It’s All About the Wall
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Bismarck said that politics is the art of the possible. It looks like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and other Democrats regard politics as the art of intransigence.
In his brief remarks Saturday on border security, Donald Trump outlined a plan that made multiple concessions to Democratic desiderata in exchange for $5.7 billion to fund 230 miles of the wall along the southern U.S. border. Indeed, the president’s plan deliberately took cues from some Durbin’s own legislation on the subject.
Didn’t matter. Pelosi said the president’s plan was “a non-starter.”
Before rehearsing the specifics of the plan, let’s note two things. First, as the president himself noted, his plan is meant as the first step in addressing a national crisis. The crisis has two parts. One is humanitarian. The hordes pooling at the U.S.-Mexico border attempting to gain unlawful entry to the country are taking huge risks. According to the president, one-third of the women making the journey North are subject to sexual assault; some observers put the figure even higher; some mothers, Trump said, provided their girls with contraceptives in preparation for the journey. Many of the children, most often brought along by adults, are also frequently subject to abuse. Some of those banging on our southern gates are hapless people just seeking a better life; but many are hardened criminals or aspiring terrorists.
The second part of the crisis concerns national security. The southern border is a huge conduit for dangerous drugs and dangerous thugs. Moreover, the sheer number of Hispanics seeking entry to the United States has already affected the demographic profile and character of large parts of the Southwest. This is a subject that was eloquently anatomized by Victor Davis Hanson in Mexifornia: A State of Becoming . That was several years ago and the situation has only gotten worse in the intervening years.
As the president stressed, his plan is merely a stopgap, a first step at addressing a serious problem that has festered for decades and that, if ignored, has the potential to tear the country apart.
The president wants money for humanitarian aid, additional immigration agents, technology to identify drugs coming into the country, and for more judges to expedite the adjudication of the huge backlog of cases (some 900,000) resulting from illegal immigration. It also, as I mentioned, calls for $5.7 billion to fund the construction of a physical barrier in certain critical spots identified by border agents.
In exchange for this, and for ending the partial government shutdown, the president has offered a three-year extension of benefits (including work permits, Social Security numbers, and protection from deportation) to the 700,000 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program—extended to those brought here illegally by their parents or others—as well as a three-year extension of benefits to some 300,000 people whose status in the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program is due to expire. This would give the courts time to adjudicate an ongoing lawsuit regarding DACA recipients and provide Congress time to work on a more global fix to our broken immigration system.
The president is offering too much for too little. Just a year ago, Congress was talking about appropriating $25 billion to fund the construction of a wall. In my view, the United States is already taking too many immigrants in absolute terms, too many without English and without the skills to contribute to our society, and too high a proportion from places outside the Anglosphere.
But it doesn’t matter what I think about U.S. immigration. What matters is the crisis—a national-security as well as a humanitarian crisis—on our southern border and the president’s determination to do something about it.
Saul Alinsky taught his acolytes that “the issue is never the issue,” and that is certainly true in this case. Donald Trump is endeavoring to do two things: 1) Make good on a central campaign promise and 2) to take at least some beginning steps towards solving a huge, complex, and hitherto intractable problem.
The Democrats are attempting to destroy Trump, gambling that prolonging the government shutdown redounds to their benefit while also calculating that more illegal immigrants means more welfare recipients, which means more Democratic voters.
I think they have badly misjudged the situation. For one thing, it is my sense that the public, while not wild about the shutdown, is also disgusted by the patent refusal of Congress to do its duty and negotiate in good faith. The conservative press reminded us of that by publishing pictures of Democratic Senators cavorting with bikini-clad blondes in Puerto Rico while furloughed government employees stewed in their juices back home.
The president reminded us of this when he wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi informing her that her planned trip to Afghanistan on military transport had been postponed since the government was laboring under the shutdown. He noted that she was, of course, free to “fly commercial”—delicious, that—but said that her proper place was back in Washington at the negotiating table.
That, my friends, was a brilliant example of the art of the deal, the section on “How to Punish Renegades,” in action.
The issue is never the issue . The ostensible issue here is the government shutdown and border security.
The real issue is the wall—which Trump must be seen to have accomplished—and the Democrats’ determination to deny him that victory.
As I pointed out here a couple of weeks ago, the wall is Trump’s “read-my-lips” moment. It is an existential issue for him, just as not raising taxes was for George H. W. Bush. The Democrats destroyed Bush by inveigling him to raise taxes after he had promised not to. They hope to repeat the success by preventing Trump from fulfilling what was perhaps his single most important, from a vote-getting perspective, campaign promise.
Hence the Democrats’ intransigence. They hope to force Trump to back down. Although the plan he proffered today gives away more than I am happy about, it nonetheless iterates his fundamental determination to build the wall—“one way or the other,” as he put it.
He offered serious concessions in an effort to compromise. Everyone could see that. But he also stressed another key campaign theme: America First. His first duty, he said in his remarks, is to the American people, to their security, prosperity, and civic integrity. About that, he offered no compromise.
The Democrats obviously believe that because of the government shutdown, they hold a winning hand of cards. I think they are completely mistaken. The president has shown both that he is willing to compromise in good faith and also that he is willing to inflict serious pain on the Democrats should they refuse to meet him halfway.
Every day that goes by without a solution is a day that the president will increase the pressure on the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi is not going to Afghanistan at taxpayer expense. On Friday, an executive directive went to the heads of all departments informing them there would be no governmental air travel without explicit White House permission until the shutdown ends.
Trump is playing hardball. The Democrats are not used to that. It would be a good thing for us all if they stopped acting like petulant children and started taking the commonweal of the country to heart, instead of performing for their dwindling and disgusted constituency.
Tags
Who is online
176 visitors
Why must Trump be seen as accomplishing someting that accomplishes nothing?
Why must the left that supported border walls during the Obama and Bush administrations now suddenly be against them? If they accomplish nothing now, then they didn't accomplish anything then.
Of course Trump is hated by the left for not bowing to their Queen Hillary and losing the election; and he has the hated R behind his name as well.
Go ahead and hate Trump; but can the hypocrisy about pretending extending the border fence will accomplish nothing. If Hillary were in the WH she would be demanding the same exact thing (chances are even more than 5.7 billion); and the left would howl if the Republicans didn't acquiesce to her demands.
Because they weren't. The "left" is pro border security, and pro "wall" where it is indicated that it will make a worthwhile difference. The "left" has never been pro wall, from sea to shining sea.
You realize we are talking federal, not city governments, right? Or do you feel the federal government has the right to overrule local jurisdictions?
Oh, absolutely the federal government has that right - it's listed in the Constitution that Fed law ALWAYS supersedes state/local laws - ALWAYS.
Article IV, 1. "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
"Article VI -2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
That's not how sanctuary cities work, they don't circumvent any law, they just don't enforce federal laws, choosing to only enforce state and/or local laws.
And another person that does not understand how these sanctuary cities work. They are not "superseding" any federal law, they are just choosing not to act as Federal law enforcement.
That ain't' the way the Fed laws work Ozz - States MUST obey Fed law or they can and will face penalties.
Sanctuary laws have been enacted by the Congress of the United States and those laws must be adhered to by the states/counties/cities.
Those are the same thing. Pretending otherwise is just pedantics.
Please list the specific LAWS that you specifically claim work directly against federal laws.
While you're at it, would you like to explain how it is legal for stated to legalize marijuana while it is still illegal by federal law?
That ain't the way it works warrior, states must obey the Constitution, that is why there are a growing number of states that have legalized marijuana while it is still illegal by federal law.
Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that states are not REQUIRED to enforce federal laws.
Show me some links.
Those rulings, that I'm aware of, were specifically on cases were one Fed law contradicted another Fed law - not a Fed law contradicting a state law.
However, there are NUMEROUS SCOTUS rulings of state laws "attempting" to circumvent/supersede/contradict Fed law - and SCOTUS has always ruled in favor of the Fed law.
Greedy ?
The Liberal "Child Prodigy" Ocasio-Cortez ...…. HATES Greed !
Try, Try, Try again.....isn't "Greedy" ?
"Just like one of your buds on this thread."
In your ….…. mind? .....who is "My" Bud ?
"I'm not interested."
Your responding says "Otherwise" !
Nope ……. what ?
Concentrate now !
I get "Chat" requests ….But I'm the "Follower" !
hahahahahaha !
THUMBS UP !
………….. Wink ………………….
Trying not to laugh...…. snork !
"It's all about the wall?" You mean that's it? Nothing more to the Trump than a wall? Now that the statement is out there, makes perfect sense to me. Trump and the Wall.
No governmental air travel with approval by the Trump? Interesting. Very interesting.
If Trump and Pence resign and join The Night's Watch I will support The Wall...
Then trump would bragging and fighting to become Lord Commander, send them to Grey Guard.
I can just imagine how The Night's Watch would deal with Donald Trump...
It is not up to you. If Trump and Pence resign Pelosi becomes President...
Unfortunately not. Trump has already been named once as an un-indicted co-conspirator, as soon as he resigns he gets matching chrome bracelets.
No, it's not about the wall. It's about the childish temper tantrums of the Democrats to do anything and everything in their power to take down Trump. And, judging by their ridiculous comments of Trump's "Non-starter" attempts at getting things back on track EVEN BEFORE he made the offer, that just shows they don't care about governing - they want total control.
Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin and the other "actors" are causing a tremendous amount of hurt to the American people and, pretty soon, the American people are going to tell them to stuff it - maybe even tell them to "Go back to Puerto Rico".
Then what, specifically, does Trump want the 5+ billion dollars for?
Keep in mind that if you say anything other than the wall, you open yourself up to hundreds of YouTube clips of Trump saying he needs the money for the wall.
Spot on 1st!
what does that mean exactly. Is it anything like ''go back to the rez''...
Nah - reference was to the 30 Dems and their staff/spouses/family plus lobbiests who spent the week-end in PR versus being in DC to try to hammer out this mess.
In a sense, this is refreshing. At least conversation strayed from 'small hands'.
OK Ozzie - I'll play your silly game - what, specifically, does Nancy/Chuck/Dick/others/etc.. not want with border security? You know, the border security the Dems yammered and clamored over in 2006 and 2008??
Keep in mind that if you say anything other than power/control, you open yourself up to hundreds of YouTube clips of Nancy/Harry/Chuck/Dick/others/etc. saying they need to stop illegal immigration - and VOTING FOR IT.
Trump is playing hardball. The Democrats are not used to that. It would be a good thing for us all if they stopped acting like petulant children and started taking the commonweal of the country to heart, instead of performing for their dwindling and disgusted constituency
I do believe you may have this bassackwards, Mr. Trump finds Himself in a corner that He placed Himself in, Ms. Pelosi is only extending His time out by not caving to His nonsensical wall. Funny the GOP played the obstructionist game for years and no one seemed to mind, now will come the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
This whole fiasco is of Mr. Trumps making (there is video footage, so don't), as my Sainted Mother would have said: He's made His bed, now He can lay (and lie) in it.
President Trump wants a wall along the border with Mexico.
Career officials at the agencies most involved in the process, however, are set to recommend a fence.
All want a BARRIER of some sorts to slow dramatically the flow of Illegal Aliens into the U. S.
Call it what you will but, not matter what the semantics, it is still a barrier.
I call em as I ses um. When I see a fence, that's what I call it, when I see a wal I call it a wall. I figure words have specific meanings for a reason. I would also figure the leader of a country would do the same.
Good because that is what we currently have and what border patrol is requesting more of. Is it a wall ? Not to me.
So if this fence is what we have and what border patrol wants WTF is Donald's problem ?
Why is the government still shut down ?
............
I could throw up another picture of baby trump sitting in his squared off wall sucking his thumb, but why bother.
Instead, I'll say have a good day, we're all Americans. I just wish we would all work together better, I Think we'd have better success.
Sheeeez !
"Barrier" seems to mean something "Different' based on "Ideology".
IMO....a barrier is something "Physical" difficult to breach ! A "Physical" funneling system if you will !
Don't forget.....this "Electronic' crap the "Left' seems to luv, still requires someone "Physical" to show up to actually Stop the "Breach" !
It's all about "Open".... because it's TRUMP actually trying to get something that should have been done long ago.
"Liberals" cry that airport security TSA is loosing folks and we might be vulnerable...…...but Cry because Trump wants MORE "Security" at the countries borders ! (Facefuckingpalm Face)
What the hell is so wrong with calling things by their name ?
A wall is still a wall. a fence is still a fence and yes a barrer can describe both.
PS: Most barriers would also need man power to fully secure. Man left alone generally can with time overcome most barriers.
A Good "Physical" wall would allow more time to get there. The "Illegals" ain't "Professional" climbers dontchyaknow. Only Electronics is too instant, not allowing time for "Physical' to get there.
I say....."ELECTRIC FENCING" is the way to go. Best of both worlds !
Ever seen a cow breach an electric fence on a farm ?
HINT: They don't …… for a reason !
LOL.. Then all we'd have to do is go collect the dead bodies eh ?
LOL. One problem, many humans are smarter than cattle.
And a good fence that can be seen thru is about as good as a wal and would allow time for the manpower to arrive. Either a wall or a fence can be breached without the manpower factor. With one you can see the problem sooner though. That's why order patrol wants fencing instead of a wall they cant see thur.
trump wanted a great wall, well, unless he is paying for it, let him hang his name on a fence instead, but let it be known , Border Patrol recommends a fence.
Never have I seen a cow Die because of an electric Fence.....
"LOL. One problem, many humans are smarter than cattle. "
That's debatable !
True, many humans die of electricon each years so....Ya got me there ...lol
LOL !
Luv ya 321Steve.
Cows = Touch me once, Fuck that !
Humans = Touch me once.....let me see if it happens again !
LOL Man you got that right. And again, and again.
Yep still hurts.
Duu
lol
And they say Curiosity kills the "Cat". pffffffft !
LOL Yep, But look at the species that say that. Like we've deduced not all really understand how not to die the most brightest of ways either.
For Sure !
Hahahaha !
Do you really think a wall will have an impact on any of that? Like seriously, do you think most sex traffickers, drug smugglers etc are moving their product by wandering around the desert?
Not many would, especially for very long , but they will find alternative ways of gaining entree. The incentive is just too powerful.
I can't believe we as a nation have not seen the futility of Banning anything. Isn't alcohol enough of a lesson ?
Evidently not, OK well look at marijuana.
People who want drugs, will get drugs.
Want to really see the insanity that results from banning things ? Ban all gun sales...
IMO: You will never stop people from getting and using drugs, no matter if we even closed the entire border forever even.
IMO: Thinking banning things is the same as trying to set limits and or prosecuting people from killing is kinda short sighted itself.
Even with alcohol we could not get rid of it by banning it, instead we decided it was better to try to regulate it.
These days most states have moved marijuana into the same category. Regulated, not banned.
trumpy's wall won't solve the damn drug problem. I know nothing that will, people have used drugs since there were people and drugs ta use.