Subject: Re: Trump: I Would Encourage Russia...
And that answer seems to boil down to, "We need to see how well it is working and it may need tweaking after three years."

So your admit it was answered.

OK, but your justification for the sunset verbiage seems to be, sure because the closure provision may be to be modified in three years.

Is there a difference between "need tweaking" and "may [need] be too modified"?

So it might.

That's why it's there.

But why is an upfront cancellation feature necessary in order to modify it later?

As has been emphasized, we have international law and agreements we've signed. It looks like when this problem was posed in the Senate, that org in the article I posted suggested the sunset as a compromise that might not be viewed that we were codifying abuse of human rights into law permanently. So as we go through the three years we want to guard the human rights enough that it isn't a failure. We could look to the success of title 42 on human rights to possibly see what problems were considered.

I think the self cancel is in there because your side is fearful the emergency closure provision will work too well and the American people won't let you cancel it. So logically, you build in the self cancel as a way to cloak the "return to business as usual" outcome of the bill.

Just exactly what mechanism will the "American people" use to not let it be canceled and modifications made? Are you talking armed groups? Oathkeepers, 3%ers, or... what?

I view the increase of asylum seekers coming across the border as permanent and we have to manage the flow and expel/deport the immigrants with an eye toward being humane so we don't violate international law, etc. So, it WILL BE a return to business as usual unless we successfully guard and keep the human rights - and I don't know what the rights are other than some due process.

Now, how about a nice Ukraine Aid beer or six? 🥳