We were asked: Why did Trump evade the question of his involvement in quashing the bipartisan immigration bill while debating vs Harris?
Disclaimer: Okay, since this is a bait-question and I hate bait-questions, I am going to make this as dry and factual as I can, instead of my usual snark and dismissive answers I give such questions. For those of you who typically farm talking points from leftist answers to your leftist bait questions, I would like to save you the trouble and invite you to scroll on past. For those of you Conservatives who want some meat on the bone for your smart independent friends who actually think for themselves, I hope this helps.
Let me start out by quoting VP Harris on introduction:
The Bill she’s referring to is this bill:
S 1358-Border Solutions Act | Sponsored by: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and House members Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and Congressman Tony Gonzales (R-TX).
According to most Conservatives, Sen. John Cornyn is NOT a Conservative. He’s more of a Moderate Democrat.
Rated just under Mitt Romney, by the Heritage Foundation.
So, who are these “some of the most conservative” Republican’s she’s referring to?
- - Collins (R-ME) THEEE most liberal GOP US Senator, from the Great State of Maine.
- Lankford (R-OK) At best, Lankford leans conservative half the time he votes.
- Murkowski (R-AK) The SECOND most liberal GOP US Senator, from the Great State of Alaska.
- Romney (R-UT) The THIRD most liberal GOP US Senator, from the Great State of Utah.
We can see that VP Harris intended on misleading the audience with her “most conservative” Senators “came up with” Senate Bill 1358, which even Chuck Schumer (D-NY) voted against.
Why did Trump do what? Oh, yes, “evade” the question. Why did Trump EVADE the question? What Question? The Question regarding his involvement in quashing the “bi-partisan” immigration bill? S-1358, right?
Let’s look at the Debate and see what the question author is referring to.
What was Donald Trump’s reply to the question?
Question (my paraphrase): Why did you help kill the bi-partisan immigration bill, VP Harris was referring to?
Answer (my paraphrase): Because it wouldn’t fix the problem we are facing right now.
I think Trump's answer was a bit muddy, but when you look at the transcript, it’s there.
Other's offer answers to this question with a reference to the impression most conservatives, as well as some Democrats and independents have, that Trump was debating 3 people, and not just one - added to the weakness of Trump’s reply. I make no excuses for the man. Trump plays high-stakes, which means he takes high-stakes hits when he doesn’t stay on-top-of-his-game. This was not his greatest debate performance.
Ultimately, Donald Trump didn’t intend to shy away from his leading the fight to “kill the bill”. The most obvious reason for me to say this is that Chuck Schumer (Sen. Maj. LDR) and Mitch McConnell (Sen. Min. LDR) both voted against the bill. Which begs the author of the question to justify why he’s traying to bait people into believing that the Bill was good legislation and Trump should have supported the Bill.
The Bill was deeply flawed and lacked convincing support. Bi-partisan is just a technical term used to inflate VP Harris’ statement deceptively.
Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I) even stated that the bill was a “first step”. (Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Government Operations and Border Management) She said, “…the bill is a first step as they look to work with others and the Biden Administration.”
I find it hard to justify the essentialness of supporting a “first step” bill of any kind. I would choose words like, “critical”, “compelling”, or “curative” if I was going to make a new law, that supposedly fixes such a substantial problem affecting most Americans so profoundly.
What did Harris say about the bill? Maybe she believes in the bill because what she said about the bill is true. IF so, it would be reasonable if the benefits outweighed some of the risks. Lets take a look.
The first claim is 1500 more border agents. This is a clever misdirection, right out of the gate. IF you examine the most prominent features of the bill, 1500 more border agents is not mentioned.
Again, from the authors of the bill:
Implements new protections for unaccompanied migrant children released to sponsors in the United States, including regular follow-up and absolute bars on placement with persons convicted of certain crimes, such as sex offenders and child abusers.
Increases staffing to better handle irregular migration influx events, including 150 new Immigration Judge teams [not agents], 300 asylum officers [not agents], ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations staff [some agents, not enumerated], ICE litigation teams [lawyers], CBP officers [actual agents, but not enumerated], and Border Patrol processing coordinators [not agents].
Establishes at least 4 regional processing centers in high-traffic Border Patrol sectors to properly handle the influx of migrants along the southwest border and improve interagency coordination.
Creates pilot programs to facilitate fairer and more efficient credible fear determinations and asylum decisions while ensuring fairness in proceedings through provisions to protect access to counsel, language translation services, and legal orientations.
Expands legal orientation programming and translation services and protects access to counsel for migrants.
Improves DHS coordination with NGOs and local governments to prevent the release of migrants into small communities that are poorly equipped to handle the influx of a large number of migrants.
Improves DHS, DOJ, and HHS reporting to Congress to support future legislative efforts in areas in which bipartisan agreement does not yet exist.
In fact, the Biden/Harris administration didn’t need a piece of legislation to add 1500 border agents to our southern border. In May of 2023, Biden “ordered” 1500 military members to “secure” our southern border. Which ended with the migrants crossing where the military members were not.
The second most important part of the bill would be to “stem the flow” of fentanyl into this country. It only takes minutes to know that this is also a deceptive statement.
The phrase “stem the flow” means this: To reduce to greatly reduce, but NOT STOP, whatever it is that is intended to be stopped or reduced. For example, stemming the flow of blood, means to “restrict blood loss” but it doesn’t mean “stop blood loss”. If you wanted to say STOP, then use the word “STOP”.
So, stemming the flow of fentanyl means to drastically limit it’s entry into this country. NOT one element of this bill directly affects the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States. Increasing the number of CBP agents on the border to actually be able to say it is likely to STEM the flow, would be to say, “we are adding 87000 CBP agents to the ranks” instead of IRS agents, and that “we will finish building the wall.” That would have been the first statement on the “benefits” page, instead of “Increases staffing to better handle irregular migration influx events…”
Why do I say this?
Because fentanyl and other illegal narcotics being trafficked across our southern border kills over 100,000 Americans each year, on average. That’s roughly a Vietnam War x2 every year. Harris mentioned this, because it’s a trigger for the hopeful. In reality, it’s something the Biden administration, with Harris as the Border Czar, failed to mitigate in any meaningful way.
To answer your question, Donald Trump didn’t evade answering the question. He was less than effective in answering the question. The Bill you mentioned deserved to be killed, and it wasn’t just Donald Trump. It was Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell who killed that bill.
The fact is that the bill would have only made it easier for people to illegally enter this country and drain our public services, not harder or with better outcomes for people who already live here.
Don’t be fooled by these bait questions. Just read the answers that offer the best value for your time. Upvote and promote them so that the truth can emerge.
Thank you for your time. I hope this helps.