Godlike Productions - Reply to Thread

Users Online Now: 2,148 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 541,937
Pageviews Today: 958,017	Threads Today: 475	Posts Today: 7,359
10:49 AM

REPLY TO THREAD

Subject DHS official: Border security bill does not contain ‘amnesty’ poison pills

User Name

Font color: Font:

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

Original Message Hmm?

SNIP

"a DHS official told Fox News that terms like "potential sponsor" have precise meanings in Department of Homeland Security regulations -- meanings that severely limit the number of people the budget keeps safe from deportation."

Further, because the bill only applies to kids who are unaccompanied, it does not provide protection for those bringing kids into the US.

Another major alleged “poison pill” that may be misunderstood is a clause requiring the federal government to "confer and seek to reach mutual agreement" with local governments before building any wall.

The Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower immigration levels, tweeted that “the spending bill would give local governments in the Rio Grande (all of which are *heavily* Democratic) the ability to veto the fence. If those blue municipalities don't agree with DHS, the fence can't get built.”

But the DHS official told Fox News on background that the exact language in the budget -- "confer and seek to reach mutual agreement" – nowhere requires the federal government to actually reach an agreement before building fences.

Rather, it just requires DHS to consult with local governments – something DHS already generally does, the official noted.

[link to www.foxnews.com (secure)]

Pictures (click to insert)





\| Next Page >>