>>5198909 pb
>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-official-border-security-bill-does-not-contain-amnesty-poison-pills.amp?
That section could easily be read as problematic if you didn't know this.
>But a DHS official told Fox News that terms like "potential sponsor" have precise meanings in Department of Homeland Security regulations – meanings that severely limit the number of people the budget keeps safe from deportation.
The problem is that issues are raised here and then people jump to wild conclusions before getting clarification which are then amplified by those with a nefarious agenda.
All because Congress waits to the last minute to release an 1,100 page bill when they have a history of hiding provisions in arcane legalese that have long-term negative ramifications for millions of people.
So what's the solution - don't raise potentially problematic issues lest be labelled as a shill?
A bit like damned if you do, damned if you don't.