The Wall and the Shutdown
Here’s Veritas Omnia Vincit and his thoughts on the current partial government shut-down.
The Wall and the Shutdown…
…aka a pissing contest over pennies.The shutdown looms ever larger each and every day in our national news and I suspect it has an effect on the lives of some of you here at TAH. With Coast Guard and government paychecks being withheld some folks have to be hurting at this point. Not everyone is well prepared for a couple of months of no pay.
For that I am truly sorry, there’s never a fair reason to hurt the people least able to defend themselves especially due to the inaction of others in the performance of their sworn duty.
In the past I’ve often offered alternate viewpoints to the popular opinions on this site as to why I think an issue has played out the way it has, often to relatively poor reviews and I own that. On this issue however, I can find nothing from the Democrats but hypocrisy regarding the sudden lack of support for the wall. I once again find this issue to be an extension of the current Democrat party platform that appears to have only one single, solitary, sad little plank that simply states: “But we’re not Trump” well maybe there is a second plank in that platform that says, “Trump is bad, bad, bad…”
I’ve been reviewing some recent history (the last couple of decades or so) to read what has been said by respected Democrats regarding immigration. One of my favorites is this little gem, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants…” when I first head freshman Senator Obama speak those words, I thought to myself here’s a Democrat who gets “it”. Who understands the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration, and doesn’t call them “temporary guest workers” like the jelly-spined Bush had called them during his speeches.
Even the “no sack” Senator from New York, Schumer, said this in 2009, “People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.” Pelosi said, “I agree with my colleagues that we must curb illegal immigration responsibly and effectively. Senator Feinstein said, “the rich tapestry of this country must continue to be woven by people who come to this country legally” and Babs Boxer added, “states like California which bear most of the burden of illegal immigration should not be left alone to deal with this national problem.”
So clearly Democrats were for some form of border security before they were against it, which again leads me to believe this is simply another expression of blatant hypocrisy to score political points against the man who defeated their queen.
We’ve all heard the same nonsense recently about the wall not working and that the other less secure points of entry are more of an issue which seems like an endorsement of the wall to me, if you build a wall which requires less personnel to patrol you’d free those resources to be utilized at those other more vulnerable points.
And the money, oh my all that money 5.7 billion is a lot of money right?
Indeed it’s about 17 bucks per citizen of the US…since our debt load per citizen is currently 66,855 it would seem 17 dollars is a rather paltry sum in comparison. In fact the sum total of the budget is 4.407 trillion which means that 5.7 billion for the wall is about a tenth of a one percent of the budget.
The wall and its lack of funding have nothing to do with Democrats concern of fiscal responsibility, it has nothing to do with Democrats in favor of illegal immigration, and more importantly it has nothing to do with a lack of concern over national security. It is nothing more than another attempt to score political points at the expense of the people they claim to represent.
I’m always fascinated over the things people choose to go to war over, parking spaces, lunch room refrigerators, co-workers use of perfume or cologne, or pennies in a budget.
Who will be the winners and who will be the losers in this latest shit show remain to be seen, but stay tuned because I doubt things will calm down even after the government re-opens for business.
The Dems sudden conversion to fiscal hawks is pretty amusing, and as VoV points out, the $5.7B USD is a rounding error in the US budget.
Thanks, VoV, and keep ’em coming, buddy.
Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Guest Post, Politics
I’m at home on furlough until this ends. BUILD the f**kin WALL!!!!
I’m still working without pay. Not too happy about it, but border security is long overdue.
I commend and want to thank both of you for that. It is a sacrifice, for some more than others, and it is an involuntary one. The difference is that the perspective you two share is voluntary, and it is appreciated.
Same here, but in a contractor capacity. Ice as a civil servant. I’ve saved enough up to ride this out for a while if necessary. Totally agree. Build that wall!
USCG retired here. Haven’t missed any ret pay yet, not until the 1st of next month. If it happens, it happens, and I’ll live with it as long as necessary to build that wall the Border Patrol people want. I feel for the active duty young folks going without pay. It’s unconscionable. 5.7 Billion is chump change compared to the 115 billion we spend on illegals as it is. We’d probably get the 5.7 back in savings in less than a month.
This is something I do not understand. I thought the Coast guard was the fifth branch? How is it that they don’t get paid like the other four?
They now come under Homeland Security.
That needs to be rectified.
Flippity flop-flop, flippity flop-flop, look at the D-rats go…
Further proof of what a huge whorehouse Washington DC truly is! Schoo-mah and Pelousy have been there in the swamp for decades and they blame everything on President Trump who has only been there for two years!
WRT the Dems becoming “fiscal hawks” that’s nothing new. The party out of power are ALWAYS “Fiscal hawks.” That is, they always bitch about the amount of $$ the executive is spending (which is funny because only Congress can appropriate funds.)
Dems did it under Bush, too. They bitched about how much the wars were costing and how much the prescription drug plan would cost, etc. But once a Democrat was in the white house, they were strangely silent on the costs of bailouts, Obamacare, etc.
And BTW Republicans did the same thing under Obama and Clinton.
This is something that has been going on as long as I’ve been watching politics which goes back roughly to the Jimmy Carter days. It’s a rule as fixed as the rising of the sun: Whichever party does NOT occupy the white house complains about the deficit, national debt, cost of tax cuts and government programs, etc, and then when that same party gets their guy in the white house, they suddenly forget about the deficit.
Too true. Both sides like to spend money. Every “fix” for a problem is to spend loads more tax money and create major bureaucracy.
it is (darkly) amusing to me that the dems are so full of blatant hypocrisy and BS that when the prez offered a deal WITH EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR, it all the sudden went from being “the principal” to “taking hostages” with DACA.
yet we can fund walls all over the f’ckin world, and our own neighbors to the south want to build a better wall to keep their southern neighbors out. we’re throwing money all over the globe, experiencing one of the best economies in decades, facing being bred out of existence in 50 years, and we can’t afford one? such BS.
I also want to point out that the people seeking “asylum” are demanding what amounts to ransom money to go home, refusing asylee and resident statuses in Mexico, and flat out noting that they know if they get here, Uncle Sugar will take care of them. at what level of intellectual dishonesty do we pretend this isn’t a crisis in the making? 5.7B is nothing, and this whole argument isn’t even the much needed pacific-to-atlantic wall….this is only for 230 miles!
at this point, im only hoping that RBG’s downward spiral, the incessant clown show of dumbasses announcing their candidacy, and the latest gyrations of people to conform to anti-religious and gender neutral standards let us move on to quietly passing the resolution and moving on with life…..until the next shutdown.
My ‘issue’ (in quotes, because I don’t have a strong objection) to the wall funding is not that I think it’ll be ineffective, but that I think it’ll be less effective that other means, like additional CBP staff. To me, the argument is a bit like looking at the issues we had in Afghanistan and a President saying, “If the other party would just give us $6B, we’d send in three B-2s and bomb the ever-loving fuck out of the Taliban! Why don’t they do this? Do they love terrorists?”. It’s not that B-2s wouldn’t help – more ordnance on target is always good – but that amount of money, spent on things like A-10s, MRAPs, cultivating intelligence on HVTs and other things, would be more effective. Right now, the southern border is responsible for less than 1/3rd of all illegal immigrants in the country. And CBP claims they already catch something like 90% of those crossing. So how likely is it the remaining 10% will be caught with a wall? I guess that depends a lot on how they’re getting across now – if it’s just waltzing by, it’ll help. If they’re coming through tunnels, or smuggled in through ports of entry, or coming via ocean, it’ll do jack squat. So I’m not against the wall, and certainly feel quite strongly that secure borders are essential to the country, I just see this as almost homeopathic in its utility. Build the wall, and people who want to get in will adjust. The wall is static and can’t change, but additional personnel can, and the technologies and tools we could apply with parts of that $5.7B would have uses beyond trying to further reduce the 10% of the 33% of illegal immigrants. As an aside, I think it’s utterly ridiculous to shut the government down over this – we’re fighting for better security by reducing security? Unpaid, unhappy Coast Guard personnel and TSA agents aren’t exactly a good thing for the country. And then there’s completely unrelated stuff like the FBI, NASA, the National Weather Service, etc, being shut down… Read more »
Good point. A solid wall from one end to the other certainly looks impressive, but more important than how it looks is how well it will work.
Rep. Will Hurd, who has more border in his district than any other Congressman, has proposed a “smart wall” along the lines of what you mention. Yes, physical barriers make sense in many areas, but not everywhere. More enforcement personnel, more technology, and stronger barriers where they will do the most good, is the better approach in my opinion.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/07/border-security-we-need-smart-wall-will-hurd-column/539618001/
These arguments don’t pass the common sense sniff test. Technology is a supplement to physical security. I can have a camera watching my front door, but it’d need to be monitored 24/7 as well as have someone able to respond to the location when someone comes to the door to prevent entry. Instead I just put a deadbolt on the door.
Same thing with your backyard or garden. Deer eating your flowers? You put up a fence.
If there was some magic technology that could do things like physical security cheaper than a fence, a wall, or other physical structure, then why isn’t every high security facility so secured? Every single military base has a tall fence topped with barbed and/or razor wire. Clearly we need to remove those fences then and put in “smart” fencing.
Smart fencing is something that’s been sold to the American public for a few reasons. First, it lets the politicians save face with their constituents (who overwhelmingly favor secure borders) while actually not solving the problem. Second, it puts loads of money into the pockets of politician-sponsoring contracting businesses. Lastly, it relies on the American belief that we can overcome anything with enough ingenuity and technology.
Best response evah to all the Wall Deniers.
They just come up with excuses to not do anything about undocumented democrats.
If walls don’t work, why do prisons have it?
There’s a few key differences between prisons and the border – for one, access to tools of all kinds is pretty restricted in prisons. Not so much across the border.
But even then, let’s roll with it – according to Google, the Bureau of Justice Statistics said, in 2005, that the ratio of inmates to guards was approximately 4.9:1. Now, if we just use the number of immigrants who try to cross the border (500K), then we need .. about 100K people on the SW border. We’ve got about 19K, so we need 5x as many for that comparison to be fair, and that’s not including people who may help them but don’t cross themselves.
Then there’s the size – now, finding good stats on the square feet per prisoner is tough, since it varies state to state and by single or double cells, but I’ve seen minimums of 37.5 sq ft, and averages of 57 square feet. So each guard is responsible for roughly 184 sq ft (minimum) or 280 sq ft (average).
Now, technically the border extends pretty deep into our territory, but let’s make it easy and just make it a 1900-mile long, and 1-mile wide swath. Well, 1900 square miles divided by 280 square feet … oh, no problem, we’ll only need 190M people to achieve the same density that prisons have. Piece of cake.
That’s why the comparisons to prisons are a bit off.
LC, earlier you said you want more personnel in place of a wall. Then go on to extrapolate that to provide adequate coverage we’d need 190M border guards.
I think you just made the case for the wall. Unless you hire enough border patrol to stand shoulder to shoulder across the border 24 hours a day, the wall is a force multiplier and equalizer.
No, I was just illustrating that comparisons to prisons (and homes) are a bit .. off.
If they’re achieving 80% interdiction rates now (and climbing) with the personnel we have, I think more will help push that higher still. I mean, if you want to fund both, great, but given the choice of a static wall or reactive, unpredictable people, I prefer people. Add better sensor networks in, and I think that’s far better than a wall, along with all of its complications like eminent domain, terrain, erosion, sabotage, etc.
The – Border Patrol- folks want more wall.
Because it makes their job easier.
The attempt to deny the effectiveness of physical barriers has risen to the absurd. They work, 24×7, and cannot be encouraged to look the other way. They deter by mere presence, and divert would be crosses into more difficult crossings and easier capture by Patrol staff.
They work, which is why VIP housing has big-ass fences.
Physical barrier is opposed because it works. Some folks don’t want illegal immigration to stop.
What do folks put up to keep unwanted critters and folks out of their yards, that actually does that?
Build a non-hidden defensive position. Do you use or omit the concertina wire?
C’mon man! You know darn well a fence on the border in the “easy” areas is going to make a big difference. The harder to cross, the fewer get through.
If the President’s proposal was $5.7B where it went for wall sections in strategic sections, coupled with additional personnel and tech, I’d have far fewer problems with it. I just think the notion that wall alone is of more use than people, given a fixed budget, is patently ridiculous. Build a wall in a place, and shockingly people will adapt – the wall section won’t, but personnel can.
And again, the comparisons with critters aren’t valid, as people tend to be a whole lot more clever about getting past barriers.
I do know a wall will make a difference, even if I’m not sure what ‘big’ means in this case. I just think additional patrols and sensors to direct them will result in more caught people than a wall.
If you want to make the argument the wall will dissuade people from even trying, then sure, the wall is better than people migrants can’t even see deeper in our territory. But I think that’s naive. In terms of catching people crossing the border, I think patrols are better than walls.
The Border Patrol more easily catch the reduced number that cross.
Reducing that number requires barriers.
And a whole bunch of Folks on both sides of the political fence supported building those barriers, until Trump made it a campaign issue.
Then, oddly, folks on one side suddenly opposed it.
Oh, and might those barriers redirect would-be illegals to ports of entry, where they can ask for entry legally?
And -that- is why they want no wall. Because they -want- the illegal entries to continue.
CBP’s area of responsibility extends 100 miles inland from the border. After that, ICE has jurisdiction.
Yes, but why do we bother putting up all those physical barriers around prisons, when we could save on all those walls/fences with electronic technology? Personally, I’d be satisfied with the proven technology of minefields. But I guess that wouldn’t be acceptable to LC and his feelz proggy pals.
Yeah, shockingly my and my ‘feelz’ proggy pals are somewhat appalled by applying things banned by the Geneva convention to people simply seeking access to our country. Maybe you’d cheer at the sight of a family of four seeking a better life being blown to pieces, but some of us just aren’t as tough and edgy as you. Thank god.
rgr769, I nominate you for a MENSA membership!!! Such commonsense deserves a 4 day weekend and either a keg of beer or 10 gallons of Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey!
No, LC.
Build the wall and the occasional jumpers will be deterred while the professional ones will be channeled into choke points easier to control.
Nobody is talking about building a wall and go home and watch TV. The wall have to be manned.
For an idea of how a modern wall works, look at the Israeli walls with Gaza and Yesha.
Joe, you are correct. A physical barrier is worthless unless it is protected by some kind of armed response. “An obstacle is worthless unless covered by fire.”
Safes just slow down burglars, but if your safe takes 15 minutes to break in, and your security reponds in 5, well, you’re golden.
eh…..not to split too many hairs here, but there are a number of things wrong with this argument. the devil, as always, is in the details. I work in/death with immigration (illegal and otherwise) near Atlanta. I can assure you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the claim that only 1/3 of illegal immigrants come from the southern border is absurd. I’m not sure exactly who came up with that statistic, but it is ludicrous. if you have 2200 miles of mostly open borders, it’s simply not possible. I don’t hold people in general in that high regard when it comes to the honor system vs strong economies and lax immigration laws. much less the allure of anchor babies and chain migration. two, CBP can claim whatever they want. but CBP is different from both border patrol and ICE. broadly speaking, CBP concerns themselves with ports of entry, border patrol with the parts of the border NOT presided over by a PoE, and ICE the interior. remember also that since those folks are going through a PoE, they are a known quantity, as we capture their biometrics and process admissions at PoEs. USBP would be catching and returning those illegally entering at the border (when they catch them), and ICE does that job on the interior. so with that in mind, CBP can claim whatever they want, but it wouldn’t square up to the numbers that USBP and ICE are dealing with internally. physical barriers work. doesn’t matter if we’re talking about gated communities, prisons and jails, the fence around your house (or those of the politician’s house), playgrounds at mcdonald’s, condoms, the berlin wall, a wall around a FOB or COP, or a nationwide wall/slat barrier/fence. a physical presence just flat out works. “smart” walls make become subject to shutdowns and turn-offs, defunding, or removal. it’s much easier to throw a switch and negate your physical security than it is to uproot and displace a hardened physical structure. having a place where controlled ingress/egress can occur allows for better security, which is the point. three, arrivals via boat/plane/auto… Read more »
I was writing off the top of my head, so let me offer some minor corrections and data sources: I work in/death with immigration (illegal and otherwise) near Atlanta. I can assure you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the claim that only 1/3 of illegal immigrants come from the southern border is absurd. I’m not sure exactly who came up with that statistic, but it is ludicrous. If you look at the various DHS reports [1, 2], you’ll see climbing interdiction rates of approx. 80% in 2016 (not 90%, I was wrong there) – assuming it climbed no higher, and using the 2018 apprehensions (397K), then the 20% ‘fail’ rate comes out to approx. 100K immigrants from the southern border in FY2018. The second link uses different metrics and estimates twice that. Now for visa overstays, DHS has another report [3] which shows that in 2017 the 1.33% rate of visa overstays resulted in 701,900 ‘Suspected In-Country Overstays’. Granted, I’m mixing different years here, but using the 200K successful southern border number -the higher one- and the 700K visa overstays number, that’s a mere 22% of illegal immigrants from the southern border. Now, I’m guessing not all of those visa overstays stay as long, and that’s exactly what the CMS report says, and their numbers [4] show the 2/3rds rate. [1] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0718_PLCY_FY2017-Border-Security-Metrics-Report.pdf [2] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0914_estimates-of-border-security.pdf [3] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_1009_S1_Entry-Exit-Overstay_Report.pdf [4] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/233150241700500214 physical barriers work. doesn’t matter if we’re talking about gated communities, prisons and jails, the fence around your house (or those of the politician’s house), playgrounds at mcdonald’s, condoms, the berlin wall, a wall around a FOB or COP… Yes, physical barriers work.. except for all the times they don’t. The fence around my yard doesn’t stop my neighbor from coming in, basic decency does. If his house and yard are on fire, I’m willing to bet a fence won’t stop him. Jails and prisons are designed to keep people in – people who’ve already been stripped of tools and resources that would make getting over a wall pretty easy. These are all very different scenarios from determined, creative people,… Read more »
Negative, Jim H. CBP covers both Border Patrol and Port operations. They are two divisions under CBP. Port operations are under Office of Field Operations, Border Patrol is under USBP. ICE is a separate entity under DHS.
I am aware, in all details. recall that I was speaking in very broad terms of responsibility, and in regards to the overall immigration dealings they have. regardless of organizational structure, as I have outlined is the general AO for each.
Being born and raised near the border, and having spent most of my adult life working along the border, and currently working along the border, I’ve had a lot of contact and interaction with US Border Patrol agents. I haven’t met one yet who thinks the wall wouldn’t make their job easier. It is not an end-all/be-all, but it is a vital and necessary tool in the proverbial box.
I certainly think it’ll make their job easier (for the most part – ignoring the uptick it may cause in smuggling) too. Again, I don’t think a wall is a bad idea that’s going to somehow make the border less secure or be completely useless, I just think that it won’t be as effective as a combination of additional personnel and tech.
People adapt – immigrants will adapt to the wall. The wall can’t adapt back, but people can.
You’re falling for the fallacy that the wall is the final solution, LC. Like I said, it is not. It won’t replace anything. It’s a necessary component that’s been neglected for far too long. There’s already an assload of USBP agents patrolling the entirety of the border. There’s also assloads of cameras, motion sensors, IR sensors, seismic sensors, etc. There’s also drones giving eye-in-the-sky coverage. Thousand still leak through. Many stretches of the border still have no barrier beyond a three-strand barbed-wire fence that’s so beaten down you could easily walk over it and not even notice. I know this because I’ve seen it, and back when we still crossed the border to deal with fires that threatened to spread north, I walked over it numerous times. These areas are nasty, inhospitable terrain that nevertheless see huge amounts of foot traffic because *there is no physical barrier* to hinder their progress. Border Patrol gets *some* of them. Not most. Some. The sensors pick them up, and by the time an agent on an ATV, horse, or jeep can get to them, they’ve already scattered. Put up the wall, then *monitor and patrol the wall*. The Great Wall of China failed because the Chinese didn’t bother patrolling it and didn’t pay the handful of gate guards worth a shit. Hadrian’s Wall worked because Legionaries patrolled its length in force, and stationed garrisons wherever the terrain caused a weakness. With no easy way to get over/through it without immediately facing heavy armed resistance, the Woads generally stayed on their own goddamn side. The border wall won’t stop illegal traffic, but it will slow it down quite a bit, which in turn will mean fewer leakers that Border Patrol will have to chase into the interior of the country, which means more of those that do leak will be caught. Think of the long game here. If illegally crossing gets harder thanks to the wall and proper enforcement of same, and in the future you get some kind of immigration reform, both of those things will significantly de-incentivize illegal immigration, which to my… Read more »
As I drive about running errands:
Fence around a “u-store-it” place to deter and deduce trespassers.
Fence alongside approach to a busy intersection, to deter and reduce jaywalkers.
Fence along an interstate, to deter and reduce critters and pedestrians.
Agreed, $5.7 billion is just a drop in the bucket. No one comes out of this looking good.
It’s worth remembering that the President could have had *$25 billion* for the wall, had he been willing to agree to a pathway to citizenship for the DACA folks. If the wall is going to make our future immigration issues so much better, providing a hand to those who are already here because they were brought in by their parents could be considered a reasonable tradeoff. But the President wouldn’t go for it. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/19/border-wall-democrats-respond-470687
Trump offered to TRIPLE the number of people with a pathway to citizenship in 2018 in exchange for the border wall and to close the loopholes. Triple the number the Democrats were asking for.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics/white-house-immigration-framework/index.html
Don’t let the truth hit you too hard.
With the caveat that you have to take news stories with a grain of salt, because you never know if they have 100% of the details correct – it sure sounds like what the White House proposed in January 2018 (per the CNN article you linked) is pretty much the same thing as what the Democrats asked for in March 2018 (per the Politico article I linked). Both would provide a path to citizenship for 1.8 million young immigrants. True, the 1.8 million is almost triple the 700K that were covered by DACA when it ended (per the CNN article), but the 1.8 million proposed in January is the same number requested in March.
Over time, there have been many proposals coming from both sides of the fence, and there’s been a fair amount of overlap between some of the proposals. The problem is, the two sides have yet to say “yes” to the same proposal at the same time.
It’s too bad that one side can’t say to the other, “Remember that time you said you’d accept X? And remember that other time that we said we’d accept X, but at that point you’d backed away from it? Why don’t we both just agree on X and get this over with?” It would sure beat the hell out of the stalemate we have now.
Couldn’t agree more. Now why wasn’t your first post so reasoned?
I do remember Jimmy Carter ordering the Coast Guard or someone to shoot at incoming boat people who were refugees from Vietnam. So how come the dumbocrats weren’t hollering about such things back then?
Oh, right – it was “different”.
I think the generally tacky behavior of people like Pelosi with her proposed trips at taxpayers’ expense should have some impact.
Anyone besides me wonder if that bimbo “from” the Bronx can pay her rent next month? Anyone? Bueller?
Hell! Congress NEVER shares in the results of their legislation…unless of course the result is positive.
They are all lying scum.
This is were Veritas Omnia Vincit and I will never seen eye to eye.
“So clearly Democrats were for some form of border security before they were against it, which again leads me to believe this is simply another expression of blatant hypocrisy to score political points against the man who defeated their queen.”
Wrong!
The Drats were always against border security. I don’t understand why you give them the benefit of the doubt. They said those things but never ever tried to act on that, despite having plenty of opportunities to do so. Look at the ammnesty under Pres Reagan. The Drats promised to fund the wall back then, but after they ammnesty was signed, they backed away from their word.
VOV, look, I understand you were raised to believe the truth is always in the middle, that wisdom is in measured response, and that all people are essentially similar in their wants and needs, and communication is the problem. All that is wrong when talking politics and dealing with the Drats. They might see you as an useful idiot at best, but more likely as a deplorable enemy.
What are the Democrats?
1) Might makes right.
2) The end justifies the means
3) Politics is war by other means
For them, control of every aspect of our lives is their real goal, because control is power, and power is what the Drats crave.
Well the Democrats and Clinton did sign off on the 1996 bill.
Since then of course a rather checkered history SJ, I used the term hypocrisy to describe public support for something previously and today lack of said support. Another term speaks to what you describe, they were lying then or they are lying now.
That does take us into other areas of course. For the purpose of this essay I am simply using commentary by Democrats that is public record to point out the disparity. If we had any real journalists left in this country both Pelosi and Schumer would be getting questions that pointed out their previous endorsement of a variety of solutions, with questions that asked what about simply saying no is a negotiating term? You won’t see those questions because it’s in the media’s best interest to mouth their corporate ownership’s position on illegal immigration which is to allow it because it suppresses labor costs throughout the nation.
That’s a different topic, but also one that should be explored at some point.
It is not about the $5.6 billion. The wall will cost nearly $30 billion and hundreds of millions to maintain. It will take years to find and build the wall and it is exceedingly unlikely the next president, regardless of party will have any desire to continue to build or fund it. Congress absolutely will not be willing to fund it. They already are not willing.
The American people overwhelming oppose building the wall by a 2-1 majority. Which is about as much agreement as you could possible muster in this age of partisan division particularly on an issue being presented as a politically decisive issue in the discourse.
Congress by refusing to fund the wall is responding to the will of the majority of Americans who do not want the wall.
It is not simply about the money. Americans do not want the wall.
Not getting the wall is how representative democracy works. The minority supporting the president’s obstruction and holding the government hostage is ridiculous and infantile.
Do a few things, Taylor.
1 – Learn to use punctuation properly.
2 – The estimate is $5.7BB, not $5.6BB.
3 – Find a new hobby, something will keep you busy, like counting sugar cubes to see if you really have a full box.
The $5.7b is not an “estimate” it is just a random number Trump demanded to get for political points. The estimated cost is $25-$30b based on actual contractor proposals and those estimates are widely regarded as too low and only include actual construction costs and not the costs of buying lands and years of legal fights to dislodge property owners and gain access to build the wall.
Blah, blah, blah.
Just a random number? What a FISH story!!!
You used a “random” number when you typed in $5.6 billion, you moron. So it’s OK for YOU to do it, but no one else can, is that it?
Go home. Find something to do with your life, like GET A JOB.
IDIOT!!!!
I guess this means he relented and provided a legit email. That’s too bad. It was nice around here for the weeks he was absent. Oh well. Every town has its village idiot. If not him, then another will come along. He isn’t the first. Joe was another. There was that gay pron writer, too. That was quite a few years ago now.
I remember the days of Insipid and Obama Girl. I don’t miss those days.
Actually that’s not at all what NPR’s poll indicates. As with all polls it’s the questions that matter.
The 69% figure cited in NPR’s poll were answering the following question with one of three options for an answer. “Do you think the border wall is a priority?”
Answer options were:
1) yes immediate priority
2) not an immediate priority
3) shouldn’t be a priority at all
The percentage associated with answer 3 is 50% which isn’t really an overwhelming majority.
The answer to question was 19% which is where the 69% number comes from. Question 2 indicates the wall is actually a priority, just no an immediate priority.
The totals were 1) 28% 2) 19% and 3) 50% you could just as easily add 1 and 2 together and have a headline that read, “Almost half of Americans believe the wall is a priority”
Other polls exist as well, many of them also worded similarly to the one above. I don’t believe there is a poll that asks the question are you overwhelmingly opposed to the wall that was a 2-1 margin of overwhelmingly opposed.
Your data might vary, and you are certainly welcome to share your data.
NPeffingR. Anything more that needs to be said about that source? Or, the source of the above comment by you know who.
Who left the door open and let this dipshit wander back in… He’s a perfect example of why a wall / locks on a door are a good idea!
Nobody cares, Lars. Not because we disagree, but rather because you’re an annoying self-righteous tool who thinks he’s infallible. Fuck off.
“Not getting the wall is how representative democracy works.”
Cool. Good thing we have a Republic.
It gets complicated. My own view is that the illegal immigration issue has multiple factors. While it’s true there’s an “Orange Man Bad” element on the part of Democrats, some other things are involved.
One includes an open borders influence which relates to a progressive push for a one-world government. This amounts, intentionally or otherwise, to an effort to effectively end American sovereignty. In an editorial published in the New York Times last week, Times staff writer Farhad Manjoo, an ethnic South Asian immigrant by way of South Africa, presented the paper’s readers with the rhetorical question “What’s wrong with open borders?”
Something which also seems to have an influence is the perspective of geography. There’s a reasonable argument that Americans in, say, the Northeast don’t have the same view of illegal immigration as those in the Southwest. Part of this is because the distribution of illegals is not uniform. Crimes committed by them, as an example of why this is relevant, also normally receive only local news attention. In a story this week, 19-year-old Wilbur Ernesti Martinez-Guzman, an illegal, is behind bars for robbing and murdering four elderly people in the Reno area. So far, the story has gained traction at a local level, but little at a national one.
Still another factor, call it a dog not barking, is the question of how many political figures, and their financial supporters, could bear the scrutiny of the unlawful hiring of undocumented workers. Would Nancy Pelosi, for example, be willing to guarantee that all those working in her Napa family vineyard are legal residents?
Perry I absolutely agree there are multiple factors associated with this issue. I also believe firmly we have to have some sort of answer for the DACA kids, and I’m open to hearing reasonable solutions.
I’m also cognizant of the fact that our economy often benefits from certain types of immigration, but the larger benefit comes from STEM associated immigration as opposed to manual labor immigration of unskilled and uneducated workers.
I’m more interested in how both sides have dug in on this, and the Democrats limited ability to respond with a solution other than “We won’t give Trump anything” hardly seems reasonable as a long term position. It didn’t work well for Republicans as you can see from the current makeup of the house and only time will tell if the Republicans can hold the senate. They did well this time around but I believe that is largely due to the public’s clear perception that a house and senate divided is a house and senate that can’t do much to hurt them.
If the Democrats want to go into 2020 and be seen as having leadership potential a platform with actual solutions beyond Trump Sucks will be something of a requirement in my opinion.
I think we’re on the same page, VOV. My intent was merely to point out some reasons Democrats have adopted a “We won’t give Trump anything” position.
Another aspect to this is the question of what is likely to be the real congressional Democrat end game. My own view is that Pelosi is after immigration “reform” in the form of a new blanket amnesty. There are a lot of signals for that when you start connecting the dots.
The problem for the Dems is this is the last great campaign promise Trump hasn’t kept. Well the wall and completely eliminating Obamacare, but that argument seems to have been tabled for now.
They cannot give him this or he’ll be able to continue with his “promises made, promises kept” campaign for 2020. They got themselves into a bad spot. They should have let him have it in the lame duck session. At least then they could blame it on the senate and house being Republican.
DACA kidz?
They have been brainwashed by the Drat propaganda machine. Not one of them will vote other than as a full collectivist retard.
Undocumented Democrats are all they are. Giving them citizenship is exactly the same than giving votes to the Drats.
This is suicidal tendencies (not the heavy metal band). Do not give more votes to the sworn enemies of America as founded.
Man. Why is so hard to see this?
It ain’t rocket science.
Spot on VoV, you nailed it, again! Damn you’re good. My sympathies and Thanks to those who are caught up in this crap. Wonder if the congress critters are still getting paid? Is the nanny state still paying out to the “free shit” army? Thought I saw a blurb the other day about ebt cards won’t be reloaded next month. I have a nephew ATC still on the job, without pay, in Sioux City, a God Daughter & her husband AD Coasties in DC, and a friend that’s on duty at TSA. All are saying the same. Build a wall. Agree and concur with most of the comments above, with the exception of LC. (big surprise) No offense but I respectfully strongly disagree. You got a door on your house? Lock on the door? How about a fence around your house? Burglar alarm? Telephone to call 911? Weapons of some sort for home defense? Neighborhood watch? Dog? Any of these are just tools in the tool box to take care of you and yours. If you don’t have most of the things listed then you’re either a dumbass or blind to reality. I have all of the above and I live in a “nice ‘hood. None of these by themselves will protect me and mine, but working together; I have no concerns for my safety. Securing the borders of our land is not high speed, technical, and highly complicated. The primary duty of governments is to insure the safety of everyone. This is like a battle in the war. You bring every weapon to bear. This whole hypocrisy is what is most galling. And not just on the demon cat side. BOTH sides are guilty as home made sin. As pointed out here many a time, this whole amount is pennies in the grand scheme of things. I spent $17 on a pizza with the trimmings the other day. Didn’t think nothing about it. The $17 for my share of the beginnings of a wall is money well spent. I’ve paid more for bigger boondoggles in my nearly 60 years… Read more »
No one has ever answered this question for me, at all, so I will drop it here AGAIN:
During Merkel’s “open borders” thingie, with hundreds of thousands of undocumented “migrants” entering European countries without let or hindrance, the routes they took included the borderlands of various countries that had at one time been part of the former Soviet Union.
These particular countries – Macedonia was one of them – put up channeled fences of thickly-strung concertina razor wire to keep “migrants” from entering.
So why was it okay for THOSE countries to do that, to keep people from entering that they didn’t ask for and didn’t want, anyway, but it isn’t OK for us to control OUR own borders and who does/does not cross them?
Just askin’. I hope that some day, someone will answer that, and don’t give me that whole lame ‘domain’ response.
I think the same people arguing against it here were against it there. Even when they voted to give them our tax money to secure their borders, they were against it.
Obviously they think a barrier of some kind would be effective…otherwise they would not be so dead-set against it. Spending lots of money on things that don’t work, that’s never stopped them for a moment.
You all need to be more like Australia – get a moat!!
Navy and Border Security cruise around and stop the odd boat (and in the last few years this has been “officially” single digits)
That’s it don’t worry about a wall – dig a moat
I’d love to see the Colorado River widened, deepened, and pushed all the way to the coast. Like the Panama Canal.
Now you guys also have the advantage of your waters filled with crocs, electric eels, and sharks. So we need some of all that too.
Maybe we could start breeding chupacabra down here, but that could end up backfiring.
Yep and don’t forget the Irukandji jellyfish and blue ring octopi and if they make it to land just about everything else will try to kill them,
21 of the world’s 25 most deadly snakes, Spiders the size of a dinner plate,
Drop bears (google it)
2m high Cassowaries.
Actually pretty sure we’re safe here,
I’m a wildland firefighter, and most of the jobs are for seasonal federal positions. I’ve been in limbo for weeks because the DoI hiring people are on furlough. I hope the Democrats responsible for this farce love fire because there won’t be enough people to keep their communities from burning down.
Where at, if you don’t mind me asking?
I’m a seasonal so it’s different every year. Last year I was in Idaho, but at any given time during fire season about half of us are at non-local fires.
A decent shot can easily cover 300+ yards away, or a total frontage of about 1/3 mile. 2400 miles = 7200 riflemen, plus a few rolls of concertina or razor wire. So for an occasional maintenance cost to replace wire and four shifts, 29000 men, the border is handled, Don’t cross, you don’t get shot. Don’t make bad decisions.
There is exactly zero chance of “shoot crossers” orders.
Zero.
We, as a society, might tolerate somewhat looser rules of engagement for Border Patrol and LEO dealing with illegal crossers that get violent, as or immediately after crossing, but “shoot on sight” or similar? No chance.
Very effective, but no. We’re better than that.