LAURA INGRAHAM: Leave it to the Senate Republicans to call this a good deal

Fox News host Laura Ingraham shares why Republicans should be against a proposed border bill in the Senate on "The Ingraham Angle."

LAURA INGRAHAM: "Hide and Go Leak." That's the focus of tonight's "Angle." All right, we all love playing hide and go seek, at least I did, as kids, especially as the sun was setting on a beautiful summer day. Well, it's winter time, and the adults in charge in the Senate are still playing games. This one's called "Hide and Go Leak," as in, hide the text of the so-called Senate border deal while leaking out bits and pieces in what's a transparent attempt to satisfy critics. 

Now, it's a classic Senate theater of the absurd move with its own cast of characters, including the man cast by Mitch McConnell to be lead actor. That's Oklahoma Senator Jim Lankford. He's trying mightily to convince you that Biden will really enforce new laws under a new bill, even though he doesn't use the authority that he already has. Now, under the leaked out language, Biden would not be compelled to act to close the border unless a threshold number of about 5,000 migrants had been logged in one day, which, by the way, has happened many times during the past month.

…

BIDEN PROMISES TO ‘SHUT DOWN’ BORDER IF CONGRESS APPROVES BILL GOP CLAIMS WOULD ‘INCENTIVIZE ILLEGAL ALIENS’

Now, his arguments make no sense because in the first place, as even the Washington Post on this subject made clear, even the 5,000 migrant cap isn't a real cap. Because even if the border were shut down, people could apply for asylum at ports of entry so the border would never be shut down, no matter how high the number gets. And as for the idea that we can trust Biden and Mayorkas to implement pro-enforcement changes in asylum laws, there is zero reason for us to believe that either of them would want this nonsense stopped. Unless, of course, ensuring that everyone meets the new standard if there was a new standard put in place. After all, 90% of all migrants right now do not qualify for asylum status. They just mouth the credible fear language and the regulation. Yeah, they've been tutored. 

Plus, Biden would still be allowed to parole migrants into the country in huge numbers. Even the Washington Post conceded this, saying "Some Republicans' goal to dramatically curtail Biden's use of his own humanitarian parole powers for certain categories of migrants is not in the final deal." OK, think about this. Biden's parole power will be unchanged, and he'll get his $60 billion for Ukraine. Leave it to the Senate Republicans to call that a good deal. Conservatives essentially get nothing they want, and liberals get everything they want. Oh, but wait, because Senator Lankford says that the bill would allocate more money for immigration judges and other personnel. 

You know what I say to that? So what? More staff just gives Biden the chance to hire a bunch of woke people who will do everything possible to help bring more migrants into the country, because that's how this works. The notion that Biden or Lankford are going to use that money to hire really tough border people like Tom Homan, in favor of enforcement, that's absurd.

…

Oh, that's categorically false. We're against this deal because it's a bad deal. It's so bad that his team refuses to release the text. And oh, yes, they have the text and they won't release it until the last possible minute. We know it's going to be rife with ambiguous language and countless exceptions to any supposedly tough border provisions. 

So this bill, whatever its text, is unnecessary and indefensible. To prove his bona fides on the border, Biden could shut down the border right now. He could declare a national border emergency, citing fentanyl overdoses, overcrowded cities, health concerns, overcrowded schools but he doesn't do this and Lankford, and company won't demand it. Why?