No. of Recommendations: 2
"Good faith" negotiating doesn't usually mean "everything I want and exactly the way I want it, and nothing you want and no changes to how I want it." There's good reasons for these things.Good thing no one is doing that. One more time, I offered the trigger levels. Mike wondered why the sunset. Folks on this board dug their heels in and wouldn't budge.
Why?
Can't have it both ways.
We talked about the sunset provision - what ended up in the bill was a likely violation of international human rights law as it applies to refugees, so you definitely want to come back and revisit that in a few years. LOL. That's not a good reason. If it was "international law" that free speech was to be outlawed, does that override our 1st Amendment? Hardly. Show me any country on the planet that would accept the notion that literally anybody has a right to entry.
The bailouts for blue cities are there because Abbott sent so many migrants to blue cities. So funds to mitigate the impacts of these migrants aren't just going to go into ruby red Texas any more. They'll also go to blue cities as well.LOLOLOLOLOL. Why was Abbot able to do that? It's because he got sick of bearing the entire burden himself.
As for the "democrat friendly court in DC," can you explain what that particular point is about? Right now, all appeals of immigration court decisions already go to the Board of Immigration Appeals in DC. Are people being told that this is a new arrangement?https://twitter.com/RepDanBishop/status/1754317514...All challenges to the statute or any policy, guideline, or procedure Mayorkas sees fit to issue will be heard exclusively by the federal district court in the Swamp. Tough orders from federal district courts in Texas and Florida will be no more.Rep. Bishop has a screenshot of the provision. The bill states clearly that only the DC court can hear any challenge to the bill or anything Mayorkas does with respect to it.
Why do you think that's there?
