Quote (IceMage @ 25 Aug 2024 00:31)
What was so bad about the bill? You're speaking vaguely about it. Democrats supported the bill so before Trump went against it, it was likely to pass.
The border patrol union in cahoots with Democrats? Uh.... what are you talking about?
Also, this is a hallmark of people who never want to get anything done. Complain that a bill isn't exactly what you want, therefore the situation stays the same. Would the bill have made the situation better or worse?
No, this bill was never gonna pass, even if Trump had remained silent on it. It was a truly awful bill which, like I've said, betrayed many long-standing principles of Republicans on border policy.
The bill would have made the situation VERY marginally better in the short run, but drastically worse in the long run by enshrining the current status quo at the border and giving Mayorkas the ability to grant asylum status to migrants without any limit or congressional oversight. To be more specific on why this bill was so bad and such a fraud, I'll just copypaste one of my older posts:
Quote (myself in February)
The bill drafted by the Senate wouldn't actually do anything to solve the problem while making things worse in a lot of ways. Here are some noteworthy details from the Senate bill:
The bill increases the volume of legal immigration per year. It normalizes a number of 5000 illegal border crossing per day/1.8million illegals per year by saying "extraordinary action is only necessary if numbers surpass this threshold". The authority to crack down on the border which gets triggered above this treshold can be waived by the president at any time. And it's limited to a certain number of days per year. A cap which also decreases every year. And the bill gives the DoH the ability to outright grant asylum status without judicial review or cap - a status which enables full access to welfare and government payments and sets the migrants on a pathway toward citizenship. And the bill makes the liberal-leaning DC circuit court the only court in which this bill can litigated. And a significant chunk of the funding that this bill allocates for "border security" would actually go to federally funded lawyers for the asylum seekers, lmfao.
As long as a Democrat is president and pro-open-border figures run the administration, this bill makes the situation outright worse than the status quo. If a Republican is in the WH, he is only granted additional powers to secure the border once an absurdly high volume of illegal entries is exceeded. Powers which he can only use for a limited number of days. And the DC court, which is full of pro-swamp, pro-migration bureaucrats, can kneecap him with ease.
All in all, this bill does more to institutionalize the current status quo at the border than to change it. And it gives future Democratic administrations the power to increase the the immigration numbers even further while kneecapping future Republican presidents who want to crack down on the border.
Here is a breakdown of this bill by senator Tom Cotton:
https://i.redd.it/w23e3yco1ugc1.pngOn the point of the timing/the question whether Trump was the one who started the backlash against this bill among the GOP ranks: Note that Cotton posted this at 11:43 AM. Here is a link to Trump's TruthSocial post from the same day in which he denounced this bill, which he only posted at 3:27 PM, almost 4 hours after Sen. Cotton had already come out against this bill:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111879340091575646This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 24 2024 07:39pm