Republicans should go on offense on border security

The biggest story out of Washington, DC this week was that "good faith" negotiations on a bipartisan amnesty bill had collapsed. Republicans have Hugh Hewitt, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Speaker Johnson to thank for that collapse. Now that the amnesty deal has collapsed, it's time for Republicans to go on the offensive.

Let's start with a healthy shot of truth. In FY2020, there were 458,000 illegal border crossings The fiscal year ends on Sept. 30 each year, which means the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1 each year. I started with FY2020 because that's the last full year of the Trump administration. The first (partial) year of the Biden administration is FY2021. In FY2021, CBP recorded 1,734,000 illegal border crossings. In FY2022, the first full FY of the Biden administration, CBP recorded 2,370,000 illegal border crossings. Finally, in FY2023, CBP recorded 2,475,000 illegal border crossings.

The point is that the Trump policies of building the wall, remain in Mexico and Catch and Deport were working. The statistics prove that they were working. The statistics also prove that Secretary Mayorkas is lying. You can't have a 2,000,000 illegal immigrant increase over 2 years and still have a secure border. This is Biden's latest attempt to con us:

Joe Biden isn't interested in shutting down the border. If he was, he would've finished building Trump's wall. Plans that don't include 900+ miles of wall aren't serious border security bills. It's time to ask Biden why he's taken 3 years to enter serious negotiations with Republicans to fix the Biden broke and that Democrats enthusiastically supported.

If the open border is Trump's fault, why hasn't Biden pointed to the legislation that Trump signed that made the problem worse. Biden the biggest things Trump did was reach agreements with Mexico (Remain in Mexico) and the Northern Triangle agreements and building the wall.

Why haven't Democrats supported finishing building the wall? The U.S.-Mexico border is almost 2,000 miles long. Without a wall, Border Patrol has to patrol every inch of that border. The advantage that a wall give BP agents is that BP can create short openings in the wall, then position BP agents near those funnel points. BP agents think of the wall as a "force multiplier" that increases the effectiveness of the agents. Why shouldn't that forever be U.S. policy?

Why did Joe Biden obliterate Trump's border policies? Clearly, they worked. Just 458,000 illegal immigrants entered the U.S. during FY2020. That's an average of 1,250 per day. In FY2021, 1,734,000 illegal immigrants crossed into the U.S. That's an average of 4,750 per day. The fact that the number of people illegally crossing into the U.S. per day quadrupled didn't startle the Biden administration and cause them to change policies says everything. They weren't startled because that's what Democrats wanted.

John Kirby should be asked multiple follow-up questions after pulling this stunt:

First follow-up question: You say that the border patrol needs that wire cut dow to do their job but the Border Patrol chief said that the removal of the wire will "undoubtedly" cause more illegal immigrants to reach the U.5. Why would we want that? Next follow-up question: Adm. Kirby, you say that this new supplemental spending bill includes money for 1,300 new BP agents.

When the Inflation Reduction Act was debated, Republicans offered an amendment to eliminate the 87,000 proposed new IRS agents from the Democrats' bill. First, we don't need 87,000 new IRS agents. Next, there's a crisis at the border. Why shouldn't we address the border crisis first before hiring additional IRS agents to harass taxpayers? The last I heard, there wasn't an out-of-control tax fraud crisis in the U.S.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more