Trump addresses government shutdown and border security


"Some have suggested a barrier is immoral. Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don't build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside."

build wall :wall:

I think I need to actually post an article as well so here's some shit from WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-addresses-nation-on-border-wall-as-shutdown-drags-on-11546999648
WASHINGTON—President Trump in a prime-time address Tuesday said a wall along the southern border is key to national security, as he called for lawmakers to fund it and end a partial government shutdown that is days away from becoming the longest in U.S. history.

In the televised address from the Oval Office, Mr. Trump’s first in his nearly two years as president, he said a barrier is necessary to prevent the movement of illegal drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border, and he shared stories of human trafficking.

“This is a humanitarian crisis—a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul,” said Mr. Trump, sitting at the Resolute Desk. “This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic congressional leaders, issued an immediate televised response to the president, rejecting the idea of a wall as unnecessary.

“President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

Mr. Schumer said Democrats are united with the president on the need for stronger border security, but said: “We sharply disagree with the president about the most effective way to do it.”

Earlier Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked the chamber from considering bipartisan foreign-policy legislation in a bid to pressure Republicans to end the government shutdown, which was in its 18th day. That move, combined with Mr. Trump’s address, suggested that neither side was prepared to cede ground over wall funding.

Mr. Trump and congressional leadership from both parties are scheduled to meet and discuss the issue Wednesday at the White House, after the president attends a lunch with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Trump’s address was part of a ramped-up effort by the White House this week to sway public opinion in favor of a border wall, a core issue for Mr. Trump’s political base but one that is broadly unpopular. On Thursday, the Republican president is set to travel to the border to highlight the issue in person.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in September, ahead of midterm elections, showed 29% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate calling for a wall, while 55% said they would be less likely to do so.

In his address, Mr. Trump didn’t declare a national emergency over border security—a move he publicly contemplated in recent days—in which he would seek to divert funds from elsewhere in the government to fund the wall. Such a declaration would bring swift legal challenges, and it is unclear in that scenario where the funds would come from.

Instead, the speech was aimed at explaining the president’s rationale for why he viewed the U.S.-Mexico border as in a state of crisis.

Mr. Trump has said he wouldn’t sign any bill ending the shutdown that doesn’t allocate money for hundreds of miles of a border wall.

Earlier Tuesday evening, Senate Democrats prevented the chamber from moving to consider a package of bills aimed at boosting security assistance for Israel and other Middle Eastern policy provisions. Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, where most bills need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles.

Some Democrats have said they would block all legislation until the government is reopened, though Mr. Schumer hasn’t gone that far.

“The first business of the Senate should be to reopen the government,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), noting that he had co-sponsored one of the bills related to Israel. “As passionate as I have been for the security of the nation of Israel, I’m every bit as passionate about the security of the United States.”

The president’s apparent backing off on declaring an emergency comes after lawmakers in both parties indicated they wouldn’t support such a move. Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday that he opposes using an emergency declaration to build a wall using military funds.

President Trump and prominent Democrats met Friday to discuss ending the government shutdown, which the president had claimed responsibility to further the cause border security. The talks were described by the president as productive, but the Democrats disagreed. Photo: AP
“In short, I’m opposed to using defense dollars for nondefense purposes,” he said.

Senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said in a Fox News interview Monday that the White House Counsel’s Office was exploring the legal implications of declaring a national emergency, but said doing so would “let Congress off the hook.”

In preparation for Tuesday’s speech, White House officials were underscoring the importance of internally fact-checking any numbers and statistics, after the president and his aides have repeatedly mischaracterized immigration-related figures in recent weeks. “It’s really important we get this right,” one senior White House official said.

The president has made points about problems with drugs and human trafficking at the border publicly in the past week. Last week, he told cabinet members that 300 people in the U.S. die each day from overdoses of heroin, “the vast majority of which comes across through our southern border.” The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the epidemic of daily opioid deaths is 130.

Mr. Trump also has said 20,000 children were smuggled into the U.S. last month. There were 25,000 families apprehended at the border in November, according to the most recent data available from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

During closed-door negotiations on reopening the government, Mrs. Pelosi has disputed some White House aides’ statistics about the border. On Sunday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was challenged on Fox News for saying 4,000 known or suspected terrorists have been apprehended coming into the country.

“Do you know where those 4,000 people come, where they are captured?” Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday,” told Ms. Sanders. “Airports … the State Department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border.” Mr. Wallace was referring to data from the Department of Homeland Security.

Ms. Conway, in the Fox News interview, said that statistic “got unfortunately conflated by a colleague” and acknowledged that the nearly 4,000 terrorists or terror suspects apprehended in fiscal year 2017 hadn’t sought to enter the U.S. through the southern border.

The administration has sought in recent days to blunt the impact of the shutdown, buying time as negotiations with Congress continue. On Monday, the Trump administration said the Internal Revenue Service would pay tax refunds even though the agency is closed, reversing a longstanding policy.

About 420,000 employees deemed essential are working without pay, while another 380,000 federal employees have been placed on unpaid leave. The shutdown became the second-longest on record Monday. By Saturday, if the government hasn’t reopened, the shutdown will become the longest in U.S. history.
 
Última edición:
Nice little add in about being in a position of power. It provides cover to you should you do the same thing.

Who says I haven't got in trouble for saying something? :lit: sounds like a double edged sword to expect something from X party or politician but not another. Am I not allowed to disagree with the Wall because Trump isn't like any other politician because he blurts out whatever he wants on Twitter?

Fine businesses that hire illegals at $1,000 per illegal. Then have it directly fund more immigration controls. When the number starts dropping, that works because then you no longer need to hire and retain as many ICE agents.

That's actually a good point. I can see that working on top of enforcing illegal immigration. The trouble I see with the wall is that what's stopping politicians from just building a wall and that's it? It's going to take more than a simple barrier to combat that issue.

Again, Trump was 100% right when he said “we love the people on the inside more”.

I disagree. Most of everybody seems to like attacking each other for God know whats. It IS pretty entertaining.

I agree with this, but I never saw the wall as an all or nothing solution. If you did, you're exceptional. It should go in tandem with enforcing existing law and going after companies that insist on hiring illegals. There are examples of walls working, please prove it that a border wall will not cut down on crossings at all.

What country has a border wall? Besides Berlin and China?
 
What country has a border wall? Besides Berlin and China?

Hungary put an effective one up, and Italy recently started enforcing the Mediterranean Sea, their natural wall from the bullshit. Also when the migrants in Italy first started showing up, they kept them from heading further north into Europe (where they really wanted to go). This was until Italy got tired of the EU fucking around and decided to open the border up and let them flow.

Many walls function very well as what they're meant to do, act as a deterrence.

Edit: Sorry, meant to also add that a "wall" doesn't have to be a vertical structure. Just some sort of barrier that impedes people from just waltzing over.
 
Who says I haven't got in trouble for saying something? :lit: sounds like a double edged sword to expect something from X party or politician but not another. Am I not allowed to disagree with the Wall because Trump isn't like any other politician because he blurts out whatever he wants on Twitter?

That was a strawman, but whatever.

That's actually a good point. I can see that working on top of enforcing illegal immigration. The trouble I see with the wall is that what's stopping politicians from just building a wall and that's it? It's going to take more than a simple barrier to combat that issue.

Another strawman. Nobosy has ever suggested just building a wall and then ignoring the future.

What country has a border wall? Besides Berlin and China?

Hungary, Turkey, Israel, the Koreas (if you don't call that a wall, you're mistaken), I believe Romania has some border wall, Spain....
 
lso, liberals often argue that the government is large enough to handle multiple issues at once

The government is large, true, but the resources are finite. In an ultimate sense, to feed an illegal immigrant means taking food from the table of an American...and that is not acceptable.
 
Seriously though, why is the idea of a wall so horrible to people? This government wastes so much more cash on things we don't even know about nor want. Now that a project comes along that costs the government relatively little to pay for and that a lot of people have been clamoring for, that's where people draw the line? Is it because it's perpetuating the current shutdown? I doubt that because people have been against the wall even before that.

The reasons I've seen:

1. Waste of money.

As said before, this is one of those rare times the US Government wants to spend tax dollars on something a lot of Americans actually want. That in itself sounds like a small miracle. We waste so much money on absolute bullshit, yet we don't see anybody willing to shut the budget down on any of that shit.

2. It won't stop illegal immigration completely.

I agree with this, but I never saw the wall as an all or nothing solution. If you did, you're exceptional. It should go in tandem with enforcing existing law and going after companies that insist on hiring illegals. There are examples of walls working, please prove it that a border wall will not cut down on crossings at all.

Please offer me some more points from the anti wall side. I'm sure I've missed a couple, but these are the ones I see repeated ENDLESSLY, and they honestly seem disingenuous.
Sure, I have too much free time tonight.

I don't think it's a waste of money necessarily, I just think it's an inefficient use. Some other countries have walls, sure, but how many of them have nearly as much border to worry about? If a 10 foot wall can be defeated by an 11 foot ladder, it doesn't do much good. And I know that's an exaggeration, but you get this point.

So here's an analogy. Let's say the government has $150 million dollars in defense that they're trying to decide how to spend, and their choices are a single F22, or 1500 infantry. Well, the plane may be big and flashy and cool, and it will probably get SOMETHING done. But given the kind of wars we fight these days, we're probably better off with the boring, unsexy infantry.

The government ultimately has a finite amount of money. I have no problem putting more of it into clamping down on illegal immigration. I just want to make sure it's being done efficiently. For example, what if we took all the money we were planning to spend on the wall and started going after employers who give jobs to illegals? I suspect we'd get more accomplished doing that sort of thing.
 
Seriously though, why is the idea of a wall so horrible to people? This government wastes so much more cash on things we don't even know about nor want. Now that a project comes along that costs the government relatively little to pay for and that a lot of people have been clamoring for, that's where people draw the line? Is it because it's perpetuating the current shutdown? I doubt that because people have been against the wall even before that.

The reasons I've seen:

1. Waste of money.

As said before, this is one of those rare times the US Government wants to spend tax dollars on something a lot of Americans actually want. That in itself sounds like a small miracle. We waste so much money on absolute bullshit, yet we don't see anybody willing to shut the budget down on any of that shit.

2. It won't stop illegal immigration completely.

I agree with this, but I never saw the wall as an all or nothing solution. If you did, you're exceptional. It should go in tandem with enforcing existing law and going after companies that insist on hiring illegals. There are examples of walls working, please prove it that a border wall will not cut down on crossings at all.

Please offer me some more points from the anti wall side. I'm sure I've missed a couple, but these are the ones I see repeated ENDLESSLY, and they honestly seem disingenuous.
I've heard outdoorsy people say that a wall(an actual wall) all across the border would cause a disbalance in the local ecosystem by preventing animals from walking around and doing their thing, but I'm not a wildlife expert so I don't know how valid that claim is.

As for the money argument, there's a million little things the government is wasting money on and I'm sure there are people complaining about the wall and those things.

Aside from "poor brown people uwu" and "trying to make a better life :'(" and "illegals provide cheap labor/jobs no one else wants to do", I haven't heard many other arguments against the wall specifically, and those are more against border control in general. But the people I hear these opinions from aren't the most diverse in ideas.

Personally, I don't get people treating the wall as something that needs to be built NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW. If there's an immediate danger to national security, I don't see how a wall that takes months to years to build is going to impede an immediate danger. Of course the wall isn't going to do all the work, but if that's the case then why isn't Trump making as big a fuss about fining businesses that hire illegals and increasing the amount of officers at the border(or other policys)? Some people act like the wall is the end-all of border security, and every other immigration control measure is potatoes compared to a wall.

I guess because policy like that is boring compared to a great big wall, and people want the wall more vehemently than they want other measures, but I don't particularly care about this issue so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
 
Personally, I don't get people treating the wall as something that needs to be built NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW. If there's an immediate danger to national security, I don't see how a wall that takes months to years to build is going to impede an immediate danger. Of course the wall isn't going to do all the work, but if that's the case then why isn't Trump making as big a fuss about fining businesses that hire illegals and increasing the amount of officers at the border(or other policys)? Some people act like the wall is the end-all of border security, and every other immigration control measure is potatoes compared to a wall.

The vast majority of pro-wall people are just desperate for literally ANY action towards immigration reform, since, from their perspective, it's been an issue tacitly ignored by both parties for venal reasons for 60+ years. Republican politicians like the cheap labor, Democrat politicians are 100% invested in the idea they can import a more compliant voter base, etc.

Every proposition for the Wall's funding has included a lot of extra funds for more border patrols/ICE internal enforcement (AKA the more impactful immigration enforcement people keep claiming is getting ignored), the Wall is just a convenient short-hand for "do something about the mass migration from Latin America PLEASE".
 
Sure, I have too much free time tonight.

I don't think it's a waste of money necessarily, I just think it's an inefficient use. Some other countries have walls, sure, but how many of them have nearly as much border to worry about? If a 10 foot wall can be defeated by an 11 foot ladder, it doesn't do much good. And I know that's an exaggeration, but you get this point.

So here's an analogy. Let's say the government has $150 million dollars in defense that they're trying to decide how to spend, and their choices are a single F22, or 1500 infantry. Well, the plane may be big and flashy and cool, and it will probably get SOMETHING done. But given the kind of wars we fight these days, we're probably better off with the boring, unsexy infantry.

The government ultimately has a finite amount of money. I have no problem putting more of it into clamping down on illegal immigration. I just want to make sure it's being done efficiently. For example, what if we took all the money we were planning to spend on the wall and started going after employers who give jobs to illegals? I suspect we'd get more accomplished doing that sort of thing.
I agree with this. If it was a choice between a wall or upholding existing laws, I'd say fuck the wall. They can be done in tandem, however. That's what I want, the whole deal. A wall and a crackdown. Both people who say a wall is useless and those who say a wall will fix everything are missing the point.
 
First shut off the tap, then bail out the water. None of the ideas floated here on how to stamp out illegals matter if they can come right back in if you toss them out.

In fact, I've seen people set up the circular logic that since there's no wall to keep them all out, there's no point in trying to deport them. And since we won't deport them, then why build a wall?

Shit's gotta stop somehwere on that wheel, might as well be here.

THe wall is just one thing that's needed, but it's a start.
 
I'm not against combating and trying to control immigration. The issue I'm seeing is you can't just blindly say: This will work. Build a wall. Do this or that. America is supposed to be a democracy, yet politicians and Trump are throwing a tantrum over who did what and why, when clearly this doesn't necessarily help anything?

Feel free to disagree, but why am I wrong?

Because you're complaining without providing a solution.
 
I do hope the Democrat Congress caves in soon to President Trump's ultimatum. It's been more than 10 business days since I ordered the 2018 tax forms from IRS, and I'm still waiting on delivery and no one is answering the phone to give me an ETA when I call IRS. Corporate tax returns for 2018 are due at the end of the month :stress:.
 
Reading this thread, I begin to see why there are people in this forum who dislike the Articles & Happenings subforum.

And that is because subjects like the US-Mexico Border Wall seem to bring out a lot of unwarranted smugness in Trump critics and more liberal posters about the supposed circlejerking in A&H while they are themselves huffing their own farts over how nonconformist and iconoclastic they are. In response, those who are Trump supporting or more conservative become more aggressive, or defensive, even tribal.

It's a vicious cycle of neverending pseudo-intellectualism, and I'm concerned in how much I feed into it myself.

Now, for the wall. It is a necessity to prevent illegal border crossings, and claims that it doesn't work because it's not a perfect solution are little more than disingenuous nirvana fallacies.

It's like claiming windows don't work because you can smash through them.

Now, for the seemingly endless intellectual refuge of "airplane trips and overstayed visas", such things leave a paper trail which usually leads to perpetrators getting caught.
 
Última edición:
Now, for the wall. It is a necessity to prevent illegal border crossings, and claims it doesn't work because it's not a perfect solution are little more than disingenuous nirvana fallacies.

The logic of it reminds me of the whole Magic the Gathering meme/argument about awesome creatures sucking cause they died to lightning bolt / doom blade.
 
The vast majority of pro-wall people are just desperate for literally ANY action towards immigration reform, since, from their perspective, it's been an issue tacitly ignored by both parties for venal reasons for 60+ years. Republican politicians like the cheap labor, Democrat politicians are 100% invested in the idea they can import a more compliant voter base, etc.

Every proposition for the Wall's funding has included a lot of extra funds for more border patrols/ICE internal enforcement (AKA the more impactful immigration enforcement people keep claiming is getting ignored), the Wall is just a convenient short-hand for "do something about the mass migration from Latin America PLEASE".
I guess the pro-wall people I know are in the minority :(
I don't get why Trump doesn't want any bill that doesn't include a wall specifically. If I were him I'd beef up border security in every other aspect-mostly just to get a bill passed without as much ruckus as this.
Edit: he made a promise, yadda yadda yadda, but I'd care more about doing what I think is right rather than doing what would keep up my image. I'm sure his voter base wouldn't hold it against him if he can't get his wall built.
 
Because you're complaining without providing a solution.
Good point. Here's a start: crack down on businesses that hire illegals and punish them. A few people thought of that here. Nicely done.

Thanks for the avid discussion I suppose.
 
Sure, I have too much free time tonight.

I don't think it's a waste of money necessarily, I just think it's an inefficient use. Some other countries have walls, sure, but how many of them have nearly as much border to worry about? If a 10 foot wall can be defeated by an 11 foot ladder, it doesn't do much good. And I know that's an exaggeration, but you get this point.

So here's an analogy. Let's say the government has $150 million dollars in defense that they're trying to decide how to spend, and their choices are a single F22, or 1500 infantry. Well, the plane may be big and flashy and cool, and it will probably get SOMETHING done. But given the kind of wars we fight these days, we're probably better off with the boring, unsexy infantry.

The government ultimately has a finite amount of money. I have no problem putting more of it into clamping down on illegal immigration. I just want to make sure it's being done efficiently. For example, what if we took all the money we were planning to spend on the wall and started going after employers who give jobs to illegals? I suspect we'd get more accomplished doing that sort of thing.

Do asset forfeiture of anyone who hires illegals, and the problem disappears in a couple of months. That should be what Trump focuses on getting through congress.
 
Good point. Here's a start: crack down on businesses that hire illegals and punish them. A few people thought of that here. Nicely done.

Thanks for the avid discussion I suppose.
I disagree with you on many points, and I think you're misguided or misinformed in a lot of your thinking about this topic.
That said, I retract my earlier post implying that you're being insincere/don't believe what you're saying. The situation, as we respectively see it, is vastly different.
It's been said ad infinitum, both in this thread and elsewhere, but it bears repeating: the construction of a wall-like structure among the most vulnerable areas of our southern border is necessary, but not sufficient, to begin to tackle the issues of border security and illegal immigration.
The best time to start handling this problem was 50 years ago, the next best time is NOW NOW NOW *sigh*
 
There's honestly no point in listening to either Trump's speeches or the rebuttals at this point, anyone who's paying the slightest bit of attention knows the exact points they're both gonna try to hammer home
 
Atrás
Top Abajo