Select Page

Trump is right to oppose the Senate immigration bill

Trump is right to oppose the Senate immigration bill

While the anti-Trump media obsesses with their political narratives – in this case that Trump and Republicans want to defeat the Senate immigration bill so that the crisis goes on as a campaign issue favorable to the GOP.

The Democrats’ narrative is designed to further demonize Trump and distract from the really important question.  Is the bipartisan bill produced in the Senate a good piece of legislation?  Will it resolve or mitigate the expanding crisis at the border that has now metastasized throughout the nation in terms of drug deaths, crime and overburdening social welfare systems and infrastructure.

The Senate legislation appears to be a non-start.  It becoming law is unlikely.  The odds at the moment are against passage in the Senate — with those on both the right and the left expressing opposition.  Speaker Johnson says it is dead on arrival in the House.  That is a lot of opposition to overcome.

In anticipation of the Senate legislation, supporters were declaring it to be the strongest immigration bill in American history and best possible bill achievable.  The first claim is factually untrue. The House actually passed HR2 and sent it to the Senate a year and a half ago – and Majority Leader Schumer buried it.  It was far stronger than the Senate bill. 

With regard to the best bill achievable.  I suppose that could be true, but that does not mean it should be “achieved.”  The Senate version has many of the same provisions as the HR2, but the Senate’s key provisions for controlling the number of folks crossing the border illegally do not resolve the crisis.  It enshrines the problem into law.

According to the Senate Bill, Homeland Security MAY shut the border if 4000 or more migrants cross for 7 days in a row.  Note: That is a “may.”  Do you believe the Biden administration would close the border if they were not required to do so by law?    Oh!  We know the answer to that.  We have a law that makes crossing the border outside of entry points a felony –and we all know how well that law is being enforced.

The Senate bill does require closing of the border if 5000 or more migrants cross in a consecutive 7-day period.  That provision uses the mandatory word “shall.”  The Senate Bill also requires the border to be closed if 8500 or more migrants cross in a single day.

So, how will the Biden administration shut the border it has to do so?  According to the Senate Bill, there are several actions that would be taken.

  1. The Department of Homeland security would cease to process asylum claims at the border – except (get ready) except for those eligible for humanitarian parole or have a so-called “credible” fear of persecution or torture.  That does not look, sound or smell like a shutdown, but maybe a temporary slowdown.
  2. The DHS would stop issuing visas and other immigration benefits to applicants who are still in Mexico or Canada – unless they qualify for an exception (another exception) or waiver.
  3. The DHS would “expedite” the deportation of migrants apprehended at or near the border without a hearing – unless (here we go again) they express a fear of returning or have a valid claim to U.S. citizenship.  (Hmm.  How many illegal border crossers have a valid claim to U.S. citizenship?)
  4. The DHS would deploy additional personnel, technology and infrastructure to secure the border and deter illegal crossings (except the ones they allow.)

The devil may be in the details, but none of those Senate provisions come close to the claim of closing down the border even when the prescribed limits are reached.

And if they do implement the aforementioned provisions when the limits are crossed, how long does the border stay closed?  A so-called border shutdown would last until the number of illegal crossings falls below the 5,000 limit for 14 consecutive days.  WHOA!  The border crossing would have to run below the 5,000 limit for 14 days before the border can be re-opened.  So, we could have 4,999 migrants illegally crossing the border for 14 days while it is closed – and that would justify re-opening the border?

It is not clear how long the border would be somewhat closed in the case of a one-day 8,500 surge. And in that case would the border only be closed the next day if another 8,500 crossed.  And if 8,500 crossed in one day, could up to 5,000 cross the next day?  More devil in the details.

What can be said, however, is that the limits in the Senate Bill are ridiculously high and the claim of shutting the border is … well … bullsh*t.  The Senate Bill does not solve or mitigate the border crisis, it merely locks it in at crisis level numbers.  Remember, it was President Obama’s head of Homeland security who said that 1000 illegal border crosses per day is a crisis. And the Senator thinks 5,000 or 8,500 is a SOLUTION to the crisis. 

Forget about the rest of the Bill – even popular and common-sense provisions.  Forget about the left’s anti-Trump narrative. These numbers would turn a crisis into a permanent on-going disaster.  They are consistent with Biden’s and the Democrats’ open border policies. 

Yes, it is a pity that Congress missed another opportunity to pass meaningful immigration reform, but that is no reason to pass a bad bill.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.



    Horist knows the House Bill got zero Dem votes and lost two Republican votes. It was DOA from the git go.

    The Senate bill was prepared via bipartisan compromise, neither side will love all aspects, boths sides get some of what they want.

    The Senate bill looked promising until Donald J. Trump just said no.

    Apparently, we need one party of the other to do anything. The Republican House is the least productiive House in decades.

    Biden has passed more bipartisan law than all the law Trump passed, little of which was bipartisan and nothing notable was.

    Once again, we will be in stalmate until January of 2025. Hopefully America will not split the ticket come November and vote for those who fashion bipartisan law and toss those who do not.

  2. LMB

    The House sent a bill to the Senate last year that’s still sitting on Chucky Schumer’s desk!!! The Senate bill was BS!!! If they really wanted to do something, reinstate Trump’s actions on immigration to get something done right!!!


      lmb: We don’t know the Senate bill is bs, there has been no debate, no vote.

      The House bill did not garner a single Democratic vote and lost two Republican votes too. The Senate bill was contructed in a bi-artisan manner. I guarantee it has parts you like, parts you hate, as does it for me. The sponsors had consensus, it looked to fly, and then Trump told Senators what he wanted; the rest is sheeple history.

      I think Schumer should have brought it to the floor so we could see who said they would pass it and changed their minds, or had them changed by Trump. The House Bill —– you already know the Senate vote based on the House vote. DOA.

      The answer is neither side of the aisel wants to fix this, for different reasons, as it has been for decades.

      When they start again, it will look more like the Senate bill than the House bill. Probably.

      • larry Horist

        Frank Stetson … The Senate bill was release. We know that is in it. It is hypocritical to call Republicans obstructionists when it was Schumer who personally obstructed debate on immigration reform by burying the House bill. And the Senate bill is dead regardless of what Trump said because it is a god-awful bill… period. Do you really want to set the standard for illegal border crossing at 4,999 per day?

        • Frank stetson

          Horist, sorry, debate in the house.

          Obstructionists? Did I say that? I said HR2 is proven, by vote, to be doa. The senate bipartisan bill is allegedly doa. Let’s find out how doa.

          • Frank stetson

            Lh. Actually, debate and vote in either chamber. My bad.

  3. Darren

    I guess some people in this country just do not want to shut the border.
    To this, I hope everyone happy with the Dem solutions will have Migrants
    camping on their front lawns, and living in their back yards.
    That day will come.
    But then again, the Dems do rely on uneducated voters!

  4. JoeyP

    Send the HOUSE BILL back in and let ALL medias SEE it . . . To the DETRIMENT of RINOs and DEMOCRATs if they’re STUPID enough to OPPOSE it.

  5. Frank stetson

    Jp: it’s been on the web for over a year. Look at the vote, it’s a non starter. There’s plenty of media coverage.

    Darren, the nay’s are on both sides of the aisle for the senate bill. The House bill has always been dead and Repubs offer zero compromise on it.

    The Senate bill IS a compromise by both parties, can take more compromise, but Trump needs the border afu’d to stand a better chance at the polls so he said NO.

  6. Mike f

    The obvious answer to this problem is to make changes to the senate bill currently in the house and send it back to the senate. The earlier house generated bill was sent as a stand alone bill without the amnesty clause for dreamers, so of course it wasn’t going to get democrats to support it. Now we have a situation where republicans are refusing vital aid to Ukraine without the immigration bill, so there was incentive for democrats to negotiate more than with the earlier stand alone bill. However, in the age of trump, our government doesn’t work the way it is supposed to, and everything is studied under the microscope of ‘how will this affect DJT’ rather than ‘how will this benefit the country’. Government is currently more broken than it has been in the recent past, and the cause is the ignorant orange buffoon…

    • larry Horist

      Mike f … And why does that make more sense than to have taken up the House bill … debated it … and send it back to the House. We could have started that process a year and a half ago… but Schumer killed it.

      • Mike f

        Larry-The bottom line is there is a bill that has bipartisan approval from the senate (as opposed to a bill that mainly had backing from the republicans), conditions on the border have deteriorated somewhat and there is the Ukraine aid tied to it which provides more incentive for democrats to negotiate. However, trump does not understand how government works (since he didn’t pass anything during his 4 years except a tax cut for himself that passed on only republican votes), and he does not want to solve the problem under Biden’s watch-so he tells his boobs to reject it. Republicans do not want to solve problems-they want to obstruct government and get re-elected (Obamacare situation perfect example-only tried to get rid of it/never fix it). But, being an ignoramus (see, I can be an adult and not call you an idiot😁) you’ll never be able to see this…


    MF +1 on that one.

    The senate bill has many compromises by and for both sides. The House Bill does not. The House should figure out what they might add, and if need be, what they might extract. But in the end, they need a bill that both parties can live with. Not this my way or the highway crap that is the House Bill for effect, not effective.