Post #13831 by Dope1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (247)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

Nope. If you had put that bill on the House floor, it would have gotten plenty of Republican votes. The National Border Patrol Union supported it. There was nothing in it that immigration hawks hated (like a pathway to citizenship or DREAMER normalization) - the objections were entirely that it didn't have enough of what they wanted. That the things they wanted didn't last long enough or were hedged in by conditions. But the Senate Bill was not a messaging bill - else they wouldn't have gotten even Lankford (no immigration softy) to support.

You keep saying this without ever acknowledging that the bill had rotten stuff in it.
*The 3 year sunset. What, does securing the border expire in 3 years?
*Remanding of all immigration law cases to a democrat friendly court in DC
*Bailouts for blue cities
*the trigger provisions

For some reason, these concerns are being blown past. Why? Don't the democrats want to negotiate in good faith, after all? Can't have it both ways.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (247)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.