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
READER SUPPORTED!
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:
Please Support CPCR
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)
By Joshua Arnold
February 6, 2024
The Washington Stand
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
(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.
DONATE TO AMAC
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
The Washington Times
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
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
