Patterico's Pontifications

1/10/2019

Trump: If There’s a Concrete Wall in Front of You, Just Go Over It

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:36 am



Not President Trump, but Donald Trump addressing a bunch of college students 14 years ago:

If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through it, go over it, go around it. But get to the other side of that wall.

Off tape, he is reported* to have said: “If there are steel slats in front of you, saw through them”:

President Donald Trump has repeatedly advocated for a steel slat design for his border wall, which he described as “absolutely critical to border security” in his Oval Office address to the nation Tuesday. But Department of Homeland Security testing of a steel slat prototype proved it could be cut through with a saw, according to a report by DHS.

A photo exclusively obtained by NBC News shows the results of the test after military and Border Patrol personnel were instructed to attempt to destroy the barriers with common tools.

Physical barriers are important. “A wall” across the entire southern border cannot possibly happen but is not necessary; some physical barriers are. Calling what barriers are necessary “a wall” whips up partisans on both sides but is probably a needed simplification for inattentive voters. But a “wall” is not everything, and as the NBC News story shows, it is foolish to expect “it” to do too much. Border security is a multi-faceted problem that demands various responses, not just one.

Democrats aren’t interested in any of that. Increasingly, they appear to be in favor of a policy of purely open borders. The pittance that Trump is now demanding, $5 billion, is far less than he could have gotten if he had timed this fight for when Republicans controlled the House — and it’s not enough for “the wall,” which would cost more like $25 billion. But Democrats don’t want to give Trump even one extra dollar for border security. They take this position for two reasons: spite, and because Trump’s incredible political incompetence makes it possible. Remember?

I’ll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it.

So now this is on him, which makes it easier for Democrats to dig in. And they have the added benefit that Trump, by his own rhetoric, shouldn’t need Congress to appropriate money, because remember? Mexico was going to pay for it. By the way, Trump is slowly backing away from that promise too:

Oh, OK. Was it going to be a credit card, or what?

This is the right fight, but at the wrong time, conducted in the wrong way. And it’s not the only fight.

Again I ask: why didn’t we have this fight when Republicans controlled the House? And I submit it’s the same reason that Republicans did not repeal ObamaCare. They want the issue more than they want results.

“We have the issue.” You see? Oh, you wanted results? Well, those will have to wait until we have 60 Republicans in the Senate — well, actually more like 65, since there will always be a couple of Murkowskis in the mix. You’ll get your results then.** But until then, give us money, because we have the issue.

Same as it ever was.

*Not actually.

**To be clear, “then” means “never.”

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

173 Responses to “Trump: If There’s a Concrete Wall in Front of You, Just Go Over It”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. slats or wall – whatever

    dirty Mitt Romney’s chamber-slick rent boy Paul Ryan didn’t want either

    and that’s exactly what we got

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. Those are not steel slats. They’re square tubing like you find every six or eight feet on a wrought iron fence that looked to be filled with some kind of cheap concrete mix.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. looked

    nk (dbc370)

  5. the sleazy military probably replaced the steel slats with this stuff cause their billion-dollar slat-cutter broke when they tried it on the real ones

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. Because they don’t want to do anything, that’s how you got your burning dumpsterfire of a state, increasingly you dont want to do anything either, what wrong with a one party state after all.

    Narciso (0b1c92)

  7. If they were solid steel, 30 feet high, you’d need to embed them in concrete, reinforced with rebar, 10 feet deep and 4 feet wide. An underground wall. Cause they’d weigh around 25 lbs per foot which comes out to 1,000 lbs, that’s half a ton, per slat.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. Having sniped at this president from day one, now we’re all about results?

    “Same as it ever was”. Indeed.

    If only the Bain Capital wing of the party would rise up and take back their country by the grass roots.

    Munroe (aa84d6)

  9. The Democrats have no incentive to come to the table, and that was true whether or not Republicans controlled the House. And this is not surprising: after all, why would they have such an incentive? The border is effectively open and new Democrats cross it legally and illegally every day. The replacement program is working well, as we saw from November’s elections in CA, AZ, and TX. Why would they want to stop that? Does a five year old want to stop eating ice cream?

    bates (dddb3b)

  10. Having sniped at this president from day one, now we’re all about results?

    Duh! What else we want his orange ass in the Oval Office for?

    nk (dbc370)

  11. the diseased head lice caravan in san diego was stopped by a much less fortified barrier than this one even

    the head lice suck a lot of the essential juices out, and this makes it difficult for them to use tools and attend to personal hygiene

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  12. “Duh! What else we want his orange ass in the Oval Office for?”
    nk (dbc370) — 1/10/2019 @ 8:25 am

    To exude character, and to inspire— Jonah and Mitt said so. And, nothing should inspire us more, in a Mitt sort of way, than giving federal workers the Bain Capital treatment. The wall is secondary. Trump is exuding such Mitt level character right now.

    Munroe (d1b3f0)

  13. The border is effectively open

    False.

    Dave (1bb933)

  14. As has been said a million times or more, Trump is prone to say almost anything.

    Let’s build a Wall of Bullschiff, there’s enough cheap supply from all corners.

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  15. Electrify that fence and build a 20ft wide ditch that runs alongside filled with rattlesnakes, Gila monsters, and such.

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  16. What was the context of that snippet, 4/1 it was metaphorical.

    Narciso (0b1c92)

  17. Launch a counter-invasion of 250,000 young, attractive blondes named Debbie. Teh Mexican men stay in Mexico. Problem solved.

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  18. Everyone gets through the fence more and more
    It’s much easier to get through
    Than waiting in line
    Nobody’ll get through the wall anymore
    It’s as high as a mountain
    And harder to climb

    Oh you and me Donald
    Got a lot of aliens to repel
    And they flow through the fence
    And they’re flowing so much more
    When they’re in, they’ll vote Democrat forever
    Everything that’s white America will die
    Oh wall, you’re such a beautiful thing
    Oh you make my world a summer day
    Are you just a dream to fade away?

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Is that a young Donnie Deutschbag in the foreground of that screenshot!?!?

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  20. Was there actually any underlying point to this post or a proposed way forward that benefited the country, because all I saw was a bunch of unfocused complaining mixed with sub-90 IQ liberal agitprop, like you were just checking some boxes on a form someone else drew up for you rather than speaking from either the heart or personal experience.

    I think the counsel is just stalling for time while ignoring actual outrages:

    “@bennyjohnson

    CNN’s Ana Navarro sighs, rolls her eyes & ***files her nails*** as guest describes innocent Americans murdered by illegal aliens.

    This is the perfect depiction of how establishment liberals have approached this heart wrenching American crisis: insulting disinterest”

    Maybe Ana Navarro is Pat’s…’spirit animal’ is what I think the kids are calling it these days?

    Father Jerry (084a78)

  21. Patterico, we had this fight start at the beginning of last year, when the admin asked for 25 billion in exchange for DACA/Dreamer legalization. Chuck and Nancy threw that back in his face. The rest of the Republican CoC squishes led by Ryan didn’t want to make the border a big issue to disrupt their planned message at the midterms. How’d that work out for them?

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  22. Come on now Navarro has been steering McCain huntsman and Jeb’s campaign,

    Narciso (0b1c92)

  23. I agree with the post that border security is a complicated problem. The talking point that any one solution isn’t going to address the whole problem is a silly objection to adding some physical barriers where we can and should. This issue is, like many, a great example of not working together despite some common sense common ground. We all say the other partisan side wants crazy stuff, but if you put the crazy aside, we all want to prevent bad guys, want to show the world that we do indeed enforce our laws and borders, and we do want to provide opportunities to hard working, good people, who will follow our laws.

    Sure, there are people who want to exclude everyone, period, and there are people who want open borders and the votes of illegal immigrants, but when we focus on nutty stuff everyone polarizes.

    There is a real opportunity for the president on this issue. It resonates with people whose loved ones immigrated here. It resonates with people who can’t get a job. And it’s actually a simple issue once you get down to it.

    Dustin (c54c6d)

  24. How can you SAY this about the steel-trap mind of Donald Trump. We’re so lucky not to have an airhead like Ted Cruz in the job!

    /whollyunnecessarysarctag

    Kevin M (cb624b)

  25. “We all say the other partisan side wants crazy stuff, but if you put the crazy aside, we all want to prevent bad guys, want to show the world that we do indeed enforce our laws and borders, and we do want to provide opportunities to hard working, good people, who will follow our laws.”

    A pretty speech, but uuuhhh…no we don’t. The liberals and their billionairs are perfectly happy governing a broken people and broken society if it enriches them personally, especially if they’re buying homes and households in other countries free from the consequences of their own decisions.

    Liberals and “moderate Republicans” (may as well call them “American Oligarchs”) DO NOT want what you say they want, or at least not more than what they really want, and every action they take reinforces that thesis.

    The liberals want cheap votes, the American Oligarchs want cheap labor, and preventing criminals, showing national strength, and providing opportunities to hard-working people are at best much lower on the priority list and at worst seen as detrimental to these ends (proud, patriotic, conscientious, and financially stable people tend to be much more likely raise harsh objections to tolerating widespread illegality for personal profit than imported helots with little to no connection to their native land.)

    Father Jerry (61a840)

  26. “Democrats don’t want to give Trump even one extra dollar for border security”

    That’s a lie. They have offered money for border security, but not for “the wall”.

    Blk (9776f7)

  27. A pretty speech, but uuuhhh…no we don’t. The liberals and their billionairs are perfectly happy governing a broken people and broken society if it enriches them personally, especially if they’re buying homes and households in other countries free from the consequences of their own decisions.

    Liberals and “moderate Republicans” (may as well call them “American Oligarchs”) DO NOT want what you say they want, or at least not more than what they really want, and every action they take reinforces that thesis.

    The liberals want cheap votes, the American Oligarchs want cheap labor, and preventing criminals, showing national strength, and providing opportunities to hard-working people are at best much lower on the priority list and at worst seen as detrimental to these ends (proud, patriotic, conscientious, and financially stable people tend to be much more likely raise harsh objections to tolerating widespread illegality for personal profit than imported helots with little to no connection to their native land.)

    Father Jerry (61a840) — 1/10/2019 @ 10:10 am

    This is a great example of the problem I am talking about. You’re not speaking for yourself. You’re describing your opposition. And as usual these days, the description is of something purely evil and horrible. Moderate republicans are opposed to financially stable people? Hahahahahahahahaha! You really think Mitt Romney wants a “broken society”? I’ve criticized Romney for years, and I realize he’s not actually an evil man.

    And the fringe on the other side would describe you as something evil and horrible too. And you would both interpret each other’s nastiness and bad faith as proof, and go on and on this way.

    Frankly, time to stop paying attention to anyone who cannot engage opposing arguments in good faith. Jerry, can you give a good faith paraphrase of the argument for immigration? Maybe read a few articles from the other point of view, and explain what they actually say to each other to persuade people to their side? Trust me, they aren’t saying “We would be happier governing broken people, and conscientious people are detrimental to imported helots.”

    I’d ask Dave to do the same thing. Instead of saying something inflammatory, try to start with a paraphrase of the other side’s point of view. Why do Trump’s supporters want this wall? There are some good reasons, and actually, a lot of the reasons on both sides of this thing are compatible with each other.

    Jerry, a further challenge, sir: You listed “proud, patriotic, conscientious, financially stable.” Let’s add law-abiding to that list. Do you support someone from Mexico immigrating to the USA if they satisfy your list of good qualities, and they seek to work. Let’s have a hypothetical where we could magically ensure that no bad guys got in, and we could import such great people. Would you?

    Dustin (6d7686)

  28. #9 The Democrats have no incentive to come to the table, and that was true whether or not Republicans controlled the House. And this is not surprising: after all, why would they have such an incentive? The border is effectively open and new Democrats cross it legally and illegally every day. The replacement program is working well, as we saw from November’s elections in CA, AZ, and TX. Why would they want to stop that? Does a five year old want to stop eating ice cream?

    bates (dddb3b) — 1/10/2019 @ 8:24 am

    They *do* have incentives… that is passing laws they’d want.

    Right now, they’re not passing anything.

    That’s kinda a big deal as if this shutdown goes on for months, that’ll eat into their 2 yr cycle.

    whembly (b9d411)

  29. It’s important to describe the interests who have blocked any such reforms for 32 years the names Steyer singer Bloomberg omidyar, it doesn’t matter our particular sentiment, in the first instance, financed fusion GPS probably against both Cruz and trump.

    Narciso (0b1c92)

  30. this is a wonderful government shutdown, and the longer it goes on the more people will come to appreciate it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  31. Does any nation on earth have the right to determine who is allowed in their nation? To restrict access through their borders? To define their borders?

    NJRob (91c758)

  32. this isn’t about having the right to restrict access

    this is about having the right to weaponize illegal immigrants and use them as tools to destabilize and impoverish America

    Paul Ryan says yes yes let’s use these diseased illegal immigrants like bioterror weapons and have them destroy America from within

    But other people say not so fast – let’s think this through

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  33. That’s a lie. They have offered money for border security, but not for “the wall”.

    “Border security” meaning advanced catch and release. The wall is about frustration with a 3-decade old game of 3-card monte. All the nuanced legal schemes and hi-tech surveillance have utterly failed to accomplish the goal: reducing illegal entries to a minimum. The last few years have seen all sorts of gaming of the process, where people come in, “surrender”, and are then let go on their own recognizance never to be seen again.

    THe “wall” is a statement that says “ENOUGH!”. Yes, it’s bloody-minded and simplistic. This is what you get when you play games with the truth for decades. People opt for something tangible.

    Pelosi et al don’t want this because it casts the issue in stone. The wall might not solve everything, but in constructing it the government will have chosen a side.

    To see the true colors of the Democrat Party, see California and New York, where they are now taxing citizens to feed, house and provide services to people the KNOW are here illegally.

    The Democrats saying they are for border security is laughable. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Kevin M (cb624b)

  34. @ Dustin – Democrats have been campaigning and governing by currying favor with ethnic special interest groups since the 70’s. They have been much more explicit in the promises and attacks they use against Republicans since Obama was elected. There is a good faith argument for legal immigration; but there are so many loopholes in it and the way Democrats use to protect illegals and create pressure to legalize them so they can vote for Democrats. Moderate Republicans like yourself are whistling past the demographic graveyard by thinking the Establishment smart set can convince more Hispanic/Latinos to vote Republican. It’s the same people who thought Jeb! was such a knockout candidate.

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  35. Let’s have a hypothetical where we could magically ensure that no bad guys got in, and we could import such great people. Would you?

    Well, of course. The issue for most of us non-racists is that the border needs to be controlled or we will have vast shanty-towns of refugees combing through our garbage. The immigration law also needs to be changed to allow young workers to enter instead of the non-working dependents it now favors. It also needs to give larger quotas to Mexico and Central America.

    But that does not mean that the border should be thrown open, or that states can actively thwart federal law. I’d like to see a couple governors arrested and tried for insurrection, but that’s probably not in the cards.

    Kevin M (cb624b)

  36. So how many more people do we need from Mexico 30% of the population, 40%

    Narciso (0b1c92)

  37. If you play your cards right, maybe Cuban instant statehood is in the cards, and we’ll let you go full Rebenga on whomever you deem unworthy from the Castro regime.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  38. Attention Democrats: 1) Open borders; or 2) Welfare state. Choose one.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  39. I dont see that as a viable possibility

    Narciso (0b1c92)

  40. @ Kevin – that’s a feature, not a bug for the progressive left; combined with no voter identification laws in those states. These schmucks think Tammany Hall is a positive blueprint for governance.

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  41. 7, well to be fair an underground wall is the better bet for stopping drugs as in blocking tunnels. And the Cajun Navy, Forrest Gump and Lt. Dan better get used to working 25/8/366.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  42. my bad– if its /8 days a week, it then becomes 417 days a year,

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  43. There is a good faith argument for legal immigration

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec) — 1/10/2019 @ 11:05 am

    Could you please explain what that argument is?

    I’m not a ‘moderate Republican’ just because I ask people to be honest when describing someone’s point of view. My criticisms of Trump are numerous and easy to read for yourself. I thought he would spend way too much money, and govern without ethics or accountability. I’ve never asked for Trump to be more ‘moderate.’ Being honest about those you disagree with has nothing to do with being in the squishy middle, and dismissing dishonest fringe arguments has nothing to do with avoiding decisive policies.

    Well, of course. The issue for most of us non-racists is that the border needs to be controlled or we will have vast shanty-towns of refugees combing through our garbage. The immigration law also needs to be changed to allow young workers to enter instead of the non-working dependents it now favors. It also needs to give larger quotas to Mexico and Central America.

    But that does not mean that the border should be thrown open, or that states can actively thwart federal law. I’d like to see a couple governors arrested and tried for insurrection, but that’s probably not in the cards.

    Kevin M (cb624b) — 1/10/2019 @ 11:08 am

    This is exactly right. It seems so obvious. First things first, whatever the law is, we should follow it. If we need to change the law, change the law to do so. Those who are completely ignoring the law, because they don’t like it, are doing something fundamentally wrong to our democratic processes. In fact, these guys are one of the biggest reasons Trump won office. If you respect the law, then changes to the law are much more meaningful. If you ignore the law, people will get very frustrated.

    I think a physical barrier is a necessary component to the immigration issue, but just having the willpower to enforce the law is an even more crucial step. I’m not saying avoid one if we don’t get the other. But we do need both.

    It seems a very clear reform that all immigrants should not be eligible for welfare benefits for several years (defined broadly). I think they should all work and speak English. I think they should be expelled as soon as they break the law. And as you’re already suggesting, we should reduce benefits programs in the first place. I also think birthright citizenship needs to be rescinded, and citizenship should be inherited from parents at birth.

    If someone aspires to be an American because they want to chase a dream of a great career, that’s a good thing. But also, it’s a very serious problem for our neighbors to use the USA as a relief valve for all the corruption and misery in their lands. It blows my mind that Mexico remains a corrupt society so close to the USA, and really I think that’s the core issue of much of the immigration debate. What are we supposed to, able to, going to do about Mexico’s police model, drug cartels, and government corruption? Ideally, people in Mexico could be safe, build businesses, add jobs, and not be so desperate they are willing to be a hidden underclass in the USA, cheated at every turn.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  44. It is always a struggle for me, but one thing I know to be true is that if we are thinking of the political opposition – our fellow Americans – as “those people”, we are doing it wrong.

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  45. what President Trump meant was if there’s a concrete wall in front of you it means you should turn around and return to your village and buy a lice comb

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  46. “Democrats have been campaigning and governing by currying favor with ethnic special interest groups since the 70’s”

    So have the Republicans, but it’s just one ethnic group.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  47. “Good Faith Avenue” is a two-way street.

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  48. They promised to make them more “Kennedyesque”… https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwkGznFXQAAsxE4.jpg

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  49. But the real question is, does RFO go on the other side to save money (and risk things) or does he spend wifey’s money to fly into a dentist in Las Colinas, The Woodlands or Westlake? Worse is if some Customs guy had to cancel because of “financial uncertainty” and he jumped into the open slot.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  50. @ DaveThulhu – because being white and pasty is sooooo passe in the “right” circles, right? I mean, how so un-intersectional.

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  51. Oh, although its short a syllable, could you make a version of Electric Avenue using Good Faith Avenue as a subsitute?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  52. 27:
    “That’s a lie. They have offered money for border security, but not for “the wall”.

    Like Democrats have offered money “for the military-but not for the Abrams tank, the B-1, B-2, or the F-22–not those!”

    Or like they “respect the troops,” –not sure which ones, but not the ones that fight and want support and stuff.”

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (5e0a82)

  53. 34:

    Yes. The wall is a symptom of broken trust.

    The demand for Three Strikes laws also followed decades of seemingly endless street crime, all too often from five-time felons “on parole,” or even on weekend furloughs granted by a kindly governor.

    The people, who had trusted the government, finally realized that “Ramsey Clark” judges regarded law abiding citizens as no different than felons–as a petri dish for their penal experiments.

    The demand for the Wall means they don’t believe the democrats, and are not thrilled with the GOP either.

    Same thing with demands for caps on property taxes–the people didn’t trust government to act sensibly any more.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (5e0a82)

  54. Our president’s strategy with the wall and other issues (immigration, the middle east, the deficit, trade policy, etc.) is identical to his tactics. He will always try to win the daily news cycle. This simplifies things as he has no use for history (whatever it was that he said yesterday) and it has the advantage that the free press will do whatever is necessary to ensure that his strategy is successful.

    It’s not about the wall. It’s not about immigration. It’s not about defence. It’s not about regugees. It’s not about any so-called caravan. It’s not about drugs. It’s not about MS-13. It’s not about white supremacy. It’s about him.

    John B Boddie (73e5f3)

  55. democrats waiting for 2020. they have already contacted 500,000 felons in florida asking them if they would like to register to vote. they are trying to contact 500,000 more. most of them are minorities who will vote democrat.

    lany (8432b7)

  56. Anything can be cut through. It’s just a matter of how long it takes. I notice there was no indication of the time it took to cut. However, just because a thief could eventually cut through your front door is no reason not to lock it.

    DarrenM (a4eb00)

  57. Look! On the TeeVee! It’s a threat! It’s a crisis! It’s Mexicans! Yes, it’s Mexicans– strange visitors from another country with powers and abilities far beyond those of congress-men. Mexicans; who can cross currents of mighty rivers; bust steel with their bare hands– and who, disguised as Lawn Gardeners, mild-mannered greenskeepers at a great billionaire’s golf-courses, fight a never-ending battle for food, shelter and the American way!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  58. Donald Trump addressing a bunch of college students 14 years ago:

    If There’s a Concrete Wall in Front of You, Just Go Over It

    Trump is interested in consistency, but only from the middle of 2015 forward.

    Also, of course, that was a metaphorical wall, but the one he’s talking about now is physical.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  59. People don’t realize that the reason Democrats supported a wall in 2006, as part of an immigration compromise is because it wouldn’t work do the job, and that’s part of the reason the compromise of amnesty in exchange for a wall failed. The restrictionist lobby opposed it

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  60. I think Trump is going to sign hisemergency declaration but that willl not end the standoff

    He’ll demand otehr changes in law, and an apprpriation to render moot a lawsuit.

    But some more parts of the federal governments might be funded.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  61. “because being white and pasty is sooooo passe in the “right” circles, right? I mean, how so un-intersectional.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

    and more recently

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/424688-steve-king-asks-how-terms-white-nationalist-and-white-supremacist-became

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  62. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that Trump is delusional when he says he has support from federal workers.

    I don’t think he’s delusional at all (although he may know it’scoming from a certain subset of federal workers, but I think these telephone calls have really taken place.

    He’s being bysome people on his staff of course,

    These could be members of the Border Patrol union, or collected by serachinbg facebook for someone who strongl;y supports Trump and is alsoa federal employee, or even possibly actors maybe hired with money from Russia.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  63. Trump is being MISLED by staff I mean

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  64. I’d ask Dave to do the same thing. Instead of saying something inflammatory, try to start with a paraphrase of the other side’s point of view. Why do Trump’s supporters want this wall?

    They say they want it because they believe it will significantly reduce illegal immigration.

    Although few will admit it, I believe for many the wall is more important as a symbol than a functioning barrier.

    Dave (1bf329)

  65. The steel fence is a joke any junkie with a cutting torch will cut a hole in it and drive a caravan through.

    mg (8cbc69)

  66. To me the wall symbolizes a barrier to invasion and also a formidable obstacle to invasion.

    It’s a shared symbol behind which we can all huddle together, as Americans, and not get invaders all up in our little country.

    Symbolically, the wall represents an invisible line demarcating the shared border of United States and Mexico, an invisible line that all can look upon with either approval or, in some cases, disapproval.

    What does the wall symbolize to you?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  67. They say they want it because they believe it will significantly reduce illegal immigration.

    Although few will admit it, I believe for many the wall is more important as a symbol than a functioning barrier.

    Dave (1bf329) — 1/10/2019 @ 1:39 pm

    In other words, you assume they are liars, ashamed of their view that a physical barrier is a symbol of a change of attitude of the federal government about enforcing the laws on the books. That’s insightful, but also uncharitable. Of course fences, walls, and bright red lines are symbolic. There’s really nothing wrong with that, and I don’t think it shows the wall to be a bad idea.

    If you read the “Jury talks back” you’ll see that DRJ points out she lives near the border where there is no physical barrier, and this harms the safety in her area. She also points out that there are walls on the border in (parts of?) California. It makes sense that over time caravans and bad guys would take the path of least resistance. To me, this is a powerful argument for the value of these physical barriers. It establishes more control over the border. It gives enforcement an advantage. The USA has thousands of miles of coast, and tons of tourism, so there’s no way to eliminate the issue, but there’s a pretty simple way to improve security where DRJ lives. Would this be more powerful than Kevin’s approach to dependency on benefits? I doubt it, but fortunately the two approaches aren’t mutually exclusive.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  68. Some dude said good fences make good neighbors

    mg (8cbc69)

  69. CBS has Flake News

    mg (8cbc69)

  70. it’s an actual physical barrier, the metaphorical ones have failed:

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/10/mueller-protege

    narciso (d1f714)

  71. Selective barriers are reasonably included as part of any immigration solution….so more fencing would seem to qualify. If not, why not? However, it seems that the notion of a big beautiful wall has more rhetorical significance….and is somehow more satisfying than calls for more border/ICE agents, more drones, better e-verify, an expanded guest worker problem, or more fencing.

    Politically we are divided….the Left hates Trump probably even more than the Right hated Obama. They won the midterms and feel…despite meaningful improvements in the economy….that the President’s tweets, tone, and actions have alienated suburban voters such that he is in a weakened position for 2020. Why exactly would they give Trump a win when they don’t have to? Yes, they can get DACA for the wall…but DACA works in their political favor already….they figure they will get it in 2020 and not have to give up anything.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  72. au contraire, criticism of Obama, was deemed crimethink, as for these suburban voters well all aboard the scorpions,

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/01/does-the-president-have-the-legal-authority-to-declare-a-crisis-and-build-a-border-wall/

    narciso (d1f714)

  73. At some point it is going to dawn on people living in places like Los Angeles that EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM their communities have could be reduced or eliminated if the illegals went home.

    Traffic? High Rents? Too few resources? Utility prices? Taxes? Unemployment?

    All of this is exacerbated by too many new people too fast. It’s amazing how deep the denial is; they issue over a million drivers’ licenses to illegals in SoCal and wonder why the sudden jump in traffic and the sudden drop in bus ridership. Some day they may wake up.

    Kevin M (cb624b)

  74. “To see the true colors of the Democrat Party, see California and New York, where they are now taxing citizens to feed, house and provide services to people the KNOW are here illegally.”

    Sounds certifiably INSANE but it’s true. And the sons of biscuits brag and virtue signal about it.

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  75. In other words, you assume they are liars, ashamed of their view that a physical barrier is a symbol of a change of attitude of the federal government about enforcing the laws on the books. That’s insightful, but also uncharitable. Of course fences, walls, and bright red lines are symbolic. There’s really nothing wrong with that, and I don’t think it shows the wall to be a bad idea.

    You asked why they want it, not why they say they want it.

    That President Trump lies practically every time he opens his mouth is something no honest person can seriously deny. His entire presidency is an edifice of lies built on other lies. His supporters repeat him when they know, or should know, that what he says is untrue. What does that make them if not liars? This seduction of once-moral conservatives in a Faustian bargain is Trump’s worst crime.

    Dave (2a1c05)

  76. He sure pisses lefties off. That’s a fact.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  77. There was never going to be a Wall. Trump lied. It’s that simple.
    This shutdown theater is so that he can lie that he tried.
    Like a guy who was almost certainly buggered by Roy Cohn is going to stand up to Nancy Pelosi. Riiight.
    The fact is that on immigration Trump is a complete and utter loser.
    The Democrats have been kicking his wrinkled old butt up all over DC.
    There will be no Wall.
    There will still be DACA.
    There will still be chain migration.
    There will still be a million illegals sneaking into the United States every year.
    Because Trump is a lying, ineffectual pansy-ass.

    nk (dbc370)

  78. Well it’s easy when the Republicans dont even pretend to be on the field, like Alabama was the other day, when Steyer and omidyar and the chamber of commerce own much of the media.

    Narciso (270478)

  79. There’s really nothing wrong with that, and I don’t think it shows the wall to be a bad idea.

    True enough, if you don’t care about actually doing anything about illegal immigration and have $50B+ to burn…

    Dave (2a1c05)

  80. Chinese steel and it inferiority.

    And speaking of liars: Schumer, Obama, Clinton et.al. voted and allocated for >5x the amount Trump wants now for 700 miles of fence.

    And speaking of liars: Obama and Bush wasted 6 BILLION dollars on ‘virtual fencing’ that failed spectacularly.

    And speaking of liars: The Dems sent/spent $500 MILLION to Jordan for a border wall

    and finally the US government spent >$6 BILLION on WALLS as noise barriers in the USA. Evidently, noise trumps crime.

    Democrats have publicly stated and campaigned on their opposition to illegal immigration in the past, the need and their desire to control it and, indeed, have voted to fund hundreds of miles of barrier with many times the amount being requested now. Those words and those votes are public record. The question then becomes, what has changed? Why the concern then and the animus toward the concern now? There is never an answer to that question and I believe that until such an answer is put forward I have to stand in favor of the barrier and the consistent, continuing need for one. The statistics from when the Democrats wanted a barrier to today when we NEED one have only gotten worse. The costs to our nation in supporting illegal immigrants monetarily is dwarfed by the human cost of injured and dead Americans by the hands of illegal immigrants and those poor folks harmed/killed in the process of illegally trying to enter our country. Allowing those crimes, injuries and deaths is what is immoral.

    Frankly, I find the smugness and recalcitrance of the public faces of the Democrat party, Minority leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi off-putting and dishonest. They refuse to address those breaking our laws as illegal immigrants and instead lump them in with legal immigrants. That is not only false, it’s insulting. They never seem to address or refute the facts put forward that the American people long to hear. Can they? Simply claiming a fact is not a fact is not a rebuttal. They never give their reasons for not cooperating that the American people long to hear and we are left with the ugly feeling they consider us stupid and that yes, it is less about protecting us, our safety and our sovereignty and more about simple, ugly obstruction.

    I would love a response as to why the Democrats refuse to negotiate in good faith, why the Democrats are now adamantly against what they were previously vociferously for. I sincerely hope there is a good, cogent answer as opposed to the nonsense the Democrat leaders and the media, who all claim they are the adults in the room have been saying. Perhaps it’s time prove they are the adults, to behave and negotiate as if they are. If they can. Which i sincerely doubt.

    CK beapolite@yah (63970b)

  81. A wall and border security or illegal immigration reduction are not the same thing. A wall is pretty much an entirely impractical waste of my money that is never going to get completed and, IMO, is basically show-boating by Trump. If we wanted to actually do something to fix our current situation, we’d put a lot more teeth in laws about hiring undocumented people and we’d staff the courts and bureaucracy to the point that people could actually get seen and kicked back across the border in their 20 days or less so we don’t have to worry about what to do with the kids.

    Nic (896fdf)

  82. I would love a response as to why the Democrats refuse to negotiate in good faith

    when you have the dirty CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda bimbos covering for you the whole idea of good faith goes out the window

    it’s just not a factor

    this is why the dirty CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda bimbos are aptly described as “the enemy of the people”

    because they degrade our democratic institutions with their lies and corruption

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  83. 85… there you are… building a bigger beast. BS.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  84. speaking of bimbos did you see that nasty hooker chick Jeff Bezos humiliated his entire family with for a little scrumpy scrumpy at the motel 6

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  85. I say build a fence around let’s say UCSD and/or UCI, catch all those illegally crossing the southern border, transport them to those campuses and turn them loose. Make those entities responsibile for the care and feeding of all of them.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  86. About sawing through a wall – the question would be how long does it take, and would the gap be notice or not, and repaired or not?

    The biggest proponents of a wall (National Review) who attempt to sound more reasonable, complaining that Trump should argue without saying things that are wrong or exaggerated

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/make-the-argument-for-the-wall-and-stick-to-the-facts/

    quote testimony that a mile of wall saves the salaries of 3 border patrolmen.

    Well….

    One mile of wall costs… ??

    20 years of salary for Border Patrolmen costs??

    NR is most interested in the principle. They don;’t like Nancy Pelosi’s statemnebnt that the wall is immoral. There is no question that it is. The question is, is it a PROFITABLE wrong?

    EW

    Even if it is, there’s no argument for consistent and even enforcement. It’s more practical not to do it.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  87. “This seduction of once-moral conservatives in a Faustian bargain is Trump’s worst crime.”
    Dave (2a1c05) — 1/10/2019 @ 5:01 pm

    Trump-Mephistopheles collusion. I hope Mueller is on it.

    Munroe (589f00)

  88. i would bet border patrol flunkies are just like all those other dirty uniformed sleazebags on the public teat what retire at 50, usually with bonus “disability” payments slathered on top

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  89. And you have severe staple injuries right pikachu,

    Narciso (270478)

  90. I say build a fence around let’s say UCSD and/or UCI, catch all those illegally crossing the southern border, transport them to those campuses and turn them loose.

    Malibu. No fence necessary, just a promise that ICE will not touch them inside the city limits.

    nk (dbc370)

  91. And speaking of liars: Obama and Bush wasted 6 BILLION dollars on ‘virtual fencing’ that failed spectacularly.

    Completely false. Illegal immigration has fallen spectacularly over the last decade.

    According to the Trump Administration’s DHS report issued in May 2018, estimated southwest border undetected unlawful entries have fallen from 900,000 per year in 2006 to less than 100,000 per year in 2016.

    Estimated successful unlawful entries have fallen by almost a factor of 10.

    The “crisis” is pure propaganda. The facts from Trump’s own DHS show the exact opposite. The real crisis was a decade ago, and it was essentially solved by the Bush and Obama administrations and all that “wasted” money.

    Dave (1bb933)

  92. @87 if you are going to do something, do it right. Hire enough people to get the job done, don’t half-butt the thing and leave it worse than when you started.

    Nic (896fdf)

  93. i power through

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  94. “The buck stops with everybody.”- President Donald J. Trump, 1/10/19.

    Love this guy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  95. The housing bust did it with concurrent NAFTA fueled industrial asset transfer from north to south. That said it has ratched up to 450k in cy17 and 600+k in cy 18 (est.). By nk type of metrics the Bad Orange Man has failed.

    But whew, is NR trying to thread a needle – more wall/less border patrolmen is a point also brought up by Mickey Kaus and the late Charles Krauthammer. Maybe Adam Sandler needs to find the Jewish BP and cut a ditty.

    urbanleftbehind (fd650f)

  96. “The “crisis” is pure propaganda. The facts from Trump’s own DHS show the exact opposite. The real crisis was a decade ago, and it was essentially solved by the Bush and Obama administrations and all that “wasted” money.”
    Dave (1bb933) — 1/10/2019 @ 6:10 pm

    You have more faith in the report’s modeling than the actual report has, which devotes an entire appendix to it’s shortcomings.

    Even if the estimates are correct, 100,000 entering the country illegally would be a crisis in any other country. Britain had just a few Iranians cross the channel illegally last month and it was nothing short of a crisis.

    Bush’s recession did more to stem illegal crossings than anything else.

    Munroe (a5bd5b)

  97. This is the single greatest thing in the history of the world. This is a real CBS TV show from 1958 where a fictional conman, named Trump, is selling “magic” walls to solve a crisis he’s invented. I won’t spoil the ending, but it’s a prophetic 22 minutes.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  98. 88, Bezos seems to have a thing for Lauren Graham kinda sorta look a likes.

    urbanleftbehind (fd650f)

  99. ok yeah i see that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  100. Wall-to-wall wall.

    harkin (3f355b)

  101. The Texas county GOP overwhelmingly rejected the to remove Shahid Shafi because he is Muslim, voting for him to remain in his post 139-49, according to the Texas Tribune.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  102. bid?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. Well there didn’t appear to be any grounds throligical ignorance of ones faith is not a disqualifier.

    Narciso (270478)

  104. “Touch Of Evil”, with Orson Welles, Marlene Dietrich, Charlton Heston and Janet Leigh is on Netflix. A much better Texas melodrama.

    nk (dbc370)

  105. @ 95 and 100

    April 2018 The Department of Homeland Security said a surge of illegal crossings last month justifies the Trump administration’s call for an emergency deployment of National Guard troops to the Mexican border, citing a 37% increase in the number of people taken into custody by the U.S. Border Patrol. DHS spokesman Tyler Q. Houlton said Thursday that the sudden increase was evidence “the crisis at our Southwest border is real.”

    That was APRIL. In the last few days Border patrol agents and leaders have reiterated that while in aggregate it has been down compared to the past, the last few months it has exploded.

    Border Patrol caught a record 16,658 immigrant family members crossing the border illegally in September. More than 161,000 immigrant family members were caught or turned themselves in during the fiscal year that ended in September, 42% more than in any previous year, the spokesman said.

    November 13, 2018
    : “Every week, the number of people arrested crossing the southwest border illegally dwarfs the roughly 4,000 migrants traveling in the caravan.”

    “After falling to historic lows in the early months of the Trump administration, illegal immigration across the southwest border has risen in nearly every single month since, driven largely by a wave of people traveling together as families. Arrests of so-called “family units” — the vast majority of them from Central America — have now reached unprecedented levels, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) figures.”

    In October, the Border Patrol arrested 23,121 migrant family members, the highest one-month total ever recorded. It was a 39 percent jump over the 16,658 such migrants arrested in September, which was also a record for a single month.

    “When the family unit arrests are added to other categories — single adults and unaccompanied minors — the total number of people caught trying to cross the southwest border illegally in October was about 51,000, or 1,700 per day.”

    “That means the number of migrants arrested along the southwest border in an average week — 11,900 — is about three times as many people traveling in the highly publicized caravan. Put differently, the equivalent of about 13 caravans is caught after crossing the border illegally every month.”

    “Historically speaking, illegal immigration remains well below numbers seen at the turn of the century, when border authorities were regularly arresting more than 1 million migrants per year. While overall arrests have declined since then, the demographics of illegal immigration have changed in ways that make it harder for the system to absorb the latest wave of migrants.”

    “In 2000, more than 95 percent of border arrests were Mexican nationals, mostly single men looking for work. Today, migrants from Central America have surpassed Mexicans as the majority of illegal border-crossers — 56 percent of CBP arrests at the southwest border in FY2018 were of Central Americans.”

    “Family units and unaccompanied minors accounted for about half of the arrests within the Central American group, meaning about a quarter of all border apprehensions triggered special detention procedures required by law for migrant families and children. These complicated cases have outstripped the government’s limited detention space for families, so most of them are released pending an immigration court date months in the future.”

    “As the demographics of illegal immigration have changed, so has the aim of the migrants themselves. Until recent years, most migrants arrested at the border were men who were obviously looking for work, often in agriculture or construction.”

    Detention centers are 98 percent full, forcing the release of illegals more rapidly and in larger groups into the general population or to volunteer advocacy groups.

    @ 95, 100, SanFranNan, Schumer and media sheep: “NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG … right onto the US taxpayers dollar and Democrat voter rolls.”

    So transparent. So ignorant.

    CK (63970b)

  106. Did NBC get the DHS intel on how long it took to cut through no barrier of any sort? I would like to see their exclusive photo of air.

    BuDuh (a3f2c3)

  107. I admit I haven’t seen as much of that one, even after it was recommended in get shorty.

    Narciso (270478)

  108. Let these crimaleins in your house, Dave. With your own money not mine feed them clothe them buy them a car. With you paying the insurance. And get them the medical attention they need through the dr. and health insurance they were allowed to keep and you get to pay for with your own money because your such a decent fellow.

    mg (8cbc69)

  109. OT sort of: But how amazing is is this?

    In 1958, CBS aired an episode of the series “Trackdown” called “The End of the World,” in which a confidence man named Trump attempts to sell a western town a “wall” — in the form of supposedly mystical parasols — to protect them from the fake threat of a meteor shower.

    Just a coincidence? Maybe. See a clip of the show on the link.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  110. is is this

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  111. CK (63970b) — 1/10/2019 @ 8:35 pm

    And the Great Wall of Trump would have no impact on that.
    Making immigration laws less restrictive and speeding up the bureaucratic process would, of course, since people who have a hope of getting here legally are less likely to try to get here illegally or by abusing the asylum process.

    Kishnevi (2717fb)

  112. The High Priest of Fraud.”

    Yeah that’s about the size of it.

    JRH (fe281f)

  113. Let these crimaleins in your house, Dave. With your own money not mine feed them clothe them buy them a car. With you paying the insurance. And get them the medical attention they need through the dr. and health insurance they were allowed to keep and you get to pay for with your own money because your such a decent fellow.

    Yawn.

    Dave (1bb933)

  114. “When I said Mexico would pay for the wall in front of thousands and thousands of people …. obviously I never meant Mexico would write a check.”

    Oh, OK. Was it going to be a credit card, or what?

    No, actually it was going to be a check:

    “They’ll pay in one form or another, they might even write us a check by the time they see what happens,” Trump added, drawing applause from the crowd.

    Donald Trump, April 2016
    Televised Town Hall with Sean Hannity

    You can also read the following on Donald Trump’s website, today:

    It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5 – 10 billion

    That link is also entertaining for all the macho promises about what he would do “On day 1″ to coerce Mexico into paying, that he still hasn’t done.

    Dave (1bb933)

  115. If Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, it wouldn’t change one Democrat vote. Red herring.

    Munroe (5f4292)

  116. 110… thanks for correcting the disinformation put forward in comments 95 and 100. Con men are always hyper-confident when they spread disinformation.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  117. Make that comment 95…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  118. Although few will admit it, I believe for many the wall is more important as a symbol than a functioning barrier.

    Not exactly, or at least not with the spin you apply.

    The wall IS a symbol, but one of resolve, that the country is going to effing DO something after 3 decades of [graphic metaphor]. I think Otter explained it best:

    We gotta take these bastards. Now, we could fight ’em with conventional weapons. That could take years and cost millions of lives. Oh no. No, in this case, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.

    Now, the Democrats really do NOT want this stupid and futile gesture to be made, not because they are adverse to such (it’s common enough in DC), but because they will lose control of the issue if it happens.

    Kevin M (cb624b)

  119. And speaking of liars: Obama and Bush wasted 6 BILLION dollars on ‘virtual fencing’ that failed spectacularly.

    That is so untrue. Thousands of people made a lot of money off those systems. No failure there!

    Kevin M (cb624b)

  120. The republicans have been lying about fixing the deficit for 2 decades.
    These republican congress people are the worst.

    mg (8cbc69)

  121. How many crimaleins does it take to design, engineer and build a aircraft carrier?

    mg (8cbc69)

  122. The wall IS a symbol, but one of resolve, that the country is going to effing DO something after 3 decades of [graphic metaphor].

    Illegal immigration has declined dramatically in the last decade. The numbers speak for themselves.

    Cherry-picking a one-month fluctuation (i.e. find a month where the number was slightly lower than normal, followed by one where it is slightly higher, and try to convince the gullible or innumerate that the sky is falling) doesn’t change that.

    Is the problem gone? Of course not. But pretending that the situation isn’t better now than at any time in the last 10+ years because you need to manufacture a phony crisis, or claiming that “the border is essentially open” because you have to pretend everyone else is as feckless and incompetent as Trump, is just dishonest.

    Dave (1bb933)

  123. 100,000 illegal entries a year (and since these “estimated” numbers are from Heimlandsicherheitsamt it’s more likely 400,000) are still 100,000 too many.

    nk (dbc370)

  124. — Why did Marine 1 crash?
    — Trump felt cold so he ordered the pilot to turn off the fan.

    nk (dbc370)

  125. Dont tempt them warrant officers, nk.

    urbanleftbehind (fd650f)

  126. Democrats have passed laws for walls before.
    What they don’t do is fund the wall.

    That’s the gag they played against Reagan. He made an amnesty for enforcement deal. He signed the amnesty and it happened but then there was no money in the budget for the enforcement that was passed. They’ve played this Lucy-pulls-the-football a few times.

    Here, Trump is demanding the actual appropriation for the money, not just the plan.

    Ingot9455 (985c4f)

  127. 132. Ingot9455 (985c4f) — 1/11/2019 @ 7:38 am

    Democrats have passed laws for walls before.

    What they don’t do is fund the wall.

    In 2006 a law was passed. In 2007 the requirements for what to build were made less rigid. A lot of wall was built. In 2013, Obama declared the wall essentially complete.

    Trump is now asking $5.7 billion for 234 miles of “wall”. That’s little over $24 milion per mile. It’s not all at once like he likes to pretend. (Trump has now claimed funding for a wall will stop crime “cold” in Iowa, New Hampshire and New York (!) Not that there’s any crime to speak of associated with recent migrants in the first place – crime in McAllen, Texas is at its lowest point in 30 years.

    National Review attempted to make an argument for the wall here:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/make-the-argument-for-the-wall-and-stick-to-the-facts/

    And it quoted Brandon Judd, “president of the National Border Patrol Council — the labor union that represents U.S. Border Patrol,” as saying in Congressional testimony in June 2017:

    With a barrier, it’s estimated that all we need is one agent per three, four linear miles. Without a barrier, I need one agent per linear mile. So the cost effectiveness of a barrier in manpower is—it’s extremely successful.

    Now let’s analyze that:

    First, he talks about something being cost effectiveness in terms of manpower. Of course. what should matter is cost effectiveness in terms of money!

    What he says is not at all cost effective in terms of money! He’s saying he needs 1 agent per four miles without a wall to do the same job as 4 agents per four miles. That’s 3 extra agents per four miles. Let’s be generous and make that 1 agent per mile. The cost of adding an extra Border Patrolman, let’s say, is roughly $100,000 a year. Let’s say we’ll assume the wall will last 20 years. So that’s $2 million. Compared with $24 million for a mile of wall. You’d need the wall to last for 240 years to break even! (well, less, because construction costs can be expected to go up with time, but you get the idea.)

    Now there’s anotehr question. He’s what?

    Jim Geraghty of National Review says he’s president of a labor union – the National Border Patrol Council.

    What union president makes an argument for hiring fewer workers
    when he has such a good case? And instead argues speciously about “cost effectiveness.

    Cost effectiveness?

    Maybe the answer is there is some corruption going on here, and he wants an ineffective wall – he wants to limit the process of crossing the border illegally or smuggling drugs in illegally without having to pay off members of the Border Patrol. I don’t know, but that’s one idea in my mind.

    Here is a link to his entire testimony.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg26554/pdf/CHRG-115hhrg26554.pdf

    That’s the gag they played against Reagan. He made an amnesty for enforcement deal. He signed the amnesty and it happened but then there was no money in the budget for the enforcement that was passed. They’ve played this Lucy-pulls-the-football a few times.

    Here, Trump is demanding the actual appropriation for the money, not just the plan.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  128. Oops

    That’s the gag they played against Reagan. He made an amnesty for enforcement deal. He signed the amnesty and it happened but then there was no money in the budget for the enforcement that was passed.

    No, Reagan never called for a wall. He was going to rely on internal enforcement. Every employer was going to have to require proof of a legal right to work from every potential employee. because that was supposedly the reason for restruictingg immigration. That immigrationn reduces employment or wages is a crackpot theory no serious economist beloeves but that was the rationalization for immigration quotas because the other alternative rationalization is cultural or racist.

    Now the “system” for preventiung employment was never designed to work. And I don’t the American public would stand for a system that did work.

    So anyway that was it.

    Later, when asecond amensty was proposed, the proponents came up with the idea for a wall. That was opposed by serious restrictions because a wall wouldn’t work. So Schumer was tryiing t come up with a metric – and he mostly proposed counting the amount of money spent on “border control”

    Here’s an article from thast time: (not close to the best article)

    https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/democrat-chuck-schumer-border-security-meant-block-path/story?id=18368056

    Democratic senators sought to reassure skeptics on Thursday that a bipartisan immigration reform plan being crafted in the Senate would not ultimately block a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

    The plan — crafted by a group of four Republicans and four Democrats — does provide a path to citizenship for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. Those eligible under the senator’s plan would receive “probationary legal status” immediately, but would not be allowed to apply for permanent legal status, or a green card, until the border is deemed to be secure.

    But Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a lead negotiator on immigration reform, said those border security requirements would not be used as a pretext to prevent undocumented immigrants from eventually obtaining citizenship.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  129. They’ve played this Lucy-pulls-the-football a few times.

    What the people who say that don’t say is that there is nothing they would accept

    teh standard talking point was actally in fact taht there should be enforcement, and then they’d think about amnesty. But that would be in exchange for reducing legal immigration.

    It’s also true that’s democrats by and large are not in favor of reducing immigration.

    Here, Trump is demanding the actual appropriation for the money, not just the plan.

    Trump is demanding something symbolic, (although he also wants other things) and the Democrats are opposing soething largely symbolic.

    Right now things stgand like this.

    Lindsay Graham’s proposal for extended temporary legal status for the Dreamers (a limited group of people) in exchange for an apprpriation for a wall is dead.

    Trump is in favor of helping the Dreamers but in exchange he wants reduced legal immigration, (both ending the doversity lottery and limiting family reunification) plus changes in asylum law. (to make it harder to claim and easiser and faster to deport people.)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  130. Maybe the answer is there is some corruption going on here, and he wants an ineffective wall – he wants to limit the process of crossing the border illegally or smuggling drugs in illegally without having to pay off members of the Border Patrol. I don’t know, but that’s one idea in my mind.

    So are you theorizing that most effective interdiction actions are the results of “bonus” or “bounty” – style pay above the salaries of individual Border Patrolmen whether they are originated by legit local sources (maybe a ranchers association, for example) or one cartel seeking to stifle a rival cartel? Other theories could just be he’s a “management stooge” set up to fail or that he is enthrall to trade unions (e.g. ironworkers, operating engineers) and manufacturing unions (USWA).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  131. The story of another man named Trump.

    Paul Montagu (254294)

  132. Trump thinks opinion is changing in his favor. It’s not politicians, though. The Wall Street editorial page is, yes, but I don’t think the Democratic Party is, and the editorial page changes will not last if nothing happens.

    Trump is trying to force the Democratic Party to lose votes by seeming to endorse something a good part of its base opposes; and Democratic Party is trying to split the Republican Party by offering various proposals to re-open the government.

    Trump’s new idea is to divert money from money apprpriated to the Army Corps of Engineers for disaster relief in Puerto Rico. I guess he thinks Hispanics will be angry. At the Democrats.

    Trump’s actually interested in the issue, and he wants to get the Democratic Party to take a position like hsi – or amyeb some of hisa idea s do.

    So far the only thing that has happened is that Trump has agreed to sign a bill guranteeing back pay when the shutdown is over and such a bill passed the Senate yesterday.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  133. 137. Do you know there a Harry Potter movie in 1986:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(film)

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092115/

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  134. Walls don’t work in Israel, and hamper the fight against terrorism:

    http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=73440

    Excerpts:

    1. Today a huge number of Palestinians who don’t have work permits bypass
    the official crossing points each day
    to work off the books in Israel…

    The current daily flood of illegal workers can provide easy cover for terrorists. Issue everyone work permits and the few Palestinians who still try to bypass the passages can be readily handled by security forces.

    Now the truth is it does work against terrorism, because nobody helps terrorists bypass the wall, and it makes the journey longer and less frequent, and maybe because the terrroists want Israel to think the wall works.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  135. 95. Dave (1bb933) — 1/10/2019 @ 6:10 pm

    . The real crisis was a decade ago, and it was essentially solved by the Bush and Obama administrations and all that “wasted” money.

    Plus the improved economy and reduced birth rate in Mexico.

    What Trump’s complaining about now is the “loophole” under which some immigration is semi-legal.

    If a person under 18 comes across the border, he or she cannot be locked up more than 20 days. He also cannot be separated from a parent. Both therefore must be released if claiming asylum. And they can’t voluntarily agree to go back across the border if they are not citizens of Mexico.

    While cases can be prioritized, and they change their minds ten times about what, the wait time for a hearing is now about 3 or 4 years in any non-prioritized cases. Plus there is limited number of beds so even people whose release is not forced must be released. Trump imagines a wall can stop this because he also wants to “meter” asylum claimants at legal points of entry and he wants a law forbidding anyone who crossed without “inspection” from claiming asylum. I think there is such a law about stowawys, now mostly out of date.

    The Democrats have no intention of increasing the number of beds and in fact complain about the law that says such and such a number of people must be imprisoned at all times. They also want to increase, not reduce the grounds for asylum, mostly without legislation. And tehy don’t want more limitations on family reunification, like Trump does.

    And Sessions changed things to make it easier to send people back to their deaths – escaping crime or personal death threats is not to be considered grounds for asylum, but only say, being threatened with arrest or other punishment for criticizing the government or praticing a religion or being a homosexual.

    Democrats want to provide more lawyers for asylum claimants. Lawyers are effective. Not only is there a strong degree of subjectivity here, but an asylum claimant may have one very important reason to him that doesn’t qualify for asylum and another almost trivial one that does so he needs to know what tocite. Maybe it’s important taht the police wouldn’t help him.

    Another thing is deporting people to places like Honduras can be very dangerous for them. If gangs find out that they were deported they think they have access to funds coming from the United States and can and will be threatened and even killed.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  136. Reading this thread, much of the NeverTrumpinista comments are colder than a bowl of pending divorce fvck.

    Find a new lease on life…

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  137. You ask for a miracle:

    Tweet / Twitter
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1083763126959513600

    Narciso (2e9b7a)

  138. We could be conducting a partial experiment in zero-based budgeting

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  139. News stories tell about federal workers in trouble but don’t include all the possible ideas:

    1) 0% credit card offers

    2) Lendingtree and oter places

    3) Paying for friends family and neighbors, gasoline or groceries etc with them giving the furloughed workers cash – even maybe selling it to them for a little beloe cost.

    4) Unemployemnt insurance (only for those not working and they will have to pay it back when they get paid – but that;s a0% loan)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  140. 136. I’m assuming he doesn’t want an increase in membership. I;m thinking hat could be because that would disrupt an “old boys club” of people currently employed doing things not by the book.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  141. For the CPD, its like behind-closed-doors opposition by the rank and file of #,000s of new officers, for your reason perhaps, but more likely in the CPD’s case on not wanting to lose overtime pay opportunities.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  142. @ 141 – Sammy – You pretty much hit the nail on the head with regards to immigration – I used to adjudicate immigration cases for USCIS and the loopholes are so big you could drive a Mack Truck through. Some of it is set by Supreme Court precedent – there was a SC drug case where some dumb ass in a ICE office decided to deport a young adult for ticky tacky marijuana charges that ended up before the Supremes and they unanimously reversed the decision. Problem was, the way state drug possession charges are written, it invalidated alot of previous convictions that really went unnoticed by the general public, but not by smart immigration lawyers. In addition, alot of asylum precedent is set by the Immigration Court judges, who are actually employees of DOJ. Depending on the administration, those precedents are not challenged and allowed to stand. Which is why people were recently claiming asylum based on spousal abuse, gang crime and transgenderism in their home countries and not by the standard asylum claims of persecution by their home country government. The immigration system is a madhouse and it’s only getting worse.

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  143. Didn’t read the whole comment thread (my bad, I’m lazy) …so not sure if this has been linked. Here’s an articulate and enlightening interview with an AZ border county sheriff (and no particular fan of Trump, btw.)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/podcasts/the-daily/mark-napier-sheriff-border-wall.html

    ColoComment (b48a15)

  144. CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec) — 1/11/2019 @ 10:07 am

    Everyone agrees that the current immigration system is screwed up. They only disagree on how badly it is screwed up, and what precisely do these screw ups consist of. The cases you refer to aptly illustrate the old saw that “hard cases make bad law”. To take a larger example, most people don’t want to deport the Dreamers. Even the ones that do want to deport largely do so because thew want the law applied inflexibly, not out of any feeling the Dreamers are bad people.

    But the Trumpian agenda–and in fact, the general GOP policy on immigration–will only make it more screwed up. The smaller the number of people who can try to get here legally, the higher the number of people who will try to get here illegally, or abuse the system to get here legally (which is what the current ayslum caravans are doing).

    And of course focusing on the border with Mexico does nothing to help anything going on at the border with Canada (apparently the number of presumptive jihadis caught at the Canadian border is, while not very high, six times as much as the number caught at the Mexican border), airports, seaports and coasts…and overstayed visas. The US Mexican border is just under 2000 miles long. The US Canada border is just over 5500 miles long–with about 1500 of those miles being Alaska’s border, meaning more than twice the possibilities for a jihadi to get across. And pertinent to jihadis, Canada has a much bigger Muslim population than Mexico–just under a million compared to 100,000-125,000 (the corresponding figure for the US is 2.5 million). Common sense alone says that if you’re going to worry about jihadis, look at the Canadian border, not the Mexican.

    kishnevi (d764f4)

  145. Build the wall, enhance existing tools and deploy new ones. Hire more agents. Enforce existing laws and do away with chain migration.

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  146. For kishnevi…

    https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1083723962545262592

    “A San Diego television station on Thursday said that CNN had asked for a “local view” and then “declined to hear from us” after past reports from the station showed that a border wall was effective.

    “Thursday morning, CNN called the KUSI Newsroom asking if one of our reporters could give them a local view of the debate surrounding the border wall and government shutdown,” a report by KUSI, an independent station in San Diego that began airing in 1982, begins.

    “KUSI offered our own Dan Plante, who has reported dozens of times on the border, including one story from 2016 that was retweeted by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and posted on DrudgeReport.com,” it continues while linking to a border fence tour report.

    “We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work,” it concludes. “We have continuously been told by Border Patrol Agents that the barrier along the Southern border helps prevent illegal entries, drugs, and weapons from entering the United States, and the numbers prove it.”

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  147. Build the wall,

    Trumpian fantasy that won’t even solve the problems it claims to solve

    enhance existing tools and deploy new ones. Hire more agents.

    Which everyone except the Abolish ICE crowd agrees should be done. Including all the people at this blog who are regularly squawked at for supposedly supporting open borders.

    Enforce existing law
    Which sounds good until you realize the current set of laws are essentially unenforceable, and will remain so until and unless you allow ICE to stop and challenge anyone anywhere for any reason. Paperien, bitte! But at the very least, you need to first reform the immigration system so the laws have a hope of being enforceable in the real world. And the key to doing that is enlarging legal immigration so you have less illegal immigration.
    do away with chain migration
    Actually, that’s the last thing you want to change, since new immigrants with families are less likely to need social services, more likely to pay taxes, and have less reason to send overseas family money earned here in the US.

    If you want to end the diversity lottery, I would agree with you there.

    kishnevi (d764f4)

  148. On the other hand, the current top story on KUSI’s website is
    https://www.kusi.com/san-diego-business-leaders-push-back-against-trump-border-visit-border-wall/

    kishnevi (d764f4)

  149. So you got nothin’ to say about proven success, just more Trump bashing nonsense.

    Sad to say…

    Colonel Haiku (3116bd)

  150. Wait a minute. So Trump tweeted this

    Humanitarian Crisis at our Southern Border. I just got back and it is a far worse situation than almost anyone would understand, an invasion!

    …yet despite this invasion against America, he’s not declaring a national emergency? Maybe he’s not doing so because words actually mean things.

    1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
    2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
    3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun

    Paul Montagu (254294)

  151. What kind of car does Jesus typically drive?
    A Christler.

    mg (8cbc69)

  152. A Honda, but He doesn’t like to talk about it. “For I did not speak of my own Accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.” John 12:49

    nk (dbc370)

  153. — Why did Trump and Melania ask Ivanka to stay back when they visited the border?
    — Because the sign said “No Trespassing”.

    nk (dbc370)

  154. Teh Bible is rife with admonitions about autos…
    1 Corinthians 8:9, Take care that this Liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

    Jeremiah 32:37, In my Fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely.

    Psalm 11:5-6, Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and a horrible Tempest.

    Matthew 11:18, He has a Demon!

    Matthew 14:8, Give me here John Baptist’s head in a Charger.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  155. And the Lord God sayeth to Abraham, “Goest forth in a righteous Fury, avoideth the Tempest and the Demon, lest thou covet thy neighbor’s craftsman tools.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  156. Yes that is dog mites ban, the other story is the reverse.

    Narciso (d89b9d)

  157. Illegal immigration has declined dramatically in the last decade. The numbers speak for themselves.

    Illegal immigration has changed. Instead of being young willing workers who imposed only slight, and often indirect, burdens on society it is now heavily weighted towards dependents who pose a significant burden. Unaccompanied children, mothers and their kids, and entire families come north. Even when apprehended, the costs are significant.

    While the whole numbers are down, the numbers of children and families are nearly doubled and the social costs per immigrant are much higher.

    Just citing the overall numbers is a distortion and therefore a Democrat talking point.

    Kevin M (cb624b)

  158. Trumpian fantasy that won’t even solve the problems it claims to solve

    It isn’t supposed to. What it does is set the country on a course to solve the issue, rather than ignoring it.

    The truly sad thing about this debate is that, given a wall, the Right’s refusal to address immigration reform will evaporate and the ones who claim they want this (I’m looking at you Pelosi) will lose an issue.

    Fun house mirrors.

    Kevin M (cb624b)

  159. Maybe he’s not doing so because words actually mean things.

    1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
    2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
    3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun

    1) Not all armies are in uniform, and not all invasions are by force. “Enemy” is a loaded word; “outlander” might work as well.

    2) You can’t see this? Amazing.

    3) Come to Los Angeles. The entire east and north of the city.

    Kevin M (cb624b)

  160. “3) Come to Los Angeles. The entire east and north of the city.”
    Kevin M (cb624b) — 1/12/2019 @ 9:57 am

    You see an invasion of outlanders. Dems see “mission accomplished”.

    Munroe (eef1f3)

  161. Mexico announced that they are going to build a ladder.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  162. Mexico announced that they are going to build a ladder.

    You left out the best part: And the United States is going to pay for it.

    Paul Montagu (4ec159)

  163. “Enemy” is a loaded word; “outlander” might work as well.

    That would be you redefining “invasion” to suit your purposes.
    As for “disease”, happyfeet was moderated for going there.
    Look, an invasion implies a coordinated effort to take over a sovereign state by force, and the illegal immigrants from Latin America are failing in that endeavor. It’s just not an invasion. It’s a problem that our politicians haven’t come together to fix.

    Paul Montagu (4ec159)

  164. Rich Galen wrote in his collumn:

    So. Both sides are frozen in place. Until Pelosi can find some legislation that can make it through the Senate and onto Trump’s desk the shut-down will continue.

    Not even then.

    And Schumer has promised there won’t be any new legislation passed in the Senate on other topics until the shutdown is over. So thats’ that.

    Neither will it end with a declaration of emergency because Trump wants more than just the wall, and because an injunction stopping him would be filed in court; nor will it end with an agreement for amnesty for the Dreamers in exchange for a wall because Trump rejected that a year ago – for amnesty for the Dreamers he wants also an end to the visa lottery and a reduction of legal immigration – more limits on chain migration. And theDreamers are protected now by a court case and the Democrats also want permanent residence status for this people who have been here for over
    a decade or whatever with temporary protected status.

    Both sides are frozen in place until Democrats can get a 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress to override Trump’s veto of appropriations bills and continuing resolutions.

    They got 7 votes in the House on their first try, 8 on their second, and 12 on their third. They need 55 out of 200 Republicans or 27.5%)

    And more in the Senate (20 out of 47 Republicans, or 42.5%, including the Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell) The Senate starts off more liberal, but the Democrats need more votes to get to 2/3. They have maybe 3 or 4 Republican Senators now who might vote to override a veto.

    It won’t actually get to a veto override as Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell will go to Trump and tell him he will lose before that happens.

    Trump expects the Democrats to cave because they always say they are for border control, so the only reasons to oppose giving Trump what he wants are:

    1) That it is an earmark. But Democrats are not against earmarks. And the natural compromise in his view is to give Democrats something they want that he does not otherwise support. that’s waht trump is looking for.

    2) because it hurts Trump. But he figures they will cave after this goes on for a while.

    The Democratic position is that they will not discuss anything about a wall while any part of the government is shut down. Trump’s reaction is that he isn’t that stupid.

    When President Donald Trump asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi if eh would agree to fund a wall within 30 days if the governmebt was reopened she said no. (later she clarified for the public that that applied only the question of the wall but she was for other kinds of border security)
    When Mulvaney proposed reopening the government for three weeks, Trump told him to shut up because he was spoiling everything, or would spoil things.

    Democrats oppose the “wall” because this has become the symbol of opposing illegal immigration and they don’t want to be put in that position. And it is equally symbolic to Trump the otehr way.

    You can compromise on policy but not on symbolism and you can give one side the symbolism and the other the substance but here both sides want the symbolism.

    And we have the situation that in the country as a whole the shutdown hurts Trump, but in the Republican party it helps him.

    The Democrats expect Trump to cave and Trump expects the Democrats to cave. This could be a long “strike.”

    A possible solution is “GO Fund ME” – create an IRS Form WALL where people can dedicate a portion of their taxes to a wall like the presidential election campaign fund. Say $100, but you might have to raise that to $1,000 Trump probably would not take it – you’d need a couple of other twists to to it to get to that point.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4674 secs.