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.
 
All I want is a plan to follow. Im not following some egotistical re.tard for the sake of fear or egotistical re.tard's bravado.
 
Última edición:
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.

I'll remind you of the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, with relevant emphasis:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So the question would be what are the privileges and immunities of citizens?

All people in the United States, including illegal immigrants, have the right not to be killed, imprisoned, or deprived of property without due process, but privileges and immunities are only protected for citizens. That question is actually pretty complicated and only partially resolved.

One certainty, though, is that citizens can't be ejected from the country, and illegal immigrants can, and under some circumstances, nearly immediately with very little opportunity to challenge it.

Also slavery is the 13th Amendment, not the 14th. It does not actually forbid involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime, although even that has almost entirely been abolished. Also, working for less than minimum wage is not "slavery" as such, if done voluntarily. Although some criminal operations that employ illegals do, in fact, use physical force to keep them or intimidate them, this generally isn't necessary. They get all the takers they need. So it isn't slavery, but it is against the law.

Even illegals could sue over their treatment, although both their status and the fact they're likely to be back in their home country by the time they are able to do so makes it impractical. If you really wanted to stop illegal immigration, you'd stop companies from getting away with employing illegals. Send an invasion of American lawyers over to find former illegal workers, file massive class actions against these employers for back wages and damages, foreclose on them and put them out of business.

As it is, if employers are offering that money, people are going to find a way through a wall. All building a gigantic spite fence with our neighbor is doing is making more money for the cartel coyotes whose job it is to figure ways around it, which they will.
 
So it turns out that Trump might accidentally be sitting on $50-$100 billion dollars of outstanding debt he could sell off to instantly fund the wall.

Ironically its agriculture loans meaning in a round about way Mexico is paying for it.
 
This is why Trump is a fucking barrel of laughs. Personally I thought the idea was a bit nuts and would never happen, so props given if it does. Still, so many of his opposition are blinded by the fact that their handling of the refugee caravan saga coverage has landed this gift in his hands like an early Xmas present.
 
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/trump-pay-wall-get-mexico-pay-back-columnist/


Trump should pay for wall himself and get Mexico to pay him back

One columnist opined Thursday that if Donald Trump is as rich as he claims to be, he should spend his own billions on a border wall with Mexico.


Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell noted that she’s not the first person to raise the suggestion — and that the suggestion appears to have come from North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter B. Jones.


At the end of 2018, Jones “suggested that our builder in chief pledge ‘some of his own funds’ toward the wall,” Rampell wrote, “though Jones emphasized that a fiscally responsible approach would primarily rely on offsetting cuts to ‘wasteful federal spending.'”


The columnist proceeded to point out that even interim White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, in newly-uncovered comments from 2015, believed the wall is “absurd and almost childish.”


After outlining the many physical, legal and logical impracticalities of a border wall with Mexico, Rampell mused: “If we’re gonna waste billions of dollars, at least let those billions be Trump’s.”


“It would be his money on the line only initially, of course. Trump has repeatedly promised that Mexico will pay us back for the costs of construction,” she wrote. “Occasionally, he insists that Mexico has already committed this money, somehow, through his willfully confused understanding of how the still-as-yet-unratified NAFTA 2.0 will work.”


If that Mexican check is really coming, Rampell wrote, Trump can afford to put up the initial funds — and should given the large bill he’s charged taxpayers with his trips to Mar-a-Lago.


“Like those GoFundMe donors, Trump could model putting America first by donating all that money back, plus anything he has collected from the political fundraisers and dubious international business coming through his hotels,” the columnist mused.


“The best possible outcome might be this: If Trump believes that he — rather than the taxpaying public — is on the hook for construction costs, he might just declare the thing already built,” Rampell concluded. “He can instruct Fox News to air some B-roll of the Great Wall of China and hope his supporters don’t notice the difference, and we can all, at long last, move on to the next fake crisis.”
 
Atrás
Top Abajo