Anonymous ID: 336851 Feb. 15, 2019, 12:34 p.m. No.5194205   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4266 >>4298 >>4328

>>5193949

>This is what H.J.Resolution 31: The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, which was passed by both the House and the Senate, and presented to President Trump today, says:

 

(1) Effective amnesty, i.e., no deportation, for illegals with an unaccompanied child:

 

Title II, Sec. 224. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act or any other Act, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the components funded by this Act, may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential

sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 462(g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))) based on information shared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

 

(2) No wall, but only pedestrian fencing may be built on the border:

 

Title II. Sec. 230. (a) Of the total amount made available under “U.S. Customs and Border Protection–Procurement, Construction, and Improvements”,$2,370,222,000 shall be available only as follows:

(1) $1,375,000,000 is for the construction of primary pedestrian fencing, including levee pedestrian fencing, in the Rio Grande Valley Sector;

 

Sec. 230. (b) The amounts designated in subsection (a)(1) shall only be available for operationally effective designs deployed as of the date of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31), such as currently deployed steel bollard designs, that prioritize agent safety.

 

(3) Not even pedestrian fencing in these areas:

 

Sec. 231. None of the funds made available by this Act or prior Acts are available for the construction of pedestrian fencing–

(1) within the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge;

(2) within the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park;

(3) within La Lomita Historical park;

(4) within the National Butterfly Center; or

(5) within or east of the Vista del Mar Ranch tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

 

(4) Construction of even pedestrian border fencing is subject to local authorities’ approval (which means there won’t even be pedestrian fencing in places like California):

 

Sec. 232. (a) Prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers within the city limits of any city or census designated place described in subsection (c), the Department of Homeland Security and the local elected officials of such a city or census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city or the census designated place (as the case may be). Such consultations shall continue until September 30, 2019 (or until agreement is reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available in this Act shall be used for such construction while consultations are continuing.

 

Sec. 232. (c) The cities and census designated place described in this subsection are as follows:

(1) Roma, Texas.

(2) Rio Grande City, Texas.

(3) Escobares, Texas.

(4) La Grulla, Texas.

(5) The census designated place of Salineno, Texas.

—–

 

So basically, emergency funds for everywhere dems have a stick up their twits?