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.
-------------------

He was trying to get something. This was not the right way. It was accordingly rejected.

(no message)

(no message)

Attached is the transcript for Sen. Lankford's final comments on the Senate floor regarding his bill...you can click on a link within it to watch him deliver it and hear his words.

Here are his final comments...

"So, today I'm going to vote "no" on a bill that I think should pass, but there's been no effort to really get this to pass. Let's get back to the table. Let's actually resolve this issue as we need to get done. With that, I yield the floor."

My take...
>Sen. Lankford's initial speech strongly supported the "compromise" bill...as virtually all bipartisan legislation comes about from that process.
>Lankford noted that other GOP Senators rejected the Bill w/o ever even looking at it.
>. " " that he was told by a well known broadcaster that the person would do everything in their power to 'destroy' him if he tried to push the bill through
>That broadcaster certainly didn't lean to the Left, since the Biden admin publicly supported it...therefore, it's a good bet Trump was behind the threat (not the first time DJT has done this)
>Even in his last words, Sen. Lankford said 'I think (the bill) should pass'...(as is, obviously)
>"Immigration" was Trump's #1 campaign talking point...ergo, in his mind, having Biden in any way involved in an actual solution would be seen as a 'Death Knell' to his chances of winning in November of 2024...therefore he "Had To Kill It"...and he did.

I'll repeat Sen. Lankford's own words..."So, today I'm going to vote "no" on a bill that I think should pass...You Are Wrong...like it or not...admit it or not.

Finally, my Christmas wishes were/are real...I wish no one ill...just Enlightenment.


Link: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press-releases/lankford-votes-no-on-dems-attempt-to-use-the-border-as-political-prop/

Very same thing.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)