girl in CBP custody after medical personnel on site allegedly ignored warning signs and pleas from her mother.
A spokesperson for CBP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
According to his LinkedIn page, Eastman is still in the job as chief medical officer for CBP.
I think most of the GOP wants a do nothing congress. If any legislation might in any way help a democrat anywhere down the line, it's not worth it. The primary goal is liberal tears. Other stuff is just noise.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Live-streamers filmed themselves ‘hunting’ migrants
After traveling to Texas for a rally earlier this month, some participants in an “Army of God” border rally went on to film themselves harassing and “hunting” migrants, according to a story published this week in WIRED magazine.
- The livestreamers were part of the convoy that traveled from Virginia toward the tiny town of Eagle Pass, Texas, which has become the epicenter of a national legal dispute over border enforcement.
- After a rally near Eagle Pass, three far-right internet personalities spent a week traversing the border in Arizona and California harassing migrants and volunteer groups that support them, WIRED reported.
- “We’re illegal hunters,” one of the men said during a livestream from Jacumba Hot Springs in California, according to WIRED. “I’ve hunted a lot in my life, but I’ve never actually hunted people, and that’s what we’re doing now.”
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Report Mike Johnson didn't even consult with moderates before blocking Senate deal
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced that the Senate bipartisan border security deal was dead before the ink was even dry on the agreement — driven in large part by former President Donald Trump opposing anything that might give President Joe Biden a win on an issue he planned to use in the 2024 election.
As it turned out, Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman reported, he announced it before some members of his caucus even had a chance to weigh in, too.
"Something I heard from a moderate Republican today: Johnson and the leadership have talked about a 'member-driven' process," wrote Sherman on X. "Yet the leadership shot down the Senate border/aide deal without talking to any moderates, many of whom were eager to support that bill."
Amid the backlash from Trump and House Republicans, the Senate GOP ultimately did not provide enough votes for the deal to clear that chamber either.
The border deal, brokered between Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), James Lankford (R-OK), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), is much more conservative than previous attempts at a bipartisan reform on the issue.
Under the proposal, the border would be shut down to migrants whenever the rolling average of encounters per day exceeds 5,000, and asylum criteria would be tightened. In return, the number of visas issued per year would be raised, unaccompanied migrant children would be eligible for legal representation, and it would be easier for migrants who clear initial asylum screenings to get work permits.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced that the Senate bipartisan border security deal was dead before the ink was even dry on the agreement — driven in large part by former President Donald Trump opposing anything that might give President Joe Biden a win on an issue he planned to use in the 2024 election.
As it turned out, Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman reported, he announced it before some members of his caucus even had a chance to weigh in, too.
"Something I heard from a moderate Republican today: Johnson and the leadership have talked about a 'member-driven' process," wrote Sherman on X. "Yet the leadership shot down the Senate border/aide deal without talking to any moderates, many of whom were eager to support that bill."
Amid the backlash from Trump and House Republicans, the Senate GOP ultimately did not provide enough votes for the deal to clear that chamber either.
The border deal, brokered between Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), James Lankford (R-OK), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), is much more conservative than previous attempts at a bipartisan reform on the issue.
Under the proposal, the border would be shut down to migrants whenever the rolling average of encounters per day exceeds 5,000, and asylum criteria would be tightened. In return, the number of visas issued per year would be raised, unaccompanied migrant children would be eligible for legal representation, and it would be easier for migrants who clear initial asylum screenings to get work permits.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Similar threads
