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:
It's not so much immoral, but impractical. Damn thing will take at least ten years to build from what I gather. And it's gonna take a lot more than just $5 billion. THAT'S just for starters.

There's other things other things we need more than a wall right now. I'm not saying illegal immigration isn't an issue. But it isn't THE issue, to the point we need to spend 5 billion on it. There are other ways to deal with illegal immigration, a wall isn't end all and be all, to the point he's going to declare a national emergency? C'mon.

He's also between a rock and a hard place. He claims he'll declare a national emergency to get it built. Okay, that means it'll have to be built by military engineers, correct? Well, then that's gonna piss off the contractors who offered their support in return for jobs building the wall.

That's what I think this is really all about. Dude made a bunch of promises and now the piper wants paid. (Either that or HE has some financial interest in it. Wouldn't surprise me)
Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash, as they say.

How long does the government need to be shut down before the average voter realizes we don't actually need any of the offices that are currently not working?

FDA, CDC, federal parks, memorials, Smithsonian, and I believe TSA workers aren't getting paid, etc. Speaking of TSA, you'd think he'd be a wee bit concerned there, since most terrorists enter through the airports. (And like Marvin said, leaving Saudi Arabia off of his Muslim ban was a bad idea. It really hurts his credibility when he claims he's all about the security of the nation)
 
It's not so much immoral, but impractical. Damn thing will take at least ten years to build from what I gather. And it's gonna take a lot more than just $5 billion. THAT'S just for starters.

That's what I think this is really all about. Dude made a bunch of promises and now the piper wants paid. (Either that or HE has some financial interest in it. Wouldn't surprise me)
Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash, as they say.

Its only a problem for Trump since he seems to be the only president that is trying to keep his campaign promises. Muslim ban/Reform Taxes/Build the wall he is actually trying to do everything from the campaign trail. The only one that he seemed to flake on was locking up Clinton.
 
Well even Trump had to realize that when people are claiming that you're a wannabe dictator immediately trying to imprison your political rival (no matter how much she may deserve it) upon taking office wouldn't be the best look. I'm no Trump fan but I'll let him slide on that one.
 
FDA, CDC, federal parks, memorials, Smithsonian, and I believe TSA workers aren't getting paid, etc. Speaking of TSA, you'd think he'd be a wee bit concerned there, since most terrorists enter through the airports. (And like Marvin said, leaving Saudi Arabia off of his Muslim ban was a bad idea. It really hurts his credibility when he claims he's all about the security of the nation)
And yet the sun is still in the sky.
 
Like I was kind of annoyed with his muslim ban. Not the idea, I love the idea, but that he exempted Saudi Arabia. I know it's a bad idea to fuck around with Saudi Arabia unnecessarily (because of the petrodollar and things like that), but really, if you're going to do a muslim ban, you do it right. Otherwise don't even bother.

I'm not sure but, didn't Obama do a similar thing though during his term? The only difference is, it didn't make news headlines branding Obama as a racist. It just seems to come down to the having the media on side.

Can you imagine the headlines if Trump ordered drone strikes that accidentally caused civilian deaths?
 
Perhaps less accurate nowadays, but certainly not irrelevant. The fundamental limitation is resources. Even if Trump has doubled their budget and thus the number of investigations they pursued, that's still an abysmally low rate.

What's frustrating is that the DHS is supposed to publish this report annually, but as you can see, they've been slacking.

To add to this point (and it's a little bit of a tangential whine about how people think policies are implemented), something I think a lot of people miss out in envisaging their desired policy changes is how hard it is to get things working at an administrative and bureaucratic level. I worked for five years in a large government bureaucracy, and I can tell you that while some of why things are hard is bureaucratic inertia or because bureaucrats are actively pursuing their own policy agenda(a big problem in the US since your regulatory state is ludicrously powerful compared to other Anglo-American countries), quite often things are hard because that's the nature of what's being asked, or because to get the right people to do things you'd have to pay enough to attract top-tier professionals away from private practice (the latter is going to become more problematic over time, I think - government pensions used to be very generous and make up for the shitty year-to-year pay, now the pensions suck and the year-to-year wages are mediocre). There are a thousand contingencies that can't be easily predicted when announcing policy, and to get even a fundamentally good policy idea working can take years (in the case of complex commercial regulation, sometimes decades!).
 
Visa overstays make up the majority of illegal immigration nowadays.

Come on, that falls in "the wall won't stop all illegals" argument that's been beaten to death now. Honestly if it were to stop only 10% of illegal immigration, that's still 10% of a lot. Anyone who just wants a wall with no further law enforcement is an idiot, they have to be in tandem.

I will admit though, visa overstayers annoy me more than border hoppers. They have made getting a visitation visa from certain countries a bitch, and that has bit my family in the ass a few times.
 
Trump is supposed to be the non-politician though. Whether or not that's a realistic outcome, I think it's fair to criticize Trump who sells himself as draining the swamp and not being a typical politician, going on to do politician-ey things.
You shouldn't buy into that because they all sell themselves that way. Trump is the guy for middle america who tells it like it is. Obama was "yes we can" and the first black president. Bush was the down-home boy you could have a beer with. Clinton was the real first black president, and so on. Every candidate is the washington outsider who is finally going to shake things up, every 4 years. It's no different than hollywood telling you this sequel will be darker and edgier every year.
 
The only one that he seemed to flake on was locking up Clinton.
That's because Clinton practically can't be locked up. Yeah, she and her Clinton Foundation has practically broken every law and committed every sin under the sun, but the big thing is to imprison her at the time would've invoked the ire of the #imwithher crowd to the point where they could have very well have tried to stage a coup or some shit. Plus that, it's worth bearing in mind that the Clinton's are essentially a mafia family, seeing as though they, through their Foundation, control the purse strings of the DNC and are buddy-buddy with just about every banker gangster in the country; every single person that's part of the court that puts her on trial will end up in the headlines about how they managed to kill themselves by emptying a pump shotgun in the back of their heads or how they decided it would be fun to take a bath with a toaster the day before the court date.
 
i still don't understand why a wall meant to be paid for by Mexico is now causing hundreds of thousands of federal employees to be furloughed

so much for the Art of the Deal
I still don't understand how the wall being too costly and not completely solving the illegal immigration problem is worth billions lost on nothing, federal employees furloughed, and doing nothing at all about illegal immigration

so much for For the People
 
I'm not sure but, didn't Obama do a similar thing though during his term? The only difference is, it didn't make news headlines branding Obama as a racist. It just seems to come down to the having the media on side.

Can you imagine the headlines if Trump ordered drone strikes that accidentally caused civilian deaths?
Obama didn't (or didn't let the media) label it as a Muslim ban.
Come on, that falls in "the wall won't stop all illegals" argument that's been beaten to death now. Honestly if it were to stop only 10% of illegal immigration, that's still 10% of a lot. Anyone who just wants a wall with no further law enforcement is an idiot, they have to be in tandem.
I agree the wall might be useful. However I don't think the largest supporters of the wall are that educated on the numbers.

I think the portion of the American public who support the wall think that the southern border is the largest source of illegal immigration. I don't think they'd be as supportive if they knew that visa overstays, including towelheads named Mohammad with an unhealthy interest in blowing things up, are the biggest source of illegal immigration.
You shouldn't buy into that because they all sell themselves that way. Trump is the guy for middle america who tells it like it is. Obama was "yes we can" and the first black president. Bush was the down-home boy you could have a beer with. Clinton was the real first black president, and so on. Every candidate is the washington outsider who is finally going to shake things up, every 4 years. It's no different than hollywood telling you this sequel will be darker and edgier every year.
I think it's pretty obvious when a candidate actually held a previous political position, like with Obama, Clinton and Bush, versus someone with zero political experience like Trump. I wouldn't blame someone for at least being hopeful that he'd be different.

And in many ways, he has been different. His bluster and sperging, uncharacteristic of a trained DC politician, has led to some excellent results. Like with North Korea coming to the table and how he's been dealing with trade nonsense with China and Europe.

It's just that giving Saudi Arabia a pass was a bitch move.
 
I'm not sure but, didn't Obama do a similar thing though during his term? The only difference is, it didn't make news headlines branding Obama as a racist. It just seems to come down to the having the media on side.

Can you imagine the headlines if Trump ordered drone strikes that accidentally caused civilian deaths?

> "accidentally"
 
Come on, that falls in "the wall won't stop all illegals" argument that's been beaten to death now. Honestly if it were to stop only 10% of illegal immigration, that's still 10% of a lot. Anyone who just wants a wall with no further law enforcement is an idiot, they have to be in tandem.

I will admit though, visa overstayers annoy me more than border hoppers. They have made getting a visitation visa from certain countries a bitch, and that has bit my family in the ass a few times.

The problem with the overstayed visas is that the argument creates a false equivalence between documented Visa overstays and people just walking over the border, with an unknown criminal history, unknown skills or languages spoken, and unknown diseases.

It's a nice sleight of hand.
 
The problem with the overstayed visas is that the argument creates a false equivalence between documented Visa overstays and people just walking over the border, with an unknown criminal history, unknown skills or languages spoken, and unknown diseases.

It's a nice sleight of hand.
No, I don't think the difference is all that significant. Admittedly, I don't know what getting a US travel visa entails, but I've traveled to foreign countries and gotten visas and they've done zero background checks.

England, Canada, Russia and Uzbekistan, none of them gave a fuck. If I turned retarded and for some reason, wanted to vanish in one of those countries, I easily could've done it.
 
i still don't understand why a wall meant to be paid for by Mexico is now causing hundreds of thousands of federal employees to be furloughed

so much for the Art of the Deal

You can't tell me you seriously believed that? Most of the people I know who are saying, "but I thought Mexico was going to pay!" are being sarcastic.

And the idea that he was really going to lock Hilary up is a joke. No, she's not the most ethical person on earth, but she's not exactly Boss Tweed either. It's also not a good precedent to set.

Politics is a dirty, dirty business.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo