Members of the Senate have reached a “bipartisan border deal.” But is it really bipartisan? And is it really a border deal? Glenn lays out what’s actually in the bill, which Glenn believes is better described as a “multi-billion-dollar war package” that continues to fund the war in Ukraine. Plus, Glenn breaks down what Biden’s new “emergency powers” would be … and they’re insane.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: There's a lot going on.
Let me start with the border news over the weekend, and continue to heat up. Let me give you a few of the touch points here. More governors traveled to the Texas/Mexico border on Sunday. To show their solidarity with governor Abbott and the federal government.
Speeches were given directly at ground zero. And the media is dubbing it Civil War 2.0.
So they were surrounded bit Texas national guard. Military vehicles. Loads of razor wire. Right in Shelby Park and Eagle Pass, Texas.
Now, over on the federal level, the Senate appears to have come to an agreement on they say it's a border bill. But we'll get into the details in a second. It's actually a multi-billion dollar war package. Do not be fooled by the name "border bill."
It's not. Now, it does have some stuff to do with the border. Depending on who you talk to. It's both amazing for the border. And the worst piece of legislation in history. It's weird how something can be both of those things.
Could it also possibly be that all of the border news happening right now is just a song and dance?
Could it be that no one is actually interested at all in solving the border problem?
All the world is, but a stage. And we are merely its players. Yes.
Yes. Yes. That's what's happening.
For decades now, the border has been enormous political Capitol for both sides in Washington, DC.
Republicans love it. Democrats love it.
And they never really cared about the impacts to our communities. And to our states.
Why would they suddenly start caring about it now?
Well, because it's so bad. Uh-huh.
So we sent our Blaze originals documentary team down with the border, convoy.
And, boy, did they learn a lot.
They were with the convoy. But the convoy led them to all kinds of other discoveries. With about the standoff at the border between the state and the feds.
We found something shocking, that no one is talking about.
We're being duped by all sides.
Here's one piece I can give you today.
Consider this: Did you hear about a -- a secret meeting?
Did you hear that while reports of record amounts of illegals were pouring over our border -- this was in December -- Secretary of State Blinken held a secret meeting with Mexican officials, in Mexico City.
Now, it was reported that he traveled there.
But the full context of the meeting, were not disclosed.
We have no idea. Why is that?
Was there an agreement that was made?
Were concessions handed over?
If so, what did we give up?
Why isn't this meeting discussed in the media, when they talk about Civil War, 2.0. Or when the Senate hails a landmark border deal.
What happened in Mexico?
Could all of this just be a charade for the people?
Our Blaze orange documentary team might have the real answer for you. The full report is coming out in a couple of weeks. But we will have more on this, on our Wednesday night TV special. This is all breaking news. In -- in our world.
And we'll give you all of the full tails, as we -- as we gather everything. And make sure it's all buttoned up.
Now, the senators revealed 118 billion-dollar emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act.
Wow! So it's an emergency, and it's about national security!
So what did we get?
Well, 118 billion-dollar national security supplemental -- supplemental appropriations act.
Would give $60 billion in aid to Ukraine.
Wait. Wait. What?
So it's 118 billion.
Half of it goes to -- I thought -- wait. Wait. Emergency national security.
Supplemental bill. I thought that national emergency was the border?
Because wasn't that why he needed emergency powers?
So half the money goes to aid Ukraine. They also allocated $20 billion into securing the US southern border.
Okay. So say. Wait. So three times the amount, goes to Ukraine.
Also, $20 billion for the border. $14 billion in security assistance to Israel.
And just to make it all fair. $10 billion in humanitarian assistance for civilians caught in the conflict zones of Gaza.
Oh, well, that's -- okay. Wait. What?
Four and a half billion. Or almost 5 billion to support key regional partners in the Indo-Pacific to deter China.
Two and a half billion dollars to support US Central Command operations in the Red Sea.
2.3 billion for Ukrainians. And other refugees displaced.
400 million for the nonprofit security grant program, which helps nonprofits in places of worship, to make its security enhancements.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. It would also require the Department of Homeland Security to nearly shut down the border.
Now, listen to this. Nearly shut down the border.
What does that mean exactly?
Well, it means that we're not going to shut down the border.
But nearly do it. Now, not today. But that -- they can do that, if the migrant crossers, increase more than 5,000 a day.
On any given week. Or if the average daily encounters reach $4,000. 4,000 people a day, this a one-week span.
So if there's 4,000 people, for six days, they can't shut down the border.
I'm sorry. They can't nearly shut down the border.
At a rate of 5,000 illegal immigrants entering the country, that would mean more than 1.8 million illegal aliens would be coming into the country every year.
But remember, I haven't gotten to the nearly shut down the border.
This is their solution today. To let in an additional 2 million people come in across our border.
Okay. We're a little sick of the 4 million, I think. We're a little sick. Let's slow it down. Let's just do 2 million. Oh, okay.
Now, Chris Murphy from the -- the Democrat from the great set of Connecticut. I mean that, being here. It's a lovely, lovely state. What they've done with the trash, is just wonderful. It really is. A requirement of the president to funnel asylum claims to the land ports of entry when more than 5,000 people cross a day. This is what Murphy is saying, on X. The border never closes. But claims must be processed at the ports. This allows for more and more orderly humane asylum processing system.
Got that? So if it's more than 5,000 a day, then they have to be processed at the ports. That's the nearly closing the border.
Oh! Okay. Well, that sounds really bad. This is what -- you know, Lankford came out. And he was like, everybody was saying, this is much worse than what we said it was going to be. I challenge the people that come up to me and tell me, what is worse?
Well, you know, he's kind of right. Remember when the media was saying, oh, it has none of that stuff in the bill. That's an outrageous -- that is disinformation. That those things were in the bill.
Yeah. Lankford is probably not worse. You've confirmed everything that we said was in it, that you all were saying, wait until you find out what's inside the bill.
Because that's not in the bill. It's in the bill!
Oh, my gosh.
You know, when people like Lankford, who needs friends?
Seriously, who needs friends?
I'm a little confused. I'm going to have to get with the speaker's team on -- to find out what part would be worse, than what we had expected, based on the actual text!
It's not worse! It is the text that we said it was, and you said it wasn't. Oh, my gosh. Stu, can you just take over for a second. Because I'm going to have an aneurysm.
STU: Yeah. On that point, you're totally right. There was this pushback, on people negotiating and Lankford being key in this room. Saying, oh, you guys are just acting off of rumors.
You're acting off of internet posts. You're acting off of false reporting about what's in this bill. I would never allow this to be in this bill. Then they released the text of the bill.
And I mean, to the number. Almost every single part of it is exactly what was reported.
I mean, it's bizarre.
I will say, when you get to the point of, talking about it being worse, I would include this. In the worst subscription.
Tell me if you agree with this. There is a provision in the bill, that would allow the president. You know, you might be -- you may not know. Joe Biden is currently the president of the United States.
Okay. So this would be under his authority. There's a provision in his bill, that would allow the president to suspend the shutdown authority. It says, quote, it authorizes the president to suspend the border emergency on an emergency basis.
For up to 45 days, if it's in the national interests.
So what do you think happens when we get across this 5,000 barrier?
Every time, he at least suspends it for 45 days, and God only knows if he can do it consecutively in perpetuity. That's probably what will wind up happening. Though, I'm not sure about that detail.
Look, Glenn, you look at the bill. And there are things in there. That would theoretically make the situation a little bit better.
There's asylum improvements that I think could be part of an eventual bill.
GLENN: Yeah. I mean, why even discuss.
It's a nonstarter because of things like this.
According to the bill, if you cross the border, illegally. You get arrested.
And then Department of Homeland Security, they decide, that you're entitled to protection. They're now able to give you automatic -- automatic employment authorization.
STU: Yeah. Until you have your asylum hearing. Now, a couple of parts, in addition to that. They say the asylum hearings will come fast. So no more 2030 court dates. Do you believe that?
I mean, this is the problem. I don't believe that. Now, if they -- they say it will supposedly bring this down to months, instead of years, for asylum.
That would be a legitimate improvement on what we have --
GLENN: Except, I don't think it's by judges.
I think it's by the Department of Homeland Security, is it not?
STU: I think it's by the US citizenship and immigration services. It kind of shifts a lot of it, at least over there.
But again, do I believe that they will actually accomplish that?
No. They also have tougher asylum requirements. And this could be a legitimate one, Glenn.
But think about this in a real country, that does the -- the things they say they do.
They would include three bars to eligibility. Okay?
Number one. Criminal history. So if you have criminal history, no asylum for you. Okay. Totally legitimate.
Number two, could they have resettled in another country on the way to the US.
Yeah. Okay. If you actually implemented it, that would be a great improvement. Number three, could they have settled somewhere else in their country. Okay. Perfect. That would be a legitimate thing to do.
That would be an improvement over our system. And it would be a rational way to decipher these claims.
No one believes they are going to do these things. No one believes that this is actually going to happen. When they're ignoring dozens and dozens of other laws that are already on the books. Why would we believe that they would suddenly just implement this one part of this one law that would improve the system.
And they have no trust for the people. And they have no national reason to be trusted. And that is a bigger part of this problem.
Not to mention, they put in there, that the US -- or, the president of the United States, could just suspend the authority.
So at some points, they say. It's required, to shut the border down.
At the same time, to say, he has a 45 window to supplement this at any point.
His emergency power is to shut this bill down at any time.
GLENN: If he feels it's in an emergency or in our best interest, he can shut this bill down.
We all thought he was saying he needed emergency power to shut the border down. He's not. And their response is, well, he's nearly shutting it down.
Only 1.8 million people can come across the border in a year. Only 1.8.
STU: Right. Now, they are pushing back against that number. You know, the way they are wording it is that it doesn't mean they're allowed in. 5,000 are not allowed in. They are saying that, single adults would be detained.
And families would be released via ATD, Glenn.
Alternatives to detention.
STU: A little ATD going on.
GLENN: Yeah. A little ATD.
STU: To me, even if you're detaining them in the United States, you're still letting them into the United States.
GLENN: And we're feeding and clothing and caring for people. That we shouldn't be feeding, caring or clothing.
I mean, this is just insane.
STU: The expansion of the detention capacity is only 16,000.
So, again, this is a few days under this system. Where else -- where do people go again? We will be in the same crisis situation all over again.