The Border Wall or Fence

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes. I'm less certain of the bold, but would agree.

I would also agree with the Democrats allowing some concessions to Trump, for the purpose of breaking the stalemate.

If McConnell held a vote and it earned enough votes to pass should Trump sign it?

The Stalemate, far as I can tell, is imposed by Trump and Trump alone. Enough Republicans would support the budget as it is for it to pass. That is a matter of record. There is already a bipartisan majority in place behind the budget as it exists. What good is your plea for moderation and bipartisanship if you aren't willing to throw your support behind it. Republicans and Democrats are will to open the govt.. It is Trump who, acting alone, who is saying no. 

*Edit - Nothing prevents negotiations for the wall to continue with an open govt. 

Quote

 

But aside from some rank-and-file Republicans like Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Cory Gardner of Colorado who say Congress should again pass spending bills that don’t provide additional wall funding, McConnell’s allies say he’s facing little pressure to change his stance as the longest shutdown in history continues.

“They’re going to do what they need to do and advocate for what they believe their constituents want,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who served as McConnell’s deputy for six years. “But I don’t think that should be confused with what Sen. McConnell’s calculus is, which is: not to go through this effort of passing something the president won’t sign and then going through a potential veto override and all the conflict that would cause.” Link

 

Quote

President Donald Trump has rejected a plan proposed by a bloc of Senate Republicans who had hoped to break an impasse over the government shutdown, leaving Congress and the White House with little obvious way out of the extended battle over Trump's border wall.

On the 20th day of the shutdown, the GOP group tried to jump start bipartisan talks before Trump declares a national emergency to get his wall. But the president rejected their idea to allow congressional committees to sort out his border wall request while the government reopened, deeming the idea likely to leave him with nothing to show for the shutdown. Link

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

36 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

This thread is discussion a U.S. political issue. What you are considered outside the U.S. isn't relevant to anything. 

Frankly, I think it is silly considering me on the "far right", regardless of which countries issues we are discussing.

Anyone doing so honestly, is so far left that they have taken on some extreme right values IMO, and are unable to recognize a moderate view.

12 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I'm Canadian and I don't consider you as liberal, especially given your devil's advocacy in disguise for ideology.

Like you, I have voted all three parties in my day too, but we are worlds apart in our alignment. What may be a supportive vote on my part may be a protest vote on your part, or vise versa. (and thank goodness for the three party system and the non-confidence vote)
 

I certainly agree with that.

 

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If McConnell held a vote and it earned enough votes to pass should Trump sign it?

Yes.

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

The Stalemate, far as I can tell, is imposed by Trump and Trump alone. Enough Republicans would support the budget as it is for it to pass. That is a matter of record. There is already a bipartisan majority in place behind the budget as it exists. What good is your plea for moderation and bipartisanship if you aren't willing to throw your support behind it. Republicans and Democrats are will to open the govt.. It is Trump who, acting alone, who is saying no. 

*Edit - Nothing prevents negotiations for the wall to continue with an open govt. 

 

 

I don't fully agree.

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I certainly agree with that.

If anything, we agree that's one area where America went wrong protesting the British Parliamentary System.

It's given rise to extremism because one side can advocate complete nonsense (like building walls) and the other is hamstrung addressing it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

If anything, we agree that's one area where America went wrong protesting the British Parliamentary System.

It's given rise to extremism because one side can advocate complete nonsense (like building walls) and the other is hamstrung addressing it.

If two parties went at each other like the 2 in the US have lately, the third party would have a field day...and rightfully so.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Frankly, I think it is silly considering me on the "far right", regardless of which countries issues we are discussing.

Anyone doing so honestly, is so far left that they have taken on some extreme right values IMO, and are unable to recognize a moderate view.

Nothing in my post implied you were a liberal or conservative. I simply said what you're considered in Canada is irrelevant. 

I think you are too hung up on labels and the notion of bias. I personally do not care what you consider yourself or how you feel about cable news coverage. It is superfluous to this thread topics. The easiest what to find common ground is to focus on the facts and agreement. We both agree McConnell should hold a vote. So lets continue from there. You can start by addressing my previous post.    

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Nothing in my post implied you were a liberal or conservative. I simply said what you're considered in Canada is irrelevant. 

I think you are too hung up on labels and the notion of bias. I personally do not care what you consider yourself or how you feel about cable news coverage. It is superfluous to this thread topics. The easiest what to find common ground is to focus on the facts and agreement. We both agree McConnell should hold a vote. So lets continue from there. You can start by addressing my previous post.    

It is hardly irrelevant to responding to an accusation that I'm on the far right.

You don't seem to consider yourself a racist at home in San Diego. Are you one when you visit Mexico? How about if you visited Australia? 

Outside of obvious jokes, my statements reflect my views,. Any questions I ask may not. I'm not questioning anyone here with regard to far right positions. I simply don't recognize anyone here as being that. 

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If two parties went at each other like the 2 in the US have lately, the third party would have a field day...and rightfully so.

A unanimous Senate vote is hardly an example of " two parties went at each other". It is Trump who forced the shutdown and not Congressional Party members.

Trump lost the popular vote by 4 million and Republicans just lost the popular in the midterm by 10 million. These are substantial numbers. The Majority of voters do not support Trump. The Majority do not want his Wall. The will of the people should be considered here. Simply wagging ones fingers at both sides ignores the will of the people. Trump is in office and does have his supporters. Trump does represent a portion of the country. However that portion is a minority. Shutting down the whole govt for a record breaking amount of time in an attempt to win a demand not supported by the majority of the country is asinine. It has never been done before by anyone from any political party. There are normal means of appropriations Trump can pursue for his wall. Holding the whole country hostage, especially without majority support, is ethically wrong in my opinion 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

A unanimous Senate vote is hardly an example of " two parties went at each other". It is Trump who forced the shutdown and not Congressional Party members.

Trump lost the popular vote by 4 million and Republicans just lost the popular in the midterm by 10 million. These are substantial numbers. The Majority of voters do not support Trump. The Majority do not want his Wall. The will of the people should be considered here. Simply wagging ones fingers at both sides ignores the will of the people. Trump is in office and does have his supporters. Trump does represent a portion of the country. However that portion is a minority. Shutting down the whole govt for a record breaking amount of time in an attempt to win a demand not supported by the majority of the country is asinine. It has never been done before by anyone from any political party. There are normal means of appropriations Trump can pursue for his wall. Holding the whole country hostage, especially without majority support, is ethically wrong in my opinion 

I didn't suggest it was. Unless you just crawled out from under a rock I don't believe I need to give you any real examples.

[Ten oz]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

It is hardly irrelevant to responding to an accusation that I'm on the far right.

This thread isn't about you. It is about Border Security in the U.S.. Whether people in Canada consider you fat, skinny, old, young, gay, straight, black, white, liberal, or conservative is irrelevant. It makes no difference to this discussion.  

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Outside of obvious jokes, my statements reflect my views,. Any questions I ask may not. I'm not questioning anyone here with regard to far right positions. I simply don't recognize anyone here as being that. 

Who cares? I don't mean that to be glib or as an insult I mean it literally. Who cares what you or I  recognize ourselves as. If I identify as a Conservative Scientologist what does it change?

The topic here is Border Security. Currently the U.S. Govt is shutdown and 800,000 workers are without pay. What specifically (both sides should talk isn't very specific) do you thinks to happen?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, Ten oz said:

This thread isn't about you. It is about Border Security in the U.S.. Whether people in Canada consider you fat, skinny, old, young, gay, straight, black, white, liberal, or conservative is irrelevant. It makes no difference to this discussion.  

Who cares? I don't mean that to be glib or as an insult I mean it literally. Who cares what you or I  recognize ourselves as. If I identify as a Conservative Scientologist what does it change?

The topic here is Border Security. Currently the U.S. Govt is shutdown and 800,000 workers are without pay. What specifically (both sides should talk isn't very specific) do you thinks to happen?

It shouldn't be. But if someone accused you of something I think it is fair for you to reply to it. You seem to forget how recently you did just that (hint: climate change)

[iNow]

Sigh... speaking of the wall and fence and shutdown...

Edited January 19, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I didn't suggest it was. Unless you just crawled out from under a rock I don't believe I need to give you any real examples.

This thread is about border security. On this issue there is not a lot of division. Immigration has generally been an area where Democrats and Republicans have been able to agree. Senior Republican leaders like Bush, McCain, Rubio, and etc have proposed various bipartisan solutions over the years. It is the extreme politics of Trump which has created the current division on the issue. 

[MigL]

You are not the only one involved in this discussion, Ten oz.
 If JCM is responding to Rangerx's accusations, here is no need for you to quote him out of context and question the relevance to the OP.
It is becoming annoying.

I still find it amusing that ANYONE expects D Trump to do the 'civil and bipartisan" thing, it is simply not in his nature.
I do expect the rest of Congressional and Senate elected officials to do what is best for the people.
That means, either forcing a vote, or giving in for the greater good.
Not posturing for ideological position.
( and in some people's eyes, that makes me  'far right', since that is 'false equivalence' and I actually give a sh*t about the people )

[Ten oz]

54 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It shouldn't be. But if someone accused you of something I think it is fair for you to reply to it. You seem to forget how recently you did just that (hint: climate change)

Currently the U.S. Govt is shutdown and 800,000 workers are without pay. What specifically (both sides should talk isn't very specific) do you think should happen?

Just now, MigL said:

You are not the only one involved in this discussion, Ten oz.
 If JCM is responding to Rangerx's accusations, here is no need for you to quote him out of context and question the relevance to the OP.
It is becoming annoying.

Ideally every post in context should have some relationship to a thread's topic. Otherwise it is off topic and doesn't belong. We all drift off topic from time to time; no big deal. My post reiterated the topic and lack of relationship to the topic. 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I still find it amusing that ANYONE expects D Trump to do the 'civil and bipartisan" thing, it is simply not in his nature.
I do expect the rest of Congressional and Senate elected officials to do what is best for the people.
That means, either forcing a vote, or giving in for the greater good.
Not posturing for ideological position.
( and in some people's eyes, that makes me  'far right', since that is 'false equivalence' and I actually give a sh*t about the people )

Far as I can tell Congressional Republicans do not have to give in to anything. Prior to Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House was Paul Ryan (Republican) and Congress didn't found Trump's wall then either. Trump failed to get funding for his wall from Republicans when they controlled all of Congress and is failing to get if now that Democrats control the House. For now McConnell is preventing a vote at Trump request so not the divide the Republican's base but it is known that the votes needed to pass the bill are there. 

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

it is known that the votes needed to pass the bill are there. 

It’s not clear, but I believe you mean votes to pass a bill to reopen the government or even a bill to fund border security more broadly, not votes to fund a physical barrier easily overcome with ladders or burrowed under with shovels 

Edited January 19, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s not clear, but I believe you mean votes to pass a bill to reopen the government or even a bill to fund border security more broadly, not votes to fund a physical barrier easily overcome with ladders or burrowed under with shovels 

I meant vote to fund the govt and continue the Wall debate with an open govt.. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

45 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Currently the U.S. Govt is shutdown and 800,000 workers are without pay. What specifically (both sides should talk isn't very specific) do you think should happen?

 

I don't know. This was one of the reasons I asked what the value was of 5.3 Billion cost of "wall". There seems to be some consensus here that the money could be better spent.

So is it worth only 3 billion? 1 Billion? Truly a negative number? (using the odd assumption that it was evil, racist or immoral)

What is the net cost vs value of giving Trump 5.3 Billion toward "wall". how does that compare to the ongoing cost of the shutdown?

I really don't have much more to add than "split the difference" and get on with governing, or either side should yield and get on with it,  but I do think any of those options are better than doing nothing and allowing the shutdown to continue, which is only better if building a "wall" is worse.

So I don't know. I don't know if anyone here can reasonably answer the question either. "What is the value of the building of the wall?" (5.3 cost of it, not wall across the whole border...which was silly 3 years ago, and remains so today)

If the question does not matter then I am of the opinion that it is just a game for both sides (not suggesting equally, so spare me the "false equivalency")

So there's my $0.02...and I admit it is overpriced....but you asked

Edited January 19, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What is the net cost vs value of giving Trump 5.3 Billion toward "wall". 

It’s $5.7B, and that would just be a down payment. Full cost is likely closer to $50B+

[MigL]

So, who, in the US government, is considering the well being of those 800,000 people ?
Is everyone going to join D Trump in the 'mud' ?
Or is someone going to take the 'high ground' ?

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s $5.7B, and that would just be a down payment. Full cost is likely closer to $50B+

OK. The cost is 5.7. My question is what is the value of it being built. Assuming it is less valuable than 5.7. Does it have any value whatsoever? Is it truly a liability...have negative value?

Any guesstimates? I suspect few would even hazard one...because the shutdown is all about posturing and politics...and little to do with the economics

Edited January 19, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't know. This was one of the reasons I asked what the value was of 5.3 Billion cost of "wall". There seems to be some consensus here that the money could be better spent.

So is it worth only 3 billion? 1 Billion? Truly a negative number? (using the odd assumption that it was evil, racist or immoral)

What is the net cost vs value of giving Trump 5.3 Billion toward "wall". how does that compare to the ongoing cost of the shutdown?

I really don't have much more to add than "split the difference" and get on with governing, or either side should yield and get on with it,  but I do think any of those options are better than doing nothing and allowing the shutdown to continue, which is only better if building a "wall" is worse.

So I don't know. I don't know if anyone here can reasonably answer the question either. "What is the value of the building of the wall?"

If the question does not matter then I am of the opinion that it is just a game for both sides (not suggesting equally, so spare me the "false equivalency")

So there's my $0.02...and I admit it is overpriced....but you asked

+1, I am glad we are back on topic.

First off it is worth understand what the 5.7 billion would be spent on. The Budget approved and signed off by Sec of Dept. or Homeland Security only ask for 1.6 billion for 65 miles of new wall construction and Developed the Agency Reform Plan, Comprehensive Border Security Study, and the Border Wall System Cost Estimate. Here is a link to the full budget proposal..

Also as previously discussed the govt doesn't own the land needed to build the Wall. They are numerous lawsuits already pending. So even if Trump got 5.7 billion from Congress he neither has a plan in place to build the wall or legal authority to build it on the land he wants to build it one. 

You asked if it was worth 3 billion, 1 billion, or whatever but that can't be answered. The Wall is an idea. It is a symbol of Trump's brand. It is not a tangible thing construction workers are standing by ready to build. It is both worth nothing in technical terms and worth everything in political banner waving terms. I understand why you feel it is a game for both sides but in what universe would Congress give the President 5.7 Billion dollars so something which doesn't yet even have plan? Again, when Republicans where in charge of the House they refused to give Trump the money too. Both sides (Democrats and Republican) have told Trump no. So this isn't a game both sides are playing. This is Trump controlling the media cycle, whipping up his base, and looking to score symbolic points.

Trump has done this before. Early in his presidency he declared a travel ban but failed to roll out any legal instruction for it. It created chaos. Agencies dealing with immigration and travel were confused. The White House lawyers eventually wrote up official guidance but it was tossed out in court. That happened a few different times until they final created some temporary measures which weren't rejected in Federal Court. Trump also did this with Healthcare. After campaigning he'd replace the ACA with something better Trump demanded Congress vote to repeal the ACA and replace it with the Republican plan. However there wasn't a Republican plan and after attempting to assemble one on the fly Republicans failed to muster up the needed votes among themselves to repeal and replace the ACA. Trump is asking for 5.7 billion for a wall but doesn't have any idea what he'd do if he got it. 

[rangerx]

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

So, who, in the US government, is considering the well being of those 800,000 people ?
Is everyone going to join D Trump in the 'mud' ?
Or is someone going to take the 'high ground' ?

Does incessantly reiterating a political promise (and voted in on the premise) for a wall and insisting Mexico pay for it mean nothing and has no consequences?

Trump is an unapologetic liar, his followers are hellbent on goose-stepping his every whim and his senate is the party of no.

What's the penalty for Republicans changing horses mid stream? None in this scenario.

Yet Democrats are expected to compromise?

Is what you're really saying, they must cave in instead for the good of the government workers at the failing of the democracy?

Trump owns this one, all of it.

[Raider5678]

Trump has offered a three-year extension for DACA, a large increase in immigration lawyers for processing legal immigration cases, extending the TPS of 300,000 asylum seekers by 3 years, and $800 million in humanitarian aid(I didn't catch who he specified it for) in exchange for $5.7 billion for the wall.

Pelosi responds that it's a non-starter because it doesn't include a permanent solution for DACA nor those who need TPS.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426172-pelosi-trump-proposals-to-reopen-government-a-non-starter

A three-year extension is long enough for Democrats to regain the presidency and the legislative branch, and come up with their own "permanent solution" for DACA.

 

Edit: This seems like a relatively solid deal to me. Especially to get the government reopened. Additionally, if the Democrats turn this down then they're going to be accepting a huge majority of the blame for the shutdown. Because, regardless of what the Democrats might say, he has offered quite a bit in exchange for the wall, and in the eyes of the public he's going to seem like he's compromising and they're not.

 

Edit 2: I previously stated he was granting TPS to certain asylum seakers. I was wrong. He was extending the TPS of 300,000 asylum seekers by 3 years.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

The onus on Democrats is zero.

[Raider5678]

Pelosi has responded with her own deal(Before Trump had even stated his publicly).

 

If Trump signs a bill to reopen the government, extends DACA and TPS protections permanently, the Democrats will discuss potentially increasing border security.

https://wsvn.com/news/politics/pelosi-dismisses-trump-proposal-as-non-starter/

 

 

Additionally, Trump has offered three other things that Democrats claim they support. 

• INcreased infrastructure investments at our ports of entry, including additional ports and roads.
• Advanced technology to scan for drugs, weapons, and contraband where the vast majority of drugs come into our country and advanced technology to detect unauthorized crossings.
• More customs personnel including filling the more than 3,000 customs and border patrol vacancies

Edited January 19, 2019 by Raider5678