I have to say, the notion that the SAVE Act should include border provisions is unfathomably rich. They negotiated a perfectly good bill, bipartisan and everything (even according to an R negotiator, Sen. Lankford) and Trump ordered it tanked. What's different now? It's all performative nonsense. Playing to the cheap seats. Lord, deliver us.
I have to say, the notion that the SAVE Act should include border provisions is unfathomably rich. They negotiated a perfectly good bill, bipartisan and everything (even according to an R negotiator, Sen. Lankford) and Trump ordered it tanked. What's different now? It's all performative nonsense. Playing to the cheap seats. Lord, deliver us.
Exactly. If the ask is: "must have a border bill" then feel free to pass the existing Lankford bill, verbatim. As for the rest especially including the SAVE Act, don't engage in any of this intentional disruption.
I have to say, the notion that the SAVE Act should include border provisions is unfathomably rich. They negotiated a perfectly good bill, bipartisan and everything (even according to an R negotiator, Sen. Lankford) and Trump ordered it tanked. What's different now? It's all performative nonsense. Playing to the cheap seats. Lord, deliver us.
Still, you wanna guess/bet which presidential candidate gets Lankford's vote?
Exactly. If the ask is: "must have a border bill" then feel free to pass the existing Lankford bill, verbatim. As for the rest especially including the SAVE Act, don't engage in any of this intentional disruption.