Post #38667 by Dope1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (61)

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

No. of Recommendations: 2

It would not have codified any number of asylees.

Yes it did. Why do you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this? Emergency procedures wouldn’t be allowed until the threshold of 5,000 encounters a day were hit.

Allowing any number above zero creates an incentive to storm the border in the hopes that you win the lottery that day.

The democrats are all about creating incentives for people to migrate to the US, plain and simple and that last bill was a shining example of it.

BTW if Trump wants more Border Patrol funding it’s a simple addendum to a reconciliation bill.

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

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (61)

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.