A growing number of Chinese nationals, trying to escape repressive politics and a bleak economy, are headed to the U.S. They’re turning to a gap at the south...
  • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
    33·
    11 months ago

    Up until a week ago nobody knew what was in it, dems were only releasing bullet points. Once people read it they opposed it.

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        42·
        11 months ago

        You can read it for yourself and make your own decisions rather than relying on people who hate America to interpret it for you.

        Don’t worry I won’t rely on you to interpret it for me.

        The 4,000 number that triggers a border close doesn’t close it, it only gives the option to close it.

        (A) DISCRETIONARY ACTIVATION.—The Secretary may activate the border emergency authority if, during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 4,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day.

        Then there’s the 5000 trigger but naturally there are exceptions.

        © An unaccompanied alien child. (D) An alien who an immigration officer determines, with the approval of a supervisory immigration officer, should be excepted from the border emergency authority based on the totality of the circumstances … (F) An alien who has a valid visa or other lawful permission to enter the United States, including— … (iv) an alien who presents at a port of entry pursuant to a process approved by the Secretary to allow for safe and orderly entry into the United States.

        Even those loopholes were not enough so they made sure they could ignore the mandatory closing.

        Whenever the border emergency authority is activated, the Secretary shall have the 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 in accordance with this subsection.>

          • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
            23·
            11 months ago

            Nice try at a straw man, I’m surprised you didn’t go the unaccomponied minor route.

              • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                23·
                11 months ago

                Could you point to where I said I disagree with all the exceptions, I simply listed them? If you had a desire to have a real discussion you could ask which ones I disagree with.

                You might need to read up on what a straw man is, it’s not just misrepresenting a position.

                You seem to have missed my point about your attempted straw man. I was saying I’m surprised you didn’t us the what about the kids as your straw man.

          • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
            33·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, which means there’s more stuff that you’d probably find appealing in it

            Why do you automatically assume that people are supposed to agree with it by default? It’s seriously that unfathomable in your mind that someone could read it and decide it isn’t a good bill?

              • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
                34·
                11 months ago

                It’s just a matter of whether you actually like it or just think it’s okay. From what I can tell, you should actually really like it

                Most of you heard from freakin’ Fox News and Co. that it was bad bill and believe it.

                But, for whatever reason, you can’t pull from the wool from over your eyes to see it for yourself.

                It just sounds like you have a very poor idea of what I want, in that case.

        • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
          13·
          11 months ago

          I’m genuinely curious how you look at threads like this where he does nothing except be a total fucking condescending jackass and think “yeah, it’s reasonable to have this guy deciding who’s in good faith”