Democrats Starting to Crack on the Wall

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/10/democrats-crack-on-the-wall/

Congressional Democrats are ditching House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s ardent opposition to any barrier or wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, as the partial government shutdown continues and President Donald Trump takes his case directly to the border itself.

““If we have a partial wall, if we have fencing, if we have technology used to keep our border safe, all of that is fine,” Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), the chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said on CNN.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) also backed a barrier along the U.S. border with Mexico.

“Some fencing is useful, some barriers are useful,” Merkley said. “There’s a lot of surveillance technology. I’ve been to some cities on the border that have triple fencing and have more personnel and have the technology to see the people moving in the middle of the night.”

Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY)–the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee–said they would support fencing and barriers where necessary along the border.

Senate Minority Whip Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) says he believes there will be a new barrier along the border in the future:

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) says Democrats support a barrier including a fence. “Democrats have repeatedly said that we will support border security, we will support all of its elements including fences,” Garamendi said.

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), the Vice Chair of the Democrat conference, says that the border would benefit from additional barriers. “You know, I think there are parts of the border that would benefit from repairing fencing and other barricades that already exist there,” she told MSNBC.

These very prominent congressional Democrats’ message on the effectiveness of a wall or barrier or fence is very different from the coordinated message from Schumer and Pelosi just two nights ago when the two Democrat leaders in Congress said in their response to President Trump’s Oval Office address that the wall would be “ineffective.”

Will the Democrats give in to the "immorality" of walls?

I mean everybody knows we only need walls in the gated communities they live in.

What's the immorality?

Either you like capitalism and America as it is now, and want to keep the current system (with its constitution and border security duty to the president), or want something entirely else that benefits the entire planet.

Huh?

Even CNN’s Jim Acosta caved and proved that walls work!

https://youtu.be/pKXKwDJUjs0

Nah. Most Americans don't want the Trump wall. But, fencing is fine. Since the 2 are completely different.

Why are non-wall barriers better than walls?

Really? So fences good, walls bad?

Unless you are rich and live in a gated community. Then fences bad, walls good.

All these nuances, it's hard to keep up with all the mental gymnastics.

If Pelosi doesn't allow it to come to the floor it likely won't happen though. You need her on board, like it or not. Plus, do you really want to set a standard where the president holds the government hostage so he can get whatever he wants? Do you want a democrat president feeling like they can do that?

I don't think propaganda is supposed to make logical sense. More of an appeal to emotion.

Because then at least we're spending far less money than on a purely political stunt. Which is what Trump's wall and shutdown are. Which is why most don't want the wall, or the Trump shutdown.

I think this is the reason most disapprove of the wall. Because it doesn't make logical sense, and Trump's appeal to emotion (fear) didn't work.

Poor propaganda.

Even in a fantasy world where we have an infinite budget, perfect materials and resources, a wall is weak solution because it's easy to circumvent. If I can't pass at checkpoint x I simply go to y. If the wall literally blocks off the entire border, I simply catch a smuggling truck, a boat, a tunnel or save up just enough for a plane ticket. And all that's assuming safest tactics with least resistance, no mention of tunneling, attacking, sabotaging, or jury rigging inventive methods to get directly past. All the wall itself would end up being is a monument to isolationism.

And of course we don't live in this fantasy world, we live in a world with economic, time, and physical limitations.

So the argument falls far more in favor of surveillance, manpower, education, relief efforts in the countries of origination, and technology, with strategic and far more cost effective fencing where we have the most extreme of vulnerabilities and where it makes the most sense. Which doesn't at all reflect the current 5.7 billion dollar budget, which proposes mindlessly blocking off a huge chunk of land with no regard to resources, effectiveness, standard time and budgetary increases of contract construction, or eminent domain of current landowners. Nevermind the ethics of a big 30 foot tall middle finger to immigrants, a wall is a completely brainless waste of finances Trump and Mitch McConnell are trying so hard to shove down our throats that they're holding the whole government hostage.

As for the article itself, it's a typical Breitbart propaganda piece.

Clips less than a minute long taken out of context with no mention whatsoever of them actually backing out of the argument against a wall budget or ending their backed support of their house and senate leaders. A clear case of intentionally misleading material. Yawn.

@zaryia: So if we we're in a better position to afford a wall, you think people would be more in favor for it?

Because I really don't believe that. I think most people against the wall are mainly opposed to it for emotional reasons.

Can anyone find a reputable source that claims ‘most’ Americans don’t want a wall? Not CNN, not MSNBC - I’m talking a reliable source.

So you think the Democrats appealing to our morality by claiming walls are "immoral" is a better strategy?

Shaming people so that they don't support a wall because they don't want to be seen as immoral.

True. America has priorities, like approving $38 billion dollars for Israel.

You can't be spending $5 billion dollars on a wall for the US, when Israel needs the money more than the US.

@Damedius: True. I don't really support the stupid wall, but if Trump can influence our government to stop throwing money at the rest of the world and reign our military spending, then whatever.

We all know that the worst American is more important than sending the Jews their yearly welfare check. I'm not kidding.

Lol, Breitbart. Did anyone else check the link before clicking on it? Basically the website dedicated to the alt-right and conspiracy theories. No wonder Damedious linked to it.

You mean like Fox News, or what exactly do you want?

This was Putin's plan all along. He wants Trump to create a wall to create a wedge between usa and Mexico. Mexico will remember it in the future. Putin will take advantage of this and take a ripe Mexico into their sphere of influence. Eventually,

All Putin needs is an mexican anti-USA politician.

I did a bit of google research for about 10 minutes and can't find a single article that isn't from a right wing website which shows democrats are cracking. If anything, most articles are saying we're in a worse deadlock than ever before.

@blackballs: you just double-post. That's a no-no. It is one of the unwritten rules of all internet forums.

Bye-bye.

trump increased the military budget so............

Also breitbart.......hahahahaa

I find it frustrating as hell that we send 50 billion to other countries every year, yet we shut down our government over a less than 4 billion dollar increase in border security.

Anyone trying to pull this "we can't afford it" isn't paying attention to what this country actually spends money on.

@vl4d_l3nin: We can absolutely afford this. I've pointed out many times that 30 billion dollars is a mere 1% of the annual budget making this a relatively modest request financially speaking. The problem for me is that this line of logic has never prevailed about anything else (foreign aid, infrastructure, education, etc) among the exact same people who are now suddenly arguing that 5 billion dollars isn't actually very much money. When Solyndra went bankrupt everyone was screaming about losing half a billion dollars, when people bring up foreign aid they are bitching about 1% of the annual budget, and I've heard people complain about million (not billions, just millions) going to education and scientific research, but 5 billion going towards something that's big, ineffective and doesn't even focus on where the vast majority of the "problem" people are hoping to solve in the first place? Well that's not only a good idea, its suddenly a measly amount of money to be spending.

And none of that focuses on the fact that Trump (the president) is holding the government hostage and hurting the economy to get what he wants and will set a precedent for future presidents to do the same thing.

Honestly I think a wall is a pretty terrible idea, but I do believe in strong borders and immigration policy. 5.7 billion is, in the grand scheme of things, small potatoes and we should just give it to him. Didn't we just pull out of Syria, too? I'm sure we are saving some money from not being there, right?

After all, if he gets this money and fails, it will be that much more ammo to use against him.

And if the wall does work? Well, now we have a strong border. I'm just worried we are going to contract it out, it's going to take 20 years to build, and cost 10x as much and by the time we say "Hey this is a waste of money" there will be no going back lol.

Yeah those are two very odd absolutes to choose from haha.

We didn't just pull out of Syria. After some back and forth, it seems the announcement was that we are going to eventually pull out of Syria, someday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-pullout/white-house-says-trump-position-unchanged-as-syria-withdrawal-plans-slow-idUSKCN1P11L5

No! Absolutely not! He had a republican congress and Senate for 2 years and he didn't prioritize getting the money from people he could have worked with and now he's doing what terrorists do and holding the government, our government, to suddenly get what he wants. It sets a horrible precedent for future presidents if this is allowed to work, and it sets a horrible precedent for future negotiating with Trump himself if he can be allowed act like a terrorist and it ends up working for him. He gets nothing for the way he's behaving.

@mrbojangles25: "And if the wall does work? Well, now we have a strong border."

That's not how political bludgeons like this work. Until it can be proven that not a single person can cross the border illegally it will always be insecure. This mirrors how income taxes are always too high, regulations are always overbearing, and how military funding is always dangerously low.

What an absolute something comment to make, you know as well as anyone that nothing is 100% secure. So asking for a 100% guarantee is pretty much the same as putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "NANANANANA I don´t want to listen to anyone".

And just so you know the only two things that have that kind of guarantee is Death and Taxes.

@Jacanuk: That's exactly the point.

I think 20 billion for a wall is cheap. Look at the military budget, they increased it by 200 billion and think we should be outraged on the wall instead. Bunch of scum bag politicians. Divert 20 billion from the military leeches and build the wall. It doesn't matter if the wall is useless, it probably won't be so affective as the dumb Republicans seem to think. Anyone fleeing for their lives won't be impeded by a wall. You can go over a wall, you can go under a wall, and you can go through a wall. A giant ladder is not so expensive, you will probably be able to buy it soon at the border towns on the Mexican side for cheap. Those will soon be in great demand so will dynamite, and people who build tunnels. That's just the market at work, you can't stop it. There's much more effective ways of stopping illegal immigration that have nothing to do with walls.

1) end the war on drugs and regulate it instead. This will turn those shithole countries in South America to much better conditions, and lift out of poverty. 10 years later the illegals will slow to a small drip.

2). Start fining employers of illegals

3). Make it harder to get tourist visas from shthole countries.

Bad point

If let´s say we see a 70% reduction in illegal immigrants who enter by coming in from Mexico, it would be more than worth it and resources could be used to remove the ones already here who are here illegally and among the worst culprits in social dumping.

@Jacanuk: And we'd still hear politicians say the border is insecure.

Yes on the opposite side when it fits their current political climate.

The wall will be like the ACA, once it´s there both sides will learn to live with it and learn to like it.

@zaryia: the political stunt is by Nancy and Schumer not giving an inch for the border security our border Patrol needs. Its about beating trump not helping america.

I too remember when Pelosi and Schumer vetoed the bill both chambers sent to Trump's desk. That's definitely how it happened.

didn't the bill passed by the Senate before the shutdown include like over a billion dollars for border security

No idea, don't even care because Trump said "I will be the one to shut down the government."

And he did. He did exactly that.

the double take after pelosi says "trump shutdown" is pretty good, followed by Schumer's grin at the camera

Are you trolling me right ?

That's a load of bullshit too, and I hope they stop (won't happen). And all because a bunch of nutjob super Christians think Jews are gonna all burn in hell in some apocalypse if they keep Isreal. Or some fantasy nonsense like that, I honestly can't remember the specifics or care to.

You claiming a wall would be ineffective is conjecture. There is plenty of evidence walls work. Going back to Israel, when their wall on the Egyptian border was built (and paid for by us), illegal immigration in that area went from 10K per year to a couple dozen.

I also realize that most illegals are here by other means that crossing the southern border. That's not the point. The point is the wall is a lot more sustainable than what the border is now; a free for all zone where 300-600 people die every year, 60-80% of girls aged 9-29 are sexually assaulted, and the majority of the 99.7% of illegal drugs are brought into the country. If we can prevent a fraction of those things, while also protecting our low skilled labor, it sounds like money well spent.

And almost anytime there is a government shutdown, it's the administration holding the government hostage. 2013 was very similar circumstances; Obamacare was going to cost more than people thought so funding was put into discretionary spending, Republicans said "we'll pass a budget that doesn't have Obamacare in the discretionary spending", and Obama threatened a veto. The only difference in that case is that the opposing party capitulated a little earlier. Much like the wall, the majority of the country wasn't happy with Obamacare at that time.

One things for sure. If anyone is looking for a job, a border security agent seems like a great option

If you believe anything that comes out of Breitbart, then clearly you’re even dumber than I had originally believed.

I’ll tell you what. Start holding your breath and don’t breath until the Dems crack. Should be any second now.

One things for sure if you're looking for a job that pays avoid federal jobs.

Democrats should sit down with the Border Patrol agents/leaders and round table what they need. If they want more barriers, more staffing, more/superior technology to combat the illegal immigration... Work with them and send a proposed agreement to the Senate.

How about Fox news?

@horgen: Lol. The one source even Trumpists won't dare ignore.

I'm concerned the democrats will cave for one reason.....never underestimate Republicans' resolve to let people suffer to achieve their objectives. Their entire mentality is to "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, and **** you if you can't", whereas the democrats are, as the Right like to claim, "bleeding heart". The Democrats may capitulate simply to stop the hemorrhaging that is affecting innocent people and for the betterment of our nation that conservatives frankly couldn't give two ***** about. Unless the Democrats look to the long-term ramifications of Trump winning this, they're in trouble. This is about the future of their party's control, not national security. Democrats need to look past the current and temporal hardships this shutdown is causing people and play just as heartless as Republicans are if they are to succeed. If they don't, they'll lose, and I don't know if they're capable.

This is Trump's ego....he'll die before he concedes.....it ain't going to happen unless he can find some way to get out while saving face. It's really up to Republicans to turn on him, and considering how much they're nothing but pathetic sycophant weasels that slobber at Trump's heels, there's not much hope there either.