Both articles offer some good breakdowns of how the federal budget is spread out. In particular, I think it's important to single out how the second article summarizes that "Overall, the new spending agreement hashed out by Congress includes $22.5 billion for border security." While it's not specifically about the wall, it does show that $22B is being delegated to border security, just not the wall specifically.
Phantom RoxasMember Since 11 Jan 2008
Member ID: 17,470
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:41 PM
- OthersLegendary Members
- Active Posts 26,043
- Profile Views 42,271
- Most Active In Out-of-Character Planning (1,417 posts )
- Member Title Warrior's Strike R when?
- Age 25 years old
- Birthday July 29, 1993
17 March 2019 - 04:57 PM
16 March 2019 - 11:14 AM
You need three groups of people to sign off on a budget
50% of the HOR
60% of the Senate
and the President
Why should he budge if he's getting a pittance while everyone else gets everything they want
Because the budget shouldn't depend on one man's vanity project. Calling $1.6 billion dollars a "pittance" is nothing short of entitled and ungrateful.
it's extremely simple, 22 billion, even up front, is the total cost of building the wall, and construction would take years to complete. this is all it would take to ensure that coming over illegally would be made all the more difficult and discouraged all the more. 22 billion is nothing when it comes to securing the borders, and if they could have at least agreed to 7 ot 10 billion yearly, we could have seen a peaceful resolution to the entire problem. but nope.
According to the Brookings Institute, $25 billion is $9 billion more than a child care subsidy that would essentially make good child care accessible to all families in this country. $25 billion could be much better used to repair crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, provide fuel and nutritional assistance, ensure living wages for school teachers, and so much more.
So no, the 22 billion is far from "nothing". The money needed to fund that could be better spent elsewhere, and that's the part that you seem to be ignoring. This isn't all or nothing, where 22 billion is some small amount that could be easily spared towards the wall. Being angry that everybody else gets everything they want and the money that is spared towards border security is somehow a "pittance" shows a gross misunderstanding of how the money needs to be delegated.
As for the builders not seeing anybody, Illegal immigrants, especially those coming through such open spaces, are not likely to risk getting caught by running near such a bustling hub of activity. If i'm coming in illegally, then i'm going to see the top of your construction equipment, long before you catch sight of me, and if i'm not trying to get caught, i'm going to avoid you before we can even encounter each other. They can see the wall going up already, why would they be blatantly stupid enough to try crossing there? As for why there, it makes perfect sense. if you only block off populated areas, what exactly prevents people from walking right around the border? building around specific areas is only a stopgap till they're all built across, past that, you then have to ensure that the clearly open spaces are not easily exploitable/ not worth attempting. you don't just cover a couple spaces and call it a day, you cover all areas and make sure you have people and surveilance to back it up.
Except the article was all about how the builders are in an area that isn't a bustling hub of activity. That's the key point of the article, so I'm not sure how you missed that.
"What exactly prevents people from walking right around the border?" is really the question that should be asked if this wall were to ever get finished. Seriously, this wall is touted as if that alone will be the definitive deterrent against illegal immigration, but what's to stop people from going around it?
This entire fiasco is because Trump based his campaign promise on building a wall as if the wall in and of itself will discourage illegal immigration, and when he was a granted a sixth of what he's now asking for, he shut down the government and threatened to violate the Constitution. This is a president who has called for a ban on Muslims, so his issue isn't whether or not people are breaking the la. It's discrimination couched in a pretense of supposedly protecting the country from "invasion". We're not asking him to budge for a "pittance", we're asking him to take the money he's been granted and actually work with Congress instead of throwing a temper tantrum when he's told he can't ban brown people. When Trump has a history of acting with prejudice, you honestly expect me to believe that this wall isn't par for the course with him?
I'd be more willing to support any form of security that could mitigate illegal immigration if this wasn't Trump and the GOP desperately trying to justify their racial prejudices.
15 March 2019 - 07:53 PM
Gotta say, the sheer amount of resistance to a physical barrier is rather surprising. 23-25 billion for a two year (tops) project to stauch the flow of illegal immigration isn't that bad. We have numbers from multiple areas along the border that already have wall attesting to the validity of a border wall in relation to border security. We have contractor estimates that put the wall at 22-33 billion overall from the start, proving it wouldn't be all that expensive. We even have word from border patrol telling us they gave input on the wall for maximum practicality. Yet we see multiple people trying to stop the wall by any and all means available. Even assuming they don't like the idea, it's not something that's so expensive, or such a net negative that it should be getting battled this hard in government. there have been far worse ideas proposed and pushed forward without this level of absurd resistance.
How is 22 billion in any way not expensive? Sure, the House only approved 7% of the money he wanted, but I think Trump should take the money that they're giving him, because they need to spread out their money. Trump just seems to think that the wall is where the majority of the money should be funneled towards, and his emergency is receiving this much resistance because the declaration is inherently unconstitutional. I'd say Pelosi was to right to call out the GOP for being hypocrites here, because the GOP will defend the Constitution to the death, and are quick to perceive threats to the Constitution, except when Trump actually does pose a legitimate threat to the Constitution that they hold so dear, they are all too happy to let Trump violate it.
I'm going to head off yet another "But what about when Obama or these other Presidents did it?" deflection. I am not interested in discussing those past presidents. I do not care about comparing Trump to anyone else. I'm only here to talk about why Trump's declaration is unconstitutional by itself. Trump threatens to cut scientific institutions, and redirect the money to the wall. Trump operates largely by repealing Obama-era initiatives, seemingly for absolutely no other reason than Obama did them. I have no patience for the "No president has been hated as much as Trump is" when he immediately follows a president that he started a birther conspiracy towards, while Merrick Garland was opposed by McConnell, again for absolutely no other reason than being nominated by Obama.
Trump has tunnel vision for his wall. Congress has a responsibility to fund more initiatives than just the wall, but Trump seems to be going all or nothing with the wall. If he can't have his wall, what good is anything else that the budget needs to delegate money towards? He also seems to think that the wall and border security are one and the same. To have border security means to have the wall, and without the wall, border security is worthless.
I know it's come up before that the wall should target areas because the middle of nowhere is popular for migrant traffic, but even the people building the wall haven't seen any trace showing that the middle of nowhere has actually been used that much.
15 March 2019 - 01:13 AM
If it will help clear things up, I thought that the House had a much more comfortable margin for the two-thirds majority than they really do. I was wrong, and I apologize for my error.
14 March 2019 - 04:46 PM
The House is certainly going to override the veto. The problem is going to be getting eight more Senators to override, but I think if they can get this many Republicans already, another eight should hopefully be a bit more. I can't imagine that many Republicans would be happy with him invoking veto power, regardless of whether or not they voted in favor of the national emergency.
Personally, I want to see this dragged out for as long as possible so Trump goes into the 2020 election with his wall still unfinished.