It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something is fishy about this Appropriations Bill

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm not debating the DHS. I'm debating you, and you are basing your argument on those numbers. I am therefore asking you: where did these numbers come from? Can you justify the methodology used to arrive at them in the face of constant admissions from agencies nationwide that we don't know how many illegal aliens are in the country?

TheRedneck




posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm as confused as shooterbrody. I'd like to know how we are documenting these returns, when we don't even know how many people are in the country illegally.

TheRedneck

I do not think the "removal" or "returns" would be needed if the wall/barrier/barricade/fence/whateverlanguageisacceptablebyyourchosenparty gets finished.

The whole system needs an overhaul and needs to be fixed properly.
I wonder why those in DC seem so resistant to such?



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the $25 billion question, isn't it? The wall is irrelevant, just a waste of money, supposedly, but it's still important enough to shut the government down over? At least Trump said from the beginning how important he thinks it is... the DNC said the opposite until the rubber met the road.

It would seem to me that the DNC (to obviously, since this bill has Republican support, include the establishment wing of the Republicans) has something to hide, otherwise they would not have tried to laugh off the idea of a physical barrier at the start of the debate. A wall would impede free access across unfortified areas of the border, and would allow us to at least get some better idea of how many illegal aliens are in the country, as well as allowing us to properly vet the vast majority of those coming to America without the doubt that we are getting at least most of them.

But it's a terrible thing to do that? It is so terrible that it's worth shutting the government down, ignoring DACA recipients, and ignoring the American people?

I think that's the real question here... why?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

As I said, this trend has been going on for years. *cough* Obama was in office when it started. *cough*



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm confused. The numbers came from the DHS. You acknowledged that in your post. What are you looking for?



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I think that's the real question here... why?

I understand the political opposition and the democrats need to not allow trump any win.
I am stunned they are so stupid as to think we do not pay attention to their voting record and that shows they are now opposed to things they were in favor of before the orange bad man got into office.
I am also surprised there is more than $1 in the bill for any wall funding, as advertised by the speaker of the house. IMO that makes this a win for the president, which makes all their posturing pointless and only exposes their lack of support for what is clearly a national security issue.
The need is clearly there, as evidenced by congress passing a bill for such; the argument is in the level of the need which the president can escalate and enforce a solution by declaring a state of emergency.
It will then be an issue of his judgement which congress can not constitutionally challenge as he is the duly elected president. If they take it to court, which I think they will, every day of such will highlight their resistance to the safety of the american people. It will also reinforce the need for non activist judges.
IMO a no win for the dems.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


I'm confused. The numbers came from the DHS. You acknowledged that in your post. What are you looking for?

Something that doesn't exist, but should exist.

We have no possible way of knowing how many illegal crossings happen along the 2000 miles of southern border. Most of it is unprotected. Unprotected as in, there is nothing and no one there to even know if someone is crossing or not. In addition, much of that unprotected area is nothing but desert. Fairly flat land spotted with cactus, scorpions, rattlesnakes, and an occasional tumbleweed. That's the problem.

Yes, it is patrolled. But those patrols only drive by occasionally. All someone needs to do to cross is to hide behind a cactus until a patrol passes, then walk in. The patrol won't be back for some time, so all they need to do is walk across. There is nothing in their way. I know; I have stood on the border, and I could have easily walked into Mexico without anyone knowing... and I was driving a Semi when I did it! Areas of the Rio Grande are nothing more than a muddy patch of ground with no real banks, and they are sometimes just cracked dry mud.

The DHS can only report on what they have discovered. They cannot give information they do not have.

If we erect a wall along those areas, we will have some assurance that at least it will be very difficult and time-consuming to cross without being spotted. A structure would provide infrastructure for sensors so we could at least get an idea of how many people are crossing and take appropriate action. Without any physical barrier, however, nothing we do will even tell us with any degree of certainty if there is even a problem.

Some areas don't need a wall. Some have geographic features that make crossing difficult, like a wide, deep river with steep banks. Some are close enough to CBP outposts to be OK with a sturdy fence. The CBP knows what is needed where, because that is what they do... and the CBP says they need a wall to fully protect the border. Not Donald Trump - the Customs and Border Patrol agency charged with protecting the border. Trump is passing on their request.

Why do people think that the CBP agents don't know what they are talking about when they are there every day, but consider unsubstantiable reports by DHS the absolute Gospel?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

What you is true enough, but it does a couple of things that would not be as much of a win. Number one is economical: using private contractors instead of the military to build the needed walls and fencing would cause an economic boon for the areas. Number two is the judicial activism that you mention. People who back Trump are looking for results, not attempts. With Roberts now compromised, the Supreme Court is still split. Should Ruth Bader Ginsberg be forced to retire (or pass away), that would change.

I have been wondering: didn't the Democrats under Obama appropriate some money for a wall that was never built? I wonder if that money is still available?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Trump warned they have land mines in this bill.....!?



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Congress does this kind of thing all the time, both major parties. I think the practice should be put to an end, that some waiting period be imposed after a bill comes to the floor and when it is actually voted upon. Will that increase anyone actually reading these things? Who knows. But it would be a step in the right direction.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

ah see as a landlord that kind of stuff wouldn't fly with me,some one lives in my house they are under my protection and no one is getting in that is hostile . and i sure as hell would not evict some one for that kind of cops shenigans



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:41 PM
link   
well from the vote role calls its now veto proof as 84 yays to 15 nays



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
www.breitbart.com... Brebart for what its worth is not happy in the slighest because of the landmines trump was warning about

The border spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security offers “$192,700,000 for improved medical care, transportation, and consumables to better ensure the health and safety of migrants who are temporarily in U.S. Customs and Protection] custody,” according to a congressional Explanatory Statement of the provisions. The spending includes funds to aid and feeds economic migrants as they journey across the border towards jobs in U.S. cities, as well as funds to bus the migrants from the border to pro-migration non-profits:
much longer read but seems more of a few posion pills in the bill



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   


The SENATE and the HOUSE have passed the bill. It's now on its way to President Trump for signature.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...







 
39
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join