UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Senate Border Security and Immigration Bill...which DJT immediately Killed. Again...the bill provided funding for 1,500 more CBP Officers, as well as more ICE Officers...PLUS Judges and staff to Vet all immigrants, including Asylum seekers in 6 months, or less...not the current 6 years, or more...which DJT has done NOTHING about. Also, that bill put limits on how many immigrants...that are definitely NEEDED...could be admitted.

btw, that Bill provided for over a hundred High Tech/High Volume vehicle drug scanners at our border checkpoints...the #1 CBP preferred means of interdicting Fentanyl traffickers...WAY BETTER that blowing up tiny boats at random, with no idea what's on board (per Congressional Oversight Committees that have never been briefed).

(no message)

Be changed…much less explain why…so much for substance in your postings…

…still no Fentanyl Scanners at our border checkpoints…strikes me as odd for a president who spends tens of millions to blow up little boats with no proof of what’s in them.

He just wanted something to get the ball rolling, and was rightfully redirected.

I've already stated multiple reasons why it was shit. Do your own homework. You're embarrassing your handlers.

Senate...for those who may be reading this, go to the 19:00 mark and listen to why this bill never got passed...(Hint: it was an election year and Trump didn't want the problem solved by Biden)...once it became obvious that DJT had succeeded in stifling the bill, Lankford stopped pushing on the rope and fell in line...but still maintained his belief in it as shown by his 'Soto Voce' lip movement on camera as Biden extolled the bill in his SOTU speech...

(no message)

...you really are a pathetic MAGA...with zero credibility.

AI Overview

Yes, Senator James Lankford ultimately voted against advancing the bipartisan border bill in May 2024, not because he disavowed the bill's substance (which he helped craft), but because he felt the process had become a political stunt and "show vote" with no real intent to pass it, despite his prior support and work on it. He expressed frustration that the bill, which he considered the strongest border security measure in decades, was being used for messaging rather than solving the crisis, and he voted "no" to protest the "unserious process".

Key Points:
Original Negotiator: Lankford was a lead negotiator for the bill, which aimed to overhaul immigration law with conservative provisions.

Shift in Stance (Process, Not Policy): He maintained the bill was good policy but opposed the specific procedural vote in May because it was a political maneuver, not a genuine effort to legislate, which is why he voted "no".

Criticism of Both Parties: Lankford criticized Democrats for using the bill as a "political football" and Republicans for killing it, even though many later told him they regretted it.

"Stunt Vote": He described the May vote as a "stunt vote" and an "opportunity for people to send fundraising emails," not a real attempt at problem-solving.
-------------------

Very same thing.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)