https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656
> Under the new immigration bill, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure.
I found this. Though I'm sure the bill itself is a better source.
Yeah but it later says that it would close at 8,500, so he was off by numbers (whether number of days measured for 5,000 to warrant a closure, or number of people in a single day to warrant a closure), but the disagreement wasn't really about the actual number, simply whether the bill made a maximum or minimum.
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/feb/06/steve-scalise/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/feb/06/steve-scalise/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000/)
>
The bill raises the legal standard to pass initial asylum screenings, expedites the asylum process and funds additional detention space. It also compels the Homeland Security secretary to use an emergency authority to bar people from requesting asylum if officials record 5,000 encounters a day over seven consecutive days. But that’s not the same as accepting 5,000 people into the U.S. daily.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656)
>So where did this 5,000-a-day figure come from?The bipartisan deal does include provisions that would shut down the border entirely if a certain threshold is hit, but those are border encounters, not crossings. As noted above, no migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally would be allowed into the country unless they passed asylum interviews or were being held under government supervision.Under the new immigration bill, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure.
Actually bill: [https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/MCC24166.pdf](https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/MCC24166.pdf)
On its own it definitely doesn't. It's possible for it to have been part of some larger plan, though, maybe. Of course, it'd have to rely on there being at least 5000 people wanting to enter every day.
I paused and looked it up for myself, because I remember hearing that the bill set an automatic border shut down after a certain limit, but I never actually read the bill myself.
The bill text: [https://www.sinema.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ENSSAA01-1.pdf](https://www.sinema.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ENSSAA01-1.pdf)
Relevant parts on page 208
6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Whenever the border emer
7 gency authority is activated, the Secretary shall have
8 the authority, in the Secretary’s sole and
9 unreviewable discretion, to summarily remove from
10 and prohibit, in whole or in part, entry into the
11 United States of any alien identified in subsection
12 (a)(3) who is subject to such authority in accordance
13 with this subsection.
And 212
1 ‘‘(B) MANDATORY ACTIVATION.—The Sec
2 retary shall activate the border emergency au
3 thority if—
4 ‘‘(i) during a period of 7 consecutive
5 calendar days, there is an average of 5,000
6 or more aliens who are encountered each
7 day; or
8 ‘‘(ii) on any 1 calendar day, a com
9 bined total of 8,500 or more aliens are en
10 countered.
In retrospect I don't know why I wasted my time giving Sep Gorka a chance.
What logic would a minimum of 5000 per day even make?
Like if it's a slow day and you have 4000 asylum seekers what are you supposed to do? Kidnap people?
Saying it was the minimum was regarded even by "common sense"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656 > Under the new immigration bill, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure. I found this. Though I'm sure the bill itself is a better source.
Looks like D was off on numbers but correct in sentiment, that the bill was trying to cap entrants rather than encourage them.
Where was he off he claimed 5000 and border would close - only difference is it’s talking about the average a week
Yeah but it later says that it would close at 8,500, so he was off by numbers (whether number of days measured for 5,000 to warrant a closure, or number of people in a single day to warrant a closure), but the disagreement wasn't really about the actual number, simply whether the bill made a maximum or minimum.
Gotcha, thanks
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/feb/06/steve-scalise/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/feb/06/steve-scalise/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000/) > The bill raises the legal standard to pass initial asylum screenings, expedites the asylum process and funds additional detention space. It also compels the Homeland Security secretary to use an emergency authority to bar people from requesting asylum if officials record 5,000 encounters a day over seven consecutive days. But that’s not the same as accepting 5,000 people into the U.S. daily. [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656) >So where did this 5,000-a-day figure come from?The bipartisan deal does include provisions that would shut down the border entirely if a certain threshold is hit, but those are border encounters, not crossings. As noted above, no migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally would be allowed into the country unless they passed asylum interviews or were being held under government supervision.Under the new immigration bill, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure. Actually bill: [https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/MCC24166.pdf](https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/MCC24166.pdf)
The distinction between encounters and people let in is interesting. Seems like it would cut the numbers down a lot.
I mean just logically minimum doesn't make sense.
On its own it definitely doesn't. It's possible for it to have been part of some larger plan, though, maybe. Of course, it'd have to rely on there being at least 5000 people wanting to enter every day.
I paused and looked it up for myself, because I remember hearing that the bill set an automatic border shut down after a certain limit, but I never actually read the bill myself. The bill text: [https://www.sinema.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ENSSAA01-1.pdf](https://www.sinema.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ENSSAA01-1.pdf) Relevant parts on page 208 6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Whenever the border emer 7 gency authority is activated, the Secretary shall have 8 the authority, in the Secretary’s sole and 9 unreviewable discretion, to summarily remove from 10 and prohibit, in whole or in part, entry into the 11 United States of any alien identified in subsection 12 (a)(3) who is subject to such authority in accordance 13 with this subsection. And 212 1 ‘‘(B) MANDATORY ACTIVATION.—The Sec 2 retary shall activate the border emergency au 3 thority if— 4 ‘‘(i) during a period of 7 consecutive 5 calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 6 or more aliens who are encountered each 7 day; or 8 ‘‘(ii) on any 1 calendar day, a com 9 bined total of 8,500 or more aliens are en 10 countered. In retrospect I don't know why I wasted my time giving Sep Gorka a chance.
What logic would a minimum of 5000 per day even make? Like if it's a slow day and you have 4000 asylum seekers what are you supposed to do? Kidnap people? Saying it was the minimum was regarded even by "common sense"
[удалено]
It absolutely does not.