The Border Wall or Fence

[iNow]

Will a concrete wall help the problem?

I say we listen to what our own President said about walls in the below linked commencement speech:

 

[Ten oz]

The overwhelming majority of non-locally produced illicit drugs which are shipped in from other countries enter via air or sea. Illegal border crossings have been in decline for years and border cities do not have crime rates which differ from the rest of the nation, Link. Every argument I have heard Trump make for the Wall (fence, technology, buzz word of the week) has been inaccurate. Additionally not all the land Trump wants to build on belongs to the Govt. Immanent Domain will need to successfully be use in Federal Court and then the administration will have to successfully beat back law suits from States and private land owners. So a Wall still has a lot of hurdles to pass. Then there is the cost. 5 billion won't cover it. Just has past fencing requires constant maintenance so to will any new fencing. Just has Trump claims some of the 5 billion will repair existing fencing so to will money have to be spend indefinitely  on any new fencing. 

[MigL]

Of the nine points made in your Monday 2:06 pm post, five directly reference D Trump and his administration.
Then when I ask you to clarify your position, you take the high road ( Hah, sarcasm ) and claim I don't read your posts anyway, so why bother responding. Strange way to have a discussion, but I guess it's expected, since half of you Americans can't talk to the other half.
And D Trump's solution, as well as yours it seems, is to throw a hissy fit, and refuse to govern or participate.
How's that working out ?

Really CharonY, you 'thought better of me' ?
I thought the purpose of discussions was to examine both sides of an argument.
Silly me, I forgot I was in the echo chamber of the Politics forum.

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

I thought the purpose of discussions was to examine both sides of an argument.

Most arguments have more than two sides, especially this one. For clarity... Which sides do you think are being unexplored? I’ll explore them with you. 

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Most arguments have more than two sides, especially this one. For clarity... Which sides do you think are being unexplored? I’ll explore them with you. 

Speaking as an outsider looking in, I can't find anything better then "crazy" to describe what is happening. 

Perhaps what Trump means by "making America great again" is taking it back to the middle ages. Next it will be build a wall around the continental USA to keep the rest of us out, friend and foe alike....sheesh! Like I said, crazy! Perhaps a dome!!!! 

 

Apologies for making light of a serious situation.

 

Edited January 11, 2019 by beecee

[MigL]

It just seems to me that compromise seems to be forgotten in contemporary American politics.
You'd be adding one third more wall to the southern border.
Is winning the ideological fight worth the hardships of government workers without pay, a nation without a government, and an effectively closed border while this absurdity plays out ?

I expect D Trump to be an uncompromising jacka*ss.
But I thought we should expect better from a Democrat controlled Congress.

Please explain it to me, INow.

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

It just seems to me that compromise seems to be forgotten in contemporary American politics.
You'd be adding one third more wall to the southern border.
Is winning the ideological fight worth the hardships of government workers without pay, a nation without a government, and an effectively closed border while this absurdity plays out ?

I expect D Trump to be an uncompromising jacka*ss.
But I thought we should expect better from a Democrat controlled Congress.

Please explain it to me, INow.

Yeah.

What I can't understand is that by fighting against the border wall Democrats are shooting a golden opportunity.

They allow the wall. Government reopens. We're already spending $18 billion a year on border patrol. Allocate $5.6 billion to begin constructing the wall. 

If the wall proves to be ineffective, then they can make the Republican party and Trump look like the biggest fools on earth, even to the Republican base. "Hey, remember that time YOUR president built a wall? Yeah. How'd that turn out for you? Huh? We gave you that chance you were always asking for and it failed miserably. Now its your turn to give us a chance."

With the Republican party weakened, the Democrats can step in and reverse the funding for the wall and simply let it fall into ruin if it's not economically feasible to support. 

If the wall does somehow pay for itself in reducing the number of drugs coming across, etc, the Democrats can say they allowed the wall to be built and take partial credit for it. 

 

Regardless though, it's too late now. Both parties have beat the crap out of each other, and now they're both hanging off the edge of a cliff. First one to pull themselves up loses. The ultimate game of chicken.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

It just seems to me that compromise seems to be forgotten in contemporary American politics.
You'd be adding one third more wall to the southern border.
Is winning the ideological fight worth the hardships of government workers without pay, a nation without a government, and an effectively closed border while this absurdity plays out ?

I expect D Trump to be an uncompromising jacka*ss.
But I thought we should expect better from a Democrat controlled Congress.

Please explain it to me, INow.

I've said this before in other threads, but I don't think the polarization and rhetoric would have gotten to the level it has if there was a third party in the US.

There has to be some pretty fertile ground in the middle for moderates right now...but they would be outcasts to either party.

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

It just seems to me that compromise seems to be forgotten in contemporary American politics.

Implicit here is a false suggestion of equivalence. That’s not the case.

If a kid walks down the hallway in school and gets punched in the face and has his lunch money stolen, is it his fault for carrying lunch money or walking freely down a public hallway? No, of course not, but if you think “both sides” need to compromise here then that’s precisely what you’re saying... that the kid is equally guilty as the bully. 

Trump last year said send a bill to my desk and I’ll sign it. Republicans were in control so drafted their version. Democrats agreed to vote for it and provide billions of dollars for this wall last year, and the compromise was that dreamers would get status. 

Trump backed out. He moved the goalposts. He said I want more. 

Funding ran out in December and Democrats said, fine... we’ll sign the republican bill yet again... we’ll compromise... but want money allocated to smarter enforcement options. A wall is not smart, and even countless republicans across the nation and some on Fox News itself agree. 

Trump said no. Eff you, a wall or nothing. 

Democrats said, Republicans still control all 3 branches of government. Since they’re in control, they need to get their president onboard. They couldn’t. President had a tantrum. Paper tiger in the Oval Office. Said he wants a shutdown. Shutdown began. 

Democrats took control of the house in January and on Day 1 passed a bill to reopen the government. Senate leader McConnell would not even bring it to the floor. 

Democrats later said they’d give more money for border protection, just not a wall. They compromised. President still refused. Wall or nothing. Eff the workers. 

Democrats passed multiple other bills to reopen parts of the government and agreed to negotiate terms on border security. They AGAIN voted for the previously passed republican funding bill from December. McConnel AGAIN wouldn’t bring it to the floor.

Today Democrat senators continued to pressure McConnell to bring the bills up for a vote. He refused. He said it was pointless because the president won’t sign. 

Democratic Senators reminded him that they had the votes to override a presidential veto... that they are a co-equal branch of government and need to act like it. McConnell left. He just walked off the floor. Still no vote. 

Democrats will again pass a bill tomorrow to reopen the government. The bill will be the one drafted and previously agreed to by republicans. 

I agree there’s a lack of compromise here, but to say it’s equal across the aisle is absurd. The bully is trying to steal the lunch money. The other side has already offered to share their sandwich with him and are not at fault merely for having lunch money in their pocket. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by iNow

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yeah.

What I can't understand is that by fighting against the border wall Democrats are shooting a golden opportunity.

They allow the wall. Government reopens. We're already spending $18 billion a year on border patrol. Allocate $5.6 billion to begin constructing the wall. 

If the wall proves to be ineffective, then they can make the Republican party and Trump look like the biggest fools on earth, even to the Republican base. "Hey, remember that time YOUR president built a wall? Yeah. How'd that turn out for you? Huh? We gave you that chance you were always asking for and it failed miserably. Now its your turn to give us a chance."

I'll be very disappointed in the Democrats if they agree to spend $5.6 billion simply because it is politically advantageous. I'm disappointed that anyone thinks this is a good idea.

We need better government, not more of the same crap we've got now. Democrats need to base their decision on what they deem to be best for Americans, not what is best for them.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'll be very disappointed in the Democrats if they agree to spend $5.6 billion simply because it is politically advantageous. I'm disappointed that anyone thinks this is a good id

The opportunity cost of spending that money on a dumb wall is massive. Think how many homeless veterans we could house, or how many green jobs we could create, or how many roads and bridges we could fix, or how many starving kids we could feed with that money...

Edited January 11, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Implicit here is a false suggestion of equivalence. That’s not the case.

If a kid walks down the hallway in school and gets punched in the face and has his lunch money stolen, is it his fault for carrying lunch money or walking freely down a public hallway? No, of course not, but if you think “both sides” need to compromise here then that’s precisely what you’re saying... that the kid is equally guilty as the bully. 

Trump last year said send a bill to my desk and I’ll sign it. Republicans were in control so drafted their version. Democrats agreed to vote for it and provide billions of dollars for this wall last year, and the compromise was that dreamers would get status. 

Trump backed out. He moved the goalposts. He said I want more. 

Funding ran out in December and Democrats said, fine... we’ll sign the republican bill yet again... we’ll comoromise... but want money allocated to smarter enforcement options. A wall is not smart, and even countless republicans across the nation and some on Fox News itself agree. 

Trump said no. Eff you, a wall or nothing. 

Democrats said, Republicans still control all 3 branches of government. Since they’re in control, they need to get their president onboard. They couldn’t. President had a tantrum. Paper tiger in the Oval Office. Said he wants a shutdown. Shutdown began. 

Democrats took control of the house in January and on Day 1 passed a bill to reopen the government. Senate leader McConnell would not even bring it to the floor. 

Democrats later said they’d give more money for border protection, just not a wall. President still refuses. Wall or nothing. Eff the workers. 

Democrats passed another bill to open parts of the government and agreed to vote for the previously passed republican funding bill from December. McConnel again wouldn’t bring it to the floor.

Today Democrat senators continued to pressure McConnell to bring the bills up for a vote. He refused. He said it was pointless because the president won’t sign. 

Democratic Senators reminded him that they had the votes to override a presidential veto... that they are a co-equal branch of government and need to act like it. McConnell walked off the floor. Still no vote. 

Democrats will again pass a bill tomorrow to reopen the government. The bill will be the one drafted and previously agreed to by republicans. 

I agree there’s a lack of compromise here, but to say it’s equal across the aisle is absurd. The bully is trying to steal the lunch money. The other side is not st fault for having lunch money in their pocket. 

This is more than arguing against equivalence. (not that MigL claimed equivalence) This is arguing that it is good vs evil.

The best arguments really come down to how the money could be better spent and how best to regulate the border.

 

[MigL]

Thank you INow, for the very detailed outline of events.
I've never suggested an equivalence.
But surely we can both agree that Democrats are the 'bigger man' and are considering the best interest of the country much more than D Trump and a lot of a*s-kissing Republicans.

I would imagine you are concerned for your country also.
Exactly how long are you willing to wait it out ?

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

But surely we can both agree that Democrats are the 'bigger man' and are considering the best interest of the country 

It’s sometimes hard to see it this way, but I think that’s EXACTLY what they’re doing. The founding fathers likely would agree given their many warnings against too much power resting with the president and the system of checks and balances they installed to restrict it. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by iNow

[MigL]

You may be right.
But thase same arguments are used by some in defense of the 2nd amendment,

Maybe I should re-state my question...
Not "How long are you willing to wait ?"
But "How far are you willing to go ?"

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

How far are you willing to go ?

I’d have stopped before the shutdown began.

I’m also not the one you need to convince, nor am I getting crushed by a missed paycheck tomorrow, or struggling to feed my kids due to missed food stamps, nor am I a soybean or hog farmer missing the bailout checks promised to alleviate the suffering the China trade war is causing, or any of the hundreds of thousands of other people being used as pawns by the man sworn to serve and protect us all. 

[MigL]

Thank you for always being reasonable.
Maybe you should run for office.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Thank you for always being reasonable.

Not always, but I do try. I figure we all share and agree on at least 95% and that’s it’s a shame to get spun around the axle and allow ourselves to be divided based solely on the other 5. Appreciate the kind words and the exchange this evening. Hope things are well with you and those you love

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s sometimes hard to see it this way, but I think that’s EXACTLY what they’re doing. The founding fathers likely would agree given their many warnings against too much power resting with the president and the system of checks and balances they installed to restrict it. 

I really don'y know if that is true or not, but the appearance to me is that they are being political, first and foremost. Trump of course is expected to be that way in as rude a manner as ever, but seems willing to call 200 extra miles of expensive fence his "wall" and have Americans pay for it...a fair step down on one of his most notable promises he was elected on.

[John Cuthber]

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Democrats are shooting a golden opportunity.

They allow the wall. Government reopens. We're already spending $18 billion a year on border patrol. Allocate $5.6 billion to begin constructing the wall. 

If the wall proves to be ineffective, then they can make the Republican party and Trump look like the biggest fools on earth, even to the Republican base. "Hey, remember that time YOUR president built a wall? Yeah. How'd that turn out for you? Huh?

And they reply

"The Democrats supported it too- that's how it got through Congress."

So, the Dems gain nothing and a lot of $ gets wasted on a wall. (A wall that nobody voted for- the election promise was a wall paid for by Mexico, not the US).

 

 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Of the nine points made in your Monday 2:06 pm post, five directly reference D Trump and his administration.
Then when I ask you to clarify your position, you take the high road ( Hah, sarcasm ) and claim I don't read your posts anyway, so why bother responding.

No, that's not accurate.

You summarized his references to Trump as "how can it be good if it was proposed by D Trump ?" despite the fact that in those references, specific reasons were given. And because of that Phi noted that you only appeared to read parts of the post. 

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Strange way to have a discussion, but I guess it's expected, since half of you Americans can't talk to the other half.
And D Trump's solution, as well as yours it seems, is to throw a hissy fit, and refuse to govern or participate.
How's that working out ?

Not addressing what was actually written and mischaracterizing the exchange means you own some of the burden here.

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Really CharonY, you 'thought better of me' ?
I thought the purpose of discussions was to examine both sides of an argument.
Silly me, I forgot I was in the echo chamber of the Politics forum.

Calling it an echo chamber conveniently excuses you from having to review your response to see if you were in the wrong.

So perhaps you could go back and respond to what was written, instead of your straw man.

[Ten oz]

@MigL arguing that both sides are responsible and misbehaving ignores many different facts about what's happening. For starters the budget Dems approved for the Department of Homeland security (DHS) is a 7.8% increase over the previous years budget which itself had been a 6.7% increase. So at Trump request the annual budget for DHS is up 7.3 billion dollars a year since he has taken office. DHS budget 2019 and DHS budget 2018. The 5.7 billion Trump is asking for is additional money to the already twice increased DHS budget and would go directly towards his wall. It is a separate demand which isn't required for Customs Borders protection, Immigration Custom Enforcement, Coast Guard, or etc to operate. All those agencies already got more money.

The amount of money going towards Trump's wall has been zero dollars. Trump wants 5.7 billion. The Democrat counter offer initially was 1.3 billion to improve current fencing. Trump rejected 1.3 billion and demand the full 5.7 billion. The VP Pence started working a deal with Democratic leaders for 2.5 billion and Trump shutdown those talks saying “Somebody said $2.5 [billion],” Trump said to reporters. “No. Look, this is national security we’re talking about." Link. Both 1.3 billion and 2.5 billion are compromises by Democrats who do not have to give any additional money at all. Trump has flatly rejected both offers. Where we are today is Democrats are offering to give the 1.3 billion, to get the govt open through February, and allow for further discussion on this matter with an open govt.  

So despite you suggestion to the contrary Democrats have been attempting to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle. Trump refuses to budge. Also nothing about this requires the the govt to be shutdown. An increase to DHS has already been approved. The wall money is a separate appropriation which can be handled at any time. Trump is choosing to do it now because federal workers make for good hostages. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Yeah.

What I can't understand is that by fighting against the border wall Democrats are shooting a golden opportunity.

They allow the wall. Government reopens. We're already spending $18 billion a year on border patrol. Allocate $5.6 billion to begin constructing the wall. 

If the wall proves to be ineffective, then they can make the Republican party and Trump look like the biggest fools on earth, even to the Republican base. "Hey, remember that time YOUR president built a wall? Yeah. How'd that turn out for you? Huh? We gave you that chance you were always asking for and it failed miserably. Now its your turn to give us a chance."

Despite the fact that this kind of approach has rarely worked before? Trump has looked foolish many times in his brief tenure, and that has done nothing to shake the confidence of his supporters. And it will take years before the construction is done, so even if these facts mattered to the GOP base, Trump will be long gone from the presidency by the time the facts could be presented..

11 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

With the Republican party weakened, the Democrats can step in and reverse the funding for the wall and simply let it fall into ruin if it's not economically feasible to support. 

This ignores the damage done in building the wall. Land seizure, environmental damage, etc.

11 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

If the wall does somehow pay for itself in reducing the number of drugs coming across, etc, the Democrats can say they allowed the wall to be built and take partial credit for it. 

The information we have says this will not happen. Drugs come in through normal ports of entry (likely where you can bribe somebody to look the other way, or hide the drugs in mundane shipments)

 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

This ignores the damage done in building the wall. Land seizure, environmental damage, etc.

It also ignores how the same money could be better used to tackle the issues cited as the justification for a wall. The majority of illicit drugs which are brought into the country come in at ports of entry. This is especially true for heroin. Rather than wasting time, money, and national attention on remote southern border crossings we could focusing on strengthening security where it actually matters.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, that's not accurate.

You summarized his references to Trump as "how can it be good if it was proposed by D Trump ?" despite the fact that in those references, specific reasons were given. And because of that Phi noted that you only appeared to read parts of the post. 

Not addressing what was actually written and mischaracterizing the exchange means you own some of the burden here.

Calling it an echo chamber conveniently excuses you from having to review your response to see if you were in the wrong.

So perhaps you could go back and respond to what was written, instead of your straw man.

Much of it was anti Trump rhetoric, that while it may be true, had nothing to do with the wall. While certainly possible, it is hard to glean much good information from bad in what at least superficially looks like a rant.

At best, it is good at convincing those already convinced, and to that degree the echo chamber comment is not far off the mark.

Edited January 11, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell