Schumer: Dems oppose spending more than $1.6B on border security
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday said Democrats don’t want to include more than $1.6 billion on border security in a year-end spending deal, putting them at odds with Republicans who are floating a plan to spend $5 billion to fund President Trump's border wall over two years.
Schumer told reporters at the Capitol that the Trump administration has yet to spend “a penny” of the $1.3 billion Congress appropriated for border security for fiscal 2018, which ended on Sept. 30.
He said Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress could reach a deal on government funding if they're allowed to negotiate the must-pass spending package without interference from Trump. Congress is facing a Dec. 7 deadline to pass legislation that would avoid a partial government shutdown.
Asked if Democrats could support spending more than $1.6 billion on border security as part of a deal with Trump, Schumer said he did not want to negotiate through the press.
The Senate passed $1.6 billion in wall funding in its Homeland Security appropriations bill, in line with the White House’s original request. But Trump has since upped the ante to $5 billion, an amount the House included in its version of the spending bill.
The president has threatened to veto any funding package that does not fund the wall at an amount to his liking.
Before Thanksgiving, Trump said that $5 billion is his preferred amount, according to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby(R-Ala.).
"He said he would veto at $1.6 [billion], so I take him at his word,” Shelby said Tuesday, adding that Congress would not override a presidential veto.
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
Border security certainly isn't a priority of the Democratic party.
It never was and never will be.
Yep. After Chuck and Nancy said the big accomplishment of the meeting was getting Trump to take responsibility for a shutdown it's pretty obvious how this is going to play out and who wants the shutdown.
The irony is that 70% of the government is already funded so a shutdown will only be less than 1/3 of the government, and since the area of the shutdown has a lot of "essential" personnel, the actual number will be just a handful of agencies that will be shut down. The part of the essential personnel will just have their pay delayed. Democrats don't care about Federal workers or the country as a whole since they threw their temper tantrum in the White House, then had the audacity to claim Trump was the one who threw a temper tantrum. How many of you who supported the Democrats like the fact you have elected a bunch of 2-year olds to be your leaders of government?
Yea look at the fire and brimstone we are still cleaning up from the last shutdown.
tRump owns the shutdown - he said so.
Didn't look like Trump was worried about it.....one bit !
Chucky was cowering like a itty bitty child, and Nancy was too into her own voice to even look at Trump.
Did you notice, Trump was leaning forward towards the two children (in their faces), Chucky was couch slouching like a little bitch, and Nancy was just doing her normal Robot Dance looking every which way but Trumps way.
Both were cowards.....and Trump knew it !
Don't forget, anyone working on the tax payers dime NEVER loses, no matter if they shut down for a day or so or not.
Ahhhhh - but Nancy, if I'm not too mistaken, said that Trump "stalked and acted like he was ready to pounce on Hillary" during the debates???
Nancy has an …… imagination !
Problem with Nancy's "Imagination" is.....well.....let's just say …… she has one (#"pound"metoo). LOL !
Please read Tom Craig's comment 1.1.2 -- it will help you understand exactly what a government shut down entails. It's not as big a deal as Nancy and Chuck tried to make it out to be.
Why should I read Tom's explanation? Is he some government expert? He's spouted lots of stuff never backed up by facts or citations. You believe him if you want to. Don't care.
Sure it's a big deal. tRump owns it. It's on his big fat stinky ass.
For two reasons:
Suit yourself.
That's all they have, lies and exaggerated rhetoric.
I find it rather hilarious that according to some dumb fucks, the difference between 700 miles of fencing and an additional $1.6 billion spent on border security and $5 billion spent on maybe an additional 1000 miles of fence is portrayed as "Open borders!" vs "Secure America!". It's patently ridiculous on the face of it. Of course Democrats aren't for open borders and spending what we spent last year on border security isn't making us "less safe". One could argue from that perspective that the $5 billion is wanting open borders compared to spending $20 billion to complete 2000 miles of boondoggle circumvent-able border wall. See, $5 billion is less than $20 billion so $5 billion must mean you want open borders!
This is actually something Democrats and Republicans agree on, we both want effective border security and immigration laws that work to keep out the criminal element and those who would do us harm while welcoming those "tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
So lets work together to get the most protection per dollar instead of just throwing billions of dollars at a wall that hasn't been proved effective and doesn't do anything for the 70% of illegal immigrants who got here by overstaying their Visas.
Because 70% of the government was funded under what is called "normal order" otherwise called the appropriations process. That 70% has already been funded and cannot be debated or voted on until the next appropriations process, which usually occurs around October. And, the part that is not currently funded is mainly the Department of Homeland Security, which has almost all of its personnel deemed as being "essential". These personnel HAVE to show up for work regardless of being paid or not.
You do realize almost all of these politicians live in gated communities, correct? What do they all have in common? Walls built around the community, with gates for access points and guards. What does the border have? Just guards and run down fencing that a cow could easily get through let alone a person trying to enter. Guards cannot be everywhere at the same time, so you rely on walls to guide people to where the guards are. You make the walls tall enough, smooth enough, and thick enough and the people trying to get into your place will go looking for an easier access point, usually where the guards are. It is called defense in depth. In the case of Information Technology, defense in depth consists of a NIDS/NIPS, firewall, Anti-Virus software, blocked ports, honeypots, etc. There is no such thing as perfect security, but you will stop and deter the bad guys if you make it harder to get in in the first place. That is what the wall will do. And, anyone saying it is not worth it should immediately turn off all their firewalls, turn their wireless networks into promiscuous mode, turn off MAC filtering, turn off their content filters, turn off their popup blockers, etc. and see how long before their computers turn into zombies in a botnet or are infected by a virus or worm.
I idea of a complete southern border wall is beyond ridiculous and would be a HUGE waste of tax payer money with virtually no impact on illegal immigration. 70% of illegal immigrants got here by overstaying Visas, they did not jump the border so no wall, fence, moat or imagined fire breathing dragon would do anything to stop that.
We put up effective fencing in those areas that were the most porous, 700 miles of it. Are there some other porous areas we should address? Yes, and I'm all for it and I'm for properly funding border security. The point is that it's not "open borders" with $1.6 billion of funding and "100% secure borders" with $5 billion spent. You can cure ignorance with education, but sadly you just can't fix stupid, and a 2000 mile border wall is beyond stupid.
Like he said. If it takes a shutdown to secure the border it's a win
Who said anything about a complete border wall? Even gated communities don't have a complete wall around them, they have gates at the access points. Heck, in some places, there will be a physical impossibility of building a wall. Those are the areas that you increase patrols in. [deleted]
Now that it passed the house the Dems own it. Nancy Said so.
In 2015 Trump said he'd "build a wall along the border of Mexico" which is about 2,000 miles. Then he evolved his stance:
“It’s 2,000 miles, but we need 1,000; you have natural barriers. We need 1,000 miles.” DJT 8/08/2016
We already have about 700 miles of security fence. What's the difference between a wall and a fence? About $20 billion to build and about an extra hour to breach. So let's build the other 300 miles of fencing needed on the $1.6 billion budget Democrats have offered and get back to governing instead of bickering about the border.
Only simple minds actually believe that $5 billion will secure the border.
Only simple minds actually believe that a "wall" will secure the border.
Only simple minds actually believe that Mexico does not sell rope or ladders.
Only simple minds actually believe that most illegal immigrants cross the southern border.
Only simple minds actually believe that drugs are not smuggled through official border crossing locations.
Careful, they're already not playing with a full deck, telling them that if they want only $5 billion then that means they want open borders because it should be $20 billion for the wall will likely make their brains melt. "But, but, I'm for border security and my dear leader told me its $5 billion, but now I'm being told it will take $20 billion to secure the border which means my position of $5 billion makes me a liberal who wants open borders! Oh no! I've been caught in a logic trap and I can't break free! Arrrgggghhh! I'm meltinggggg!"...
Of course not. They are against anything that hinders their voter base.
Saw a video the other day where three kids made short work of getting over the wall. It was laughingly easy.
Was it the part made from metal lading strips used in the Vietnam war to land on rice fields that are 6' high? You know, part of what Trump is trying to get replaced? Got a link to the video?
Not for the GOP either, apparently...
And what did the GOP say? "No!".
Sorry, but I see this as a example of cherry picking on your part. People should read the entire article you quoted. President Obama did little to nothing on the border issue from 2008 to 2014. He only did anything because pressure was mounting from the border states for him to do something. The Republicans did not give a flat out no as you stated. They wanted something more substantive than what he was trying to give. The legislation was delayed but not flat out denied.
summed up in a nutshell from your own article:
yea Hillary, Bill , Obama, Biden and the rest of them all agreed with Trump before they found out Illegal immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat. You can find video of every damn one of them echoing Trumps words on Illegal Immigration a few years ago.
Yep! But we're all supposed to be clutching at our pearls because Trump is such a big liar.
It is the democrat party leadership that are the big liars.
Illegal immigrants overwhelmingly don't vote at all.
Projecting again? By the way, before you bitch about not forcing US taxpayers to pay for the wall, maybe you should tell Trump and the GOP to stop wasting money meant for border security. It's pretty effed up.
ps: ILLEGALS DON'T VOTE.
Actually, there are a few places around the country where they vote in local elections for things like school board.
In a few places they do. But more to the point, the Democrats figured a long time ago that if they legalize all the illegal aliens, those people will be grateful and vote for them when they are able.
You mean they are supposed to only vote for local elections according to those laws that allow anyone to vote; but the election ballots have Federal and State offices on them as well as the local elections that they are only allowed to vote in. And, since all ballots are secret, it is hard to really extract which ballots were voted illegally by the voters that were only supposed to vote in local elections.
Yeah I don't know at all how that stuff is monitored. Maybe they get their own special tiny ballot.
I saw that article earlier. Shameful waste of taxpayer money.
A drop in the bucket compared to the 867 billion of our money they decided to steal from us and redistribute.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/11/congresss-billion-farm-bill-is-out-heres-whats-it/?utm_term=.1326a11a3329
It seems California is determined to change that.
Yeah they do!......Republican!
Really care to cite me any news about illegal immigrants getting caught voting illegally.....DEMOCRAT
Why should I? Did I or somebody else make that claim?
YES YOU DID! You claimed that illegals vote in elections in 2.1.5 and 2.1.6!....back that claim up!
Considering there is only one place in California that does and about eleven in Maryland, maybe you should speak to the republican governor in Maryland.
Most voted REPUBLICAN though!
Suuurrreee you dont!
They do. I never said it was illegal, though.
This was your demand:
I never claimed they voted illegally. Illegal aliens in San Francisco, in College Park, MD , in Hyattsville, MD , and in a handful other towns have the right to vote legally in local elections.
Why do I personally need to speak to anyone? I didn't even complain about it. Someone said illegals vote. Someone else said they don't. All I did was correct the information.
Sounded like trying to muddy the waters to me. We all know that it is illegal for them to vote in national/federal elections. That will never change.
No one should KNOWINGLY vote illegally!
I suggest that the linked articles be read in full; I further suggest that reading be done regarding how many potential LEGAL votes are prevented via insidious voter-suppression laws.
Wrong-is-wrong-is-wrong.
The reason some municipalities have allowed them to vote on the school board is because they have children within the school system.
They're vermin right?
They are. They cannot run for school board, cannot vote for anything else. Their voter roles are even kept separate from national voter roles.
Sounds like you want a national law governing over municipalities.
Sounds like threatening violence. Or more.
That is not a reason to allow a foreigner to have rights reserved for a citizen
It is them exercising a right for their (most likely) US born children.
Don't bet on it. Plenty of people would like to change that. It's only been a federal law since 1996. And before the early 20th century, voting by non-citizens was not uncommon.
Right of foreigners to vote in the United States
Want to stop America's slide toward authoritarianism? Give all immigrants the right to vote
Most Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Vote
Eh, not me. I am Liberal and very progressive on certain issues. I would never vote to change that.
Trump is actually the biggest liar ever. [Removed]
Most Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Vote
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that one-out-of-three Likely U.S. Voters (35%) now believes that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote if they can prove they live in this country and pay taxes. Sixty percent (60%) disagree, while five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)
Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.
The survey of 952 Likely Voters was conducted on May 27-28, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC . See methodology .
Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters think the United States is already more democratic than most other nations , but 17% say it is less democratic. Slightly more (19%) feel America is about equally as democratic as most other nations
BREAKING DOWN Taxation Without Representation
Taxation without representation occurs when a taxing authority, such as the government, imposes taxes on its citizens and other entities , but fails to provide them with a political voice through elected representatives.
"It is them exercising a right for their (most likely) US born children."
But children can't vote
You might want to rethink that. Many of us have active imaginations and can imagine all manner or ways YOU might want to eliminate someone.
I'm sitting here right now thinking of things you might do
And your buddy who refers to migrants as feral cats voted you up. How surprising.
True. In this area I do not see it as being anyone's vote being negated. This is one area when everyone is in the same boat.
I am actually not pro or con with this, I just see it as parents wanting what is best for their kids.
Suuurrreeee you dont! And who says i like them to vote?! When did I imply that? Once again shows your true ideology! As for your racial implication let them......just lets me know who i can hate with impunity!
For those keeping score at home, I did! and quite often I vote you up too!
Well, those ballots where not all of the races are voted on is called an undervote, so the election workers counting the votes sort of "divine" the vote of the person who didn't vote for the elections that weren't voted on. They don't consider whether the person was allowed to vote in those elections, because that is an unknown when they count the ballot. So, how many times have races been decided due to a worker putting in a vote on a ballot that wasn't voted on by someone ineligible to vote on the race that wasn't voted on? That is a question no one has ever answered. All we get is assurances that the votes are being counted properly and undervotes are counted just as overvotes (where someone might have made a mistake on a ballot and ended up voting for more people in a race than they should).
How do they vote with no SSN#? Which is required to vote in most states.
Actually, in the states I have lived in, and the states my family lives/lived in (Oregon, Washington, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Nevada, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Utah, and Idaho), a person only needs to have whatever is required to obtain a driver's license or other state-issued ID for a non-driver.
Below are the listed requirements. Note if you download the application from the site it does ask for the SSN, but it is not a requirement, according to the list of documents used as proof of identity in the 2nd link.
they are trying to use this as an opening to let outsiders vote in our elections
And a number of them vote as illegally just as they entered the country illegally.
you sound like my teenage son, you very well know what the premise of the conversation is yet you throw shit against the wall hoping it sticks and then when called out on it you make up some dumb fuck excuse as to why you were really right the whole time, even though it had no bearing on the actual conversation. This conversation started when you agreed with 96w56 that illegals overwhelmingly vote Dem. His comment and everyone's response revolved around federal elections, hence 96w56 bringing up those Dems that ran for federal office. Your comment only detracted from the conversation pushing the voting to lower levels of government that nobody was talking about. People care about illegal aliens voting in elections they are not allowed to. And it appears that those who are caught voting illegally overwhelmingly vote for Republicans so 96w56 is still wrong.
"Schumer said he did not want to negotiate through the press."
But Democrats ALWAYS say they are about "Transparency"...… and Luvs them some "Transparent" press when it's in the "Liberal" Fav...… hmmmmm….
I guess that "Transparency for ALL" Thingy is just a LIE !
Really?! But you claim Trump is all about transparency though?! Putin meetings?! Tax returns?! Private meetings with FBI Directors?!......you've got to be kidding right?!
I do ?
I have ?
He proved it yesterday with Chuck and Nancy. They both said that they wanted to have the discussion without the press. IOW, they didn't want the public to know their plans. Trump had to explain to them what transparency meant.
Really?! That's what you got out of that ass whooping they gave Trump? Boy you all are grasping at straws!
After over 2 years you still haven't learned that nobody whoops Trump's ass.
When has Trump not stated what happened in his meetings, outside of national security? I don't recall that ever happening. However, Pelosi and Schumer wanted the press kicked out when they realized that Trump was not going to back down about getting funding for the wall.
OMG Border security! The wall ! The wall ! The sky is falling! If we don't have a wall now, we are all doomed!!!
Please. trump's lawyer is now going to jail and he has been listed as being a part of criminal activity and the most important thing on the minds of conservative people are money for a wall? So much so that they are willing and want to shut down the government for it.
Meanwhile this article states that he hasn't even spent the money he has already received.