Beating our heads against a wall

It’s not really about the wall.


12 thoughts on “Beating our heads against a wall

  1. Both the current Border Patrol Chief and the previous Chief under President Obama tell us that a wall in certain sections of the border is needed and will make border security more effective. They also tell us that in some areas, the terrain makes a wall unnecessary and in others, the distances people must cover on foot before reaching sanctuary or transportation make surveillance and interception practical without a wall. But that are united in asserting that in those areas with population centers close to the border and transportation near at hand, they cannot effectively enforce the border without a physical barrier to prevent mass crossings that overwhelm their personnel.

    Considering that expert testimony from those who do the job, I would suggest that there is no rational argument against giving them what they want.

    Regardless of whether Mexico pays for it directly or indirectly or not at all, providing a physical barrier in those places the professionals want one is cheap security.

    But we all know that this is not about whether the wall makes sense or not, it is about trying to drive a wedge between President Trump and his base by denying him keeping a campaign promise.

    Certainly the shutdown is causing hardship. but in placing the blame, we should keep in mind what this is about. It has nothing to do with the wall, or immigration, or the children, or anything else principled. It is about the Democrats trying to gain political advantage, and nothing else.


  2. “It is about the Democrats trying to gain political advantage, and nothing else.”

    And Trump is not? He could’ve gotten wall funding 2 years ago with an all Republican Congress. And he was fine with the funding bill passed by both houses. Until Coulter and company called him a wimp.

    The House is just doing its job. Setting the approved funding and passing it forward.


      1. You don’t need cloture votes for everything. A good negotiator could have convinced the Senate to fund at least as much as he is asking for now.

        I guess we did not have a good negotiator.

        Even so, why did Trump change his mind after both houses passed the funding bill? Obviously McConnell thought it was a done deal.


        1. “You don’t need cloture votes for everything”

          You do for appropriations. Nothing came to Trump’s desk with money for additional wall sections.

          You can’t negotiate alone,


          1. Again, the GOP Senate never had enough votes for cloture on a bill that included funding for added wall sections. they only had 52 GOP Senators. That would have required 8 Democrats to vote for cloture.


  3. Regarding the letter correctly pointing out that many people here illegally are overstaying visas rather than sneaking across the border, keep in mind that those overstaying a visa at least could qualify for one at some time.

    We know nothing about those crossing the border illegally, and they are thus more likely to be a problem.


    1. And we could greatly expand the work visas except for Trump who wants to cut back on the overall immigration system, legal or otherwise. Or rather Steve Miller and a few other hard liners do and we know Trump can’t think for himself.

      He just wants to be admired.


  4. RE: “It’s not really about the wall.”

    I concur with this. I read somewhere today that the price of the wall is about $7 for a person making $45,000 a year. Let’s hope the President and the Speaker of the House are fighting for bigger stakes than that.

    While they go at it, the public debate is a teachable moment. Levels of emotionalism and fallaciousness are high, discrediting those who argue emotionally and illogically. The public is getting an education about border security. Pollsters, I hear, are finding support for the wall growing.

    And on the sidelines, in just 3 days now the president will have the authority to order reductions in force (RIFs) for agencies within the executive branch where furloughs have occurred. Layoffs wouldn’t begin immediately, but the president’s ability to drain the swamp by direct measures will be activated.

    I’m not sure what Nancy Pelosi is fighting for; at least, it is hard to see.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s