From: Chips Loral <loralandclinton@invalid.co>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.obama,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Trump Doesn't Even Know That There Are 54 or 57 Fucking States,
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 16:59:57 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Alan wrote:
> So you're just too stupid, then.
Let's look at what really happened, not the fictional insinuations that
the Alan troll has made :
S.4361:
Introduced
May 16, 2024
118th Congress (2023â2025)
Status
Failed Cloture on May 23, 2024
This bill is provisionally dead due to a failed vote for cloture on May
23, 2024. Cloture is required to move past a Senate filibuster or the
threat of a filibuster and takes a 3/5ths vote. In practice, most bills
must pass cloture to move forward in the Senate.
Other activity may have occurred on another bill with identical or
similar provisions.
Prognosis
34% chance of being enacted
Only about 21% of bills that made it past committee in 2021â2023 were
enacted.
https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/nijc-opposes-s4361-anti-immigrant-border-bill
This week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer plans to call the Senate
to vote on S. 4361, an anti-immigrant bill led by Senator Chris Murphy.
The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) strongly opposes S.4361,
which would decimate the United States asylum system, choke off access
to protection for many, and render the system unfair and punishing for
the few who are able to access it. Last week, we joined more than 100
organizations in urging Leader Schumer to reverse course.
The vote on this bill is a ploy that uses the lives of people seeking
safety as pawns in an insidious political game. There is no doubt that
the operational and humanitarian challenges on the United Statesâ
southern border are grave. This bill responds to those challenges with
jails, punishment, and disdain â an approach that is not only deadly but
counterproductive, exacerbating chaos rather than ameliorating it. NIJC
continues to call on elected officials to meet this moment with
compassionate, rights-respecting policies that work. These solutions
exist and we reiterate our call to elected officials to demonstrate the
political will to discuss and implement them.
S. 4361 is not the answer, and we urge senators to oppose the bill. In
short, S. 4361 will:
Violate the Refugee Convention by closing the border to people seeking
safety: The centerpiece provision of the bill requires the U.S.
government to seal the border to people seeking asylum when the numbers
of people arriving at the border reach a certain âtrigger number.â This
would force the U.S. to close its doors to countless people in need of
asylum protection and send them back to harm.
Exacerbate the humanitarian and operational challenges on the border:
Like the procedurally similar Title 42 policy, expulsions and
unpredictable border closures will create chaos and incentivize
organized crime on the border. Refusing to process people so they may
seek safety in the U.S. will mean they are trapped â unable to return
home and vulnerable to kidnappings and violent crime by cartels and
other armed groups. Under Title 42, people in this untenable situation
were forced to try multiple times to re-enter the U.S., exacerbating
processing delays.
Make asylum largely inaccessible for those who are permitted to ask for
it at ports of entry: The bill creates a rushed new process for people
seeking asylum, starting with a screening interview most will fail under
newly heightened standards. People facing rushed deportations under this
new process will have no access to immigration judge or federal judge
review, effectively guaranteeing wrongful deportations.
Punish asylum seekers with imprisonment, while enriching private prison
companies: The bill seeks record-breaking funding for immigration
detention â higher levels than seen even during the Trump
administration. Private prison companies will reap the benefits, while
refugees will be punished with incarceration for the mere act of seeking
safety.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/s4361
Sponsor and status
Photo of sponsor Christopher Murphy
Christopher Murphy
Sponsor. Junior Senator for Connecticut. Democrat.
And functionally what did the vote mean?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/118-2024/s182
This was a vote on âclotureâ in the Senate, which means to end debate so
that an up-or-down vote can be taken. A vote in favor is a vote to end
debate and move to a vote on the issue itself, while a vote against is a
vote to prolong debate or to filibuster.
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/24/bipartisan-border-bill-loses-support-fails-procedural-vote-in-u-s-senate/
WASHINGTON â The U.S. Senate failed Thursday to advance a border
security bill as both parties seek to hone their messages on immigration
policy in the runup to Novemberâs elections.
The Senate bill failed to advance on a 43-50 procedural vote. The
chamber already rejected the measure as part of a broader foreign aid
package earlier this year. The bill, negotiated with the White House and
a bipartisan trio of senators in the hopes of winning broad appeal,
would have overhauled immigration law for the first time in more than 30
years.
Two of the border dealâs chief Senate negotiators, Oklahoma Republican
James Lankford and Arizona independent Kyrsten Sinema, voted against
advancing the measure Thursday, protesting what they said was an
unserious process focused on political optics.
The bill did not get all Democrats on board, which Schumer acknowledged
earlier this week was a possibility.
âWe do not expect every Democrat or every Republican to come out in
favor of this bill,â Schumer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. âThe only
way to pass this bill â or any border bill â is with broad bipartisan
support.â
But the bill failed to attract that broad support, losing backing even
from Democrats whoâd voted for the foreign aid package.
Democratic senators who voted against moving the bill forward included
Alex Padilla and Laphonza Butler of California, Ed Markey of
Massachusetts and Booker. Independents Bernie Sanders of Vermont and
Sinema also voted against.
Sinema said she voted against advancing her own bill because she felt
Democrats were using her bill to âpoint the finger back at the other party.â
âYet another cynical, political game,â she said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the only Republican to vote to advance
the bill after Lankford voted against the bill he helped write.
Lankford said Thursdayâs vote was âa prop.â
âEveryone sees this for what it is,â he said. âIt is not an actual
effort to make law, it is an effort to do political messaging.â
Padilla, who voted against the larger package, said on the Senate floor
Thursday that he was disappointed Democrats were voting on the bill
again because it did not address the root causes of migration or create
lawful pathways to citizenship for children brought into the U.S.
without authorization known as Dreamers, farmworkers, and noncitizens
who have been in the country for decades.
He urged other Democrats to vote no.
âThe proposal before us was initially supposed to be a concession, a
ransom to be paid to Republicans to pass urgent and critical aid to
Ukraine,â Padilla said. âWhatâs this concession for now? Itâs hard to
swallow.â
Senate Republicans accused Democrats of bringing the bill as a political
stunt.
âOne thing the American people donât have to wonder about is why
Washington Democrats are suddenly champing at the bit to convince their
constituents that they care about border security,â Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said on the Senate floor Thursday.
â(Americans) know the solution is not cynical Senate theater.â
Not a serious bill.
Just another Demotard flim flam distraction that leaves the border wide
open.
Gone.
Done.
But at least they pulled the Israel & Ukraine strawmen out, that's a start.
And people, THIS is why you can;t trust a word out of the Alan troll's
mouth, even when he pastes some data in - it's all been cherry-picked
and de-contexted, every damned time!
ðð©ð ðð©ð ðð©ð ðð©ð
The _only reason_ Alan relented and admitted the bill was a spinoff of
the prior border legislation is because he knew I had him by the short
hairs.
Fucking lying Cuntnadian TROLL!
ð¥ðð¥