Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell just announced that President Trump is expected to declare a State of Emergency and sign the Spending Bill.
The Spending Bill is a disaster of a bill that should be vetoed. We disagree with President Trump on signing this bill.
We reported on the ‘poison pill’ in the bill earlier today and hoped Trump would veto it (see below). The Democrats and Republicans behaved like the Swamp dwellers they are and stuck things in the bill that are disastrous for border security.
McConnell made the announcement on the floor of the Senate today:
@senatemajldr: “I’ve just had an opportunity to speak with President Trump…he’s prepared to sign the bill. He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time.”
.@senatemajldr: "I've just had an opportunity to speak with President Trump…he's prepared to sign the bill. He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time." pic.twitter.com/iukGKjmoZ8
— CSPAN (@cspan) February 14, 2019
OUR PREVIOUS REPORT ON THE ‘POISON PILL’ IN THE SPENDING BILL:
The committee that worked on the border security package for the spending bill should all be called out for the critical item snuck into the bill that would give amnesty/sanctuary to illegals.
President Trump should VETO this bill!
The Center for Immigration Studies’ Jessica Vaughan discovered a key problem with the spending bill’s “border security” provisions.
Amnesty/sanctuary provisions snuck in the bill:
As Jessica Vaughan notes, there is a serious amnesty/sanctuary provision snuck into the spending bill.
Section 224(a) would make it so ICE cannot detain or remove anyone who has effectively any kind of relationship (even just as a “potential sponsor”) with any unaccompanied minor:
As @JessicaV_CIS notes, there is a serious amnesty/sanctuary provision snuck into the spending bill.
Section 224(a) would make it so ICE cannot detain or remove anyone who has effectively any kind of relationship (even just as a "potential sponsor") with any unaccompanied minor: pic.twitter.com/QITiAEVw1w
— Center for Immigration Studies (@CIS_org) February 14, 2019
Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies responds to the tweet above in a debate with pro-illegal commenter CGDouglas:
It’s plainly there so it wasn’t SNUCK in. Isn’t it common sense, and decency, to keep child and sponsor together? Why would we deport the sponsor and retain the child?
Well, first of all, we shouldn’t allow the kids to stay either. When they join family, here, they’re not really unaccompanied, are they? And, it encourages settled illegal aliens to pay a criminal smuggler to bring in a minor. And why should entire household be immune from removal?
1. Not what I said. 2. Children should only be allowed to stay with 1st-degree relations who are legal. 3. An illegal household is illegal and should be procedurally removed. 4. Being granted asylum or otherwise IS NOT immunity.
Fact is that 80% of the UAC sponsors are in the country illegally.
Matt Sussis stated that this provision only incentivizes the smugglers to bring in more unaccompanied children:
Hard to overstate how worrisome this provision is. Consider the incentives it creates:
– Huge numbers of aliens claiming to be part of the same “household” to avoid removal
– Much stronger draw for smugglers to import unaccompanied children
All in exchange for <$1.4B of fencing?
Mark Krikorian of CIS discusses the importance of detention which is what Democrats don’t want:
De facto amnesty!
BELOW IS A FANTASTIC TWEET WITH DETAILS FROM THE SPENDING BILL: