Senate Surrenders to Democratic Demands … The House Does Not
In the dead of night, the United States Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent that funds most of the Department of Homeland Security — deliberately excluding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol. The vote occurred around 2:20 in the morning with only a handful of senators present on the floor. No recorded roll call took place. This so-called compromise represents nothing less than a cave-in to long-standing Democratic efforts to hamstring the very agencies responsible for enforcing immigration law and securing the southern border.
House Republicans, led by Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, immediately and flatly rejected this Senate gambit. Johnson rightly called the measure “a joke” and a transparent political maneuver designed to undermine border security without offering any meaningful concessions on enforcement.
Rather than rubber-stamping the Senate proposal, House GOP leadership moved swiftly to advance an alternative short-term Continuing Resolution. This so-called clean boll would fund the entire Department of Homeland Security, including ICE and Border Patrol, at current levels through May 22. It would end the shutdown. Republicans rightfully refused to accept a partial funding bill that leaves enforcement operations unfunded and vulnerable.
Passing the Senate version would have given Democrats absolute leverage over the negotiations on ICE and Border Patrol. They would not have to concede a single point to Republicans –even if that meant prolonged non-funding of ICE and Border patrol. They would have no reason to compromise since de-funding ICE and Border Patrol is what Democrat leadership wants, anyway. Gutting or abolishing those agencies is an evergreen item on their “to do” list
Recent legislative actions illustrate the pattern clearly. One Republican-sponsored House vote to fully fund the government and end the shutdown passed 218 to 206 passed the House, with four Democrats crossing over to join Republicans. Another succeeded by a margin of 221 to 209, again with a small number of Democrats providing support. These narrow but solid bipartisan majorities reflect the will of the House to keep essential security operations intact and get the government back to business.
Senate Democrats, however, blocked advancement on multiple occasions, often on near party-line votes that fell well short of the 60 votes required to proceed. In one instance, the motion to advance failed with 54 in favor of the bill and 46 against, with only a single Democrat, Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, breaking ranks to support it. On other attempts, the tallies ran as low as 47 to 37 or 53 to 47. The message from the minority party could not be clearer. They would rather prolong the shutdown than allow full funding for agencies they have long sought to weaken or abolish. Democrats even opposed short term funding that would enable the government to function while negotiations on specific budget issues proceeded. Those House bills stand as the only measures that actually cleared one of the two chambers of Congress with recorded votes.
The consequences of this obstruction have been real and painful for ordinary Americans. Travelers endured long security lines at airports as unpaid TSA officers faced financial hardship and called out in large numbers. Families missed flights. Spring break travel turned into a nightmare.
President Trump directed emergency measures and back pay for affected workers, but the underlying disruption stemmed directly from the failure to reach a timely agreement.
Many prominent Democrats have gone far beyond reform. They have openly called for the abolition of ICE. This is not ancient history. It remains a core position for influential voices in the party. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran on abolishing ICE in 2018 and reaffirmed it recently. Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley have repeatedly called for the elimination of ICE. Congressman Shri Thanedar) introduced the Abolish ICE Act, while progressive candidates like Darializa Avila Chevalier and Graham Platner have made “dismantle ICE” central to their 2026 campaigns. Sen. Ed Markey has pushed to “defund and abolish.” These are not fringe voices. They are the most influential voices shaping Democrat policies and negotiating positions.
Conservatives understand what is truly at stake. Strong immigration enforcement is not an optional extra. It is essential to national sovereignty, public safety, and the rule of law. For years, Democrats have prioritized open-border policies and sanctuary protections over the security of American communities – resulting in loss of life and property. They have blocked funding, demonized agents, and pushed legislation to dismantle the very tools needed to control illegal immigration. The Senate action on March 27 fits squarely into that pattern. It rewards obstruction and rejects the House for doing its job.
The American people expect Congress to fund the government responsibly without playing political games that endanger security. The House has done its part multiple times. Senate Democrats have used a procedural power to obstruct. The latest Senate bill changes none of that fundamental reality. It merely shifts the battlefield while leaving enforcement agencies exposed, criminals on the streets and travelers standing in long lines.
True resolution demands full funding without preconditions that tie the hands of ICE and Border Patrol. Anything less represents a dangerous concession that will embolden further attacks on immigration enforcement in the months ahead. Since Democrats continue to support policies that protect criminals and encourage illegal border crossing, House Republicans must hold the line. The security of the nation depends on it.
So, there ‘tis.
I think democrats have passed a dozen bills funding all DHS except ICE which is funded by the BBB anyway.
As long as you keep trying to ICE the cake and Save America at the same time, we must just say no. Used to be “two out of three ain’t bad,” buy you guys are “my way or the highway” stupid.
You get what you pay for.
Dunger said it. So it must be a lie.
Sethdung, like Bendung and Harry Whitesheeple, you can’t prove that I lied because 1) you can’t, 2) you still can’t, and 3) you’re dumb as a brick.
Sorry, brick.
Looking back at this, I note Larry’s use of the word “surrender” whereas a politician, at least a good one, would have said “compromise.” Gives an idea of the difference between a win-lose and win-win mindset. In Larry’s world, there must be losers.
Sigh.
Dunger is still a liar.
Unfortunately Dunger believes everything he says, more like cognitive dissonance
Unfortunately Dunger lives in a fantasy world.
Bending: still waiting for your proof of my lie. C
And you don’t believe what you write Joe? Same challenge Joe.
And Mr Gilbert’s on, the name is Danger ‼️.don’t be a douche.
Dunger just stop lying. You’re not good at it. You’re losing respect every day.
Jessie: fire away; find one, protect.
Dunger you lie about everything you can to discredit Trump. But we are winning winning winning. And you’re stuck with the likes of the freaks whining about a fictional king. You people are so pathetic it’s pathetic.
Jezzum: I asked you, Bendung, Willieatsdungs, and Suceth, to point out and prove one lie in the plethora of lies you all claim I have spread. They have failed miserably. Joe, not his real name, came back with I have cognitive dissonance because I believe what I said which, beyond the fact he appears not to understand the definition of that term, is a ridiculous sentiment: who does not believe what they say: even Trump. It seems to point to him NOT believing what he says as his natural state. Weird. Or that I have a dissonance because I believe what I say. Weird because if I believe it, why would I have a dissonance?
It’s five to one that I lie and not one of you can pick out, point to, and then actually prove any lies of fact.
This time, you just gave up and went with pointing out everything is a lie with the reason being to discredit Trump. I asked for a specific example and, of course, your proof that it is truly a lie. The fact you think I have a purpose in this is fine. That’s your opinion, not a fact, and certainly not proving a lie.
As far as Trump being a King, you are the ones saying EO’s are the act of a King, sidelining Congress in his power grab for personal glory. In days of old, we would call these edicts. His taking over the budget, spending as he likes, is also the act of a King, and unconstitutional. A simple example is his tariffs, an example of taxation without representation, the likes of which a revolution against a monarchy was launched. Now he has chosen to war, did not get Congressional approval, spend now spending probably over 30 billion so far. He lifted the sanctions off Russia, they are making billions to fund the Ukraine war; he defunded the US support for Ukraine. Iran is too as he let them sell oil as well. He seems to spend a lot of time on golden ballrooms, bathrooms, and pasting gold knick-knacks all over the Whitehouse while plastering his pudgy face on any government building he can find. When people come to his court, they know to bring golden awards and statues as tributes. Presidents don’t plaster their name and likeness everywhere they can. Presidents don’t demand tributes. At least in my experience.
When the bill comes in for all of this, plus the war on the brown people, plus the war on VZ, the war on Iran, I expect a very tough year, economically, perhaps across the globe. The latest news is they are paying tens of millions over market for their “deportation warehouses,” sounds like it’s ripe for grift. Then there’s the stock market grift where either someone is guessing really well, or someone is running a scam knowing his next proclamation on the war. You can’t point to a criminal, but it sure looks like a crime worth investigating. Better chance that catching Hillary at Epstein’s Island. Mid April, the numbers will being to tally the score.
Good luck boys, I am sure you will find one sooner or later. I do make mistakes sometimes. As far as my opinions — sure, disagree away. I may show you wrong on the facts, but cannot say you are wrong in your opinions. It appears you have the opinion that I lie, some of you say all the time, that’s yours. But when I ask you to show one, prove one, and you can’t; that speaks volumes.