UN House approves $5 billion in border wall funding - Nancy Pelosi absolutely seething sources say

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...border-wall-funding-spending-bill/2381057002/
http://archive.is/AX2tW

WASHINGTON – A deeply divided House voted on Thursday to add $5 billion in border wall funding to a short-term spending bill, yielding to President Donald Trump’s demand for the money but casting further doubts upon the fate of efforts to avert a government shutdown.

The bill, which the Houseapproved by a vote of 217-185, now heads back to the Senate, which must either approve the measure or risk shutting down a quarter of the government at midnight Friday. A Senate vote is expected Friday afternoon.

The House vote capped a drama-filled day that started with lawmakers anticipating quick passage of an already approved Senate funding bill, but then erupted into chaos when Trump announced he would not support the measure because it did not contain funding for the border wall – one of his signature campaign promises.

“I’ve made my position very clear: Any measure that funds the government must include border security,” Trump said at the White House.

At an Oval Office meeting a few hours earlier, Trump had informed House GOP leaders that he would not sign the Senate version, sending them scrambling to deliver new legislation that included $5 billion in border wall funding.

“We want to keep the government open, but we also want to see an agreement that protects the border,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. “We have very serious concerns about securing our border.”

Lawmakers have until midnight Friday to pass a spending bill or funding will expire for a quarter of the federal government, triggering a shutdown heading into the holidays and forcing some 800,000 federal employees to go on furlough or work without pay.

Congress is trying to end the budget stalemate and avert a government shutdown by piecing together a short-term measure that would keep the funds flowing through early next year.

The Senate voted Wednesday night to approve a short-term spending bill offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that would fund the government through Feb. 8 but would delay any decision on border wall funding until next year.

But hardline conservatives in the House revolted because the Senate bill did not include Trump’s border funding, even though he had insisted during the presidential campaign that he’d make Mexico pay for the wall. Trump’s announcement that he would not sign the Senate measure sealed its fate.

The House responded by introducing its own spending package that also would fund the government through Feb. 8, but would include $5.7 billion for a border wall and nearly $8 billion in disaster relief to compensate communities hit hard by this year’s hurricanes and wildfires.

The border funding in the House proposal won’t be enough to build the wall but will improve border security, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

“This is about keeping America safe – it’s not a complicated vote,” said House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La.

Democrats accused Republicans of catering to a “Trump Twitter tantrum” and warned that the House bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate.

“This is a sham and a shame,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.

Hardline conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus insisted now is the GOP’s last chance to deliver on Trump’s campaign promise to build a border wall since Democrats will resume control of the House in January and their leader, Nancy Pelosi, will return as speaker.

“We’ve been telling the American public that we were going to fight, they have no reason to believe us now,” said Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., a Freedom Caucus member.

Said Freedom Caucus member Scott Perry, R-Penn.: “We made a promise to the American people to secure the border. This is our last chance. Nancy Pelosi will not do this.”

The uncertainty over the funding bill – and the chaos that ensued – was heightened by Trump’s constantly shifting position on the legislation.

Last week, Trump boasted during an Oval Office meeting with Democratic leaders that he would be “proud” to shut down the government over border funding and that he’d be willing to take the blame for any fallout.

But on Tuesday, the White House signaled that Trump was looking for other ways to fund a border wall and that he might be willing to sign a short-term spending bill that did not include the money.

Thursday morning, Trump took to Twitter and posted a message about his demands for a border wall funding but did not specifically comment on the Senate’s short-term bill.

“When I begrudgingly signed the Omnibus Bill, I was promised the Wall and Border Security by leadership. Would be done by end of year (NOW). It didn’t happen! We foolishly fight for Border Security for other countries - but not for our beloved U.S.A. Not good!” he wrote.

By the time House GOP leaders headed to the White House for their emergency meeting with Trump, it was clear he had changed his mind.

“At this moment, the president does not want to go further without border security, which includes steel slats or a wall,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “The president is continuing to weigh his options.”

Following the meeting with Republicans, Sanders issued another statement saying that "not surprisingly, they all feel strongly about border security – stopping the flow of drugs, stopping human trafficking, and stopping terrorism."

"We protect nations all over the world, but Democrats are unwilling to protect our nation," she said. "We urgently need funding for border security and that includes a wall."

Back on Capitol Hill, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats have no intention of approving money for a border wall.

"In terms of wall funding, that’s a non-starter," Pelosi said.

Congress is scrambling to pass a short-term spending bill because lawmakers still haven’t passed seven of the 12 appropriations bills that are needed to fund the government for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

The seven remaining bills would fund nine departments – Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, Interior, State, Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development – as well as several smaller agencies. Those are the departments and agencies that would be impacted by a government shutdown.
 
You're right, that's true. But let's give the average voter a bit of a break on their inaccurate perception of the issue.
  • The news media has never chosen to focus on the Obama administration's deportation record for some odd reason.
  • Illegal immigrants are still crossing the border in significant numbers despite efforts to stop them.
  • A lot of voters remember and are still pissed off about the "Reagan amnesty" and the years that led up to to that.
  • The Western world is currently witnessing multiple large-scale mass importations of foreign "migrants" by progressive globalist leaders in direct conflict with what the people want, and these leaders essentially refuse to explain what they're up to.
  • Progressive lunacy has been conspicuously infecting the Democrat party for years.
  • Democrats have a much different set of political and social incentives when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration and how best to deal with it.
So you're right, but as with any political issue, and in order to answer the question of "why does anyone want a border wall," you have to consider voter perception.
So we're wasting 5bil to put the worries of some exceptional boomer morons at ease good to know.
 
But at the 11th hour, Donald Trump succumbed to pressure from his far right-wing base and chose to shut down the government for a $5 billion down payment on his vanity wall.
Bitch he told Pelosi and Schumer to their fucking face live on national TV in the oval office that if he didn't get his wall he was shutting down the government over 10 days ago, so how is him not cucking out and keeping his word him "succumbing in the 11th hour"?
 
So we're wasting 5bil to put the worries of some exceptional boomer morons at ease good to know.
No, we're spending $5 billion to create a border barrier to help keep illegal aliens out of the country.

Unless you have a better idea than those "exceptional boomer morons".
 
That's a tiny fraction of what it would cost. A drop in the bucket.
The wall is quoted at 21 Billion, 5.7 billion is over a quarter of the wall funded.

That said the with the current $21 billion quote for the entire border, with 5.7 billion Trump could complete the wall from the Pacific to the Continental Divide completely sealing the California and Arizona border.

To add Israel built their wall at $2 million a mile and that shit includes remote control machine gun towers and shit like Command and conquer and if he ran the full length of the border with the Israeli wall the total cost would be $4 billion.
 
Im actually quite fed up with the random autistic estimates people keep pulling out of thin air. Can someone give me some real numbers based in reality?

There probably aren't any realistic estimates of how much it costs to build a wall even in places where it makes no fucking sense to build a wall, because nobody's done anything that stupid yet.
 
The wall at this point is mostly a political cudgel for him to use in the next campaign: "I built the wall, I fulfilled my promises for my first term. Now I'll go on to fulfill promises in the second one!" Makes sense for him to keep this up in a political mindset.

Complaining that the $5bil is a waste, is a bit of a stretch to me. Infrastructure projects tend to be an excellent way to drive down unemployment and give local engineering and contracting companies work. There's also the fact that $5bil may sound like a lot but compared to the budget (3.8 trillion dollars), it's a drop of water in a ocean. Will it cost more than that? I don't know; I'm not an economist, engineer, or any sort of qualified expert for this sort of thing. But $5bil is a good start I'd say.

Also, we know he is dealing with those currently here illegally problem as best he can. He's gotten ICE to ramp up their efforts in deportations but there's only so much ICE can do with all the sanctuary cities and states and even random groups of people protecting those who stay illegally. His next step should be trying to get the whole idea of "sanctuary [placename]" ruled unconstitutional. It would be of benefit to him and would turn the salt making up to 11.
Is it possible? I have no clue, but it should be his next step if he wants to deal with the issue at hand. Maybe hand out legislation that federally criminalizes hiring illegal workers too, deterring the whole thing further.
 
His next step should be trying to get the whole idea of "sanctuary [placename]" ruled unconstitutional. It would be of benefit to him and would turn the salt making up to 11.

Good luck with that. It was conservative Justices who developed the anti-commandeering doctrine that protects federalism by prohibiting the federal government from dragooning the states into enforcing federal law in the first place, and he just made it even more conservative.

You are not going to get a conservative SCOTUS to do away with federalism just because of a momentary political whim.
 
So we're wasting 5bil to put the worries of some exceptional boomer morons at ease good to know.

I mean there's sections up already that were built using the prototypes Trump picked out, so if you want to go and try getting over it to show everyone how useless it will be that'd be great. Especially seeing as I don't want the government wasting more money on something if it's so incredibly useless.
 
The Wall is a wonderful magnet for autism on both sides of the fence. Both those who insist that Mexico is still paying for it (who really gives a fuck if our tax dollars are funding it. It's something tangible at least), and those who go "hurr durr, wall won't fix %100 everything, so thus it's a total waste of time". Bottom line is for a while now, most Americans have been wanting something done about illegal immigration and The Wall would be the most immediate physical manifestation of shit being done. This of course should go in tandem with enforcing existing immigration laws and punishing companies who insist on using illegal labor, but fat chance of that.
 
We wouldn't need a wall if we punished some of these corporations for real for how they've fucked us common folk on a serious issue plaguing our country's workforce, honestly. The wall would just be icing on the cake to keep illegals out in a surplus economy, to go further into things, instead of the money sink it risks becoming with all this posturing about over an otherwise serious issue, too.
 
There probably aren't any realistic estimates of how much it costs to build a wall even in places where it makes no fucking sense to build a wall, because nobody's done anything that stupid yet.
We know the Israeli wall of death in the West Bank (That our US tax dollars funded by the way,) ran only $2 million a mile, with Trump asking for the equevalent of 10 million a mile total.

My question is since he's already asking we invest 5 times the amount Israel invested in their wall how the fuck will it cost more than that? Since the Democrats are trying to say it'll cost $70 gorillion which would amount to 35.7 million a mile which is insane.
 
The wall at this point is mostly a political cudgel for him to use in the next campaign: "I built the wall, I fulfilled my promises for my first term. Now I'll go on to fulfill promises in the second one!" Makes sense for him to keep this up in a political mindset.

Complaining that the $5bil is a waste, is a bit of a stretch to me. Infrastructure projects tend to be an excellent way to drive down unemployment and give local engineering and contracting companies work. There's also the fact that $5bil may sound like a lot but compared to the budget (3.8 trillion dollars), it's a drop of water in a ocean. Will it cost more than that? I don't know; I'm not an economist, engineer, or any sort of qualified expert for this sort of thing. But $5bil is a good start I'd say.

Also, we know he is dealing with those currently here illegally problem as best he can. He's gotten ICE to ramp up their efforts in deportations but there's only so much ICE can do with all the sanctuary cities and states and even random groups of people protecting those who stay illegally. His next step should be trying to get the whole idea of "sanctuary [placename]" ruled unconstitutional. It would be of benefit to him and would turn the salt making up to 11.
Is it possible? I have no clue, but it should be his next step if he wants to deal with the issue at hand. Maybe hand out legislation that federally criminalizes hiring illegal workers too, deterring the whole thing further.

He should have started the entire process with what you suggest in the last sentence. Surely, in a democracy, having any laborers without the franchise of democracy, and not "guests" is a form of slavery? Isn't there something in your 14th amendment (IIRC) that could cover that. Asset seizure until the end of trial for anyone knowingly hiring an illegal would be more successful and rapid than any other measure tried thus far. Roll it into the war on drugs, or whatever.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo