*****It's All About That WALL, 'bout That WALL, 'bout That WALL...***** MERGED (security, work)

[NeutralParty]

Day 15 of the shutdown. Trump continues to fold his arms and pout like a child as he demands the full $5B for his wall. That is his prerogative.

But if Trump is a master negotiator, you know, the man who wrote "The Art of the Deal," doesn't he know he has to offer something in return? Does he think Democrats will agree to fully funding his wall if he doesn't offer them something?

He's such a dummy.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress

Mick Mulvaney explained the latest developments on one of the Sunday morning CNN political shows with Jake Tapper. Trump has told all of his Cabinet officials to look in their budgets for extra money that can be used for the border.

He also said something very interesting. Even if Mexico gave us a check, it would have to go into the Treasury to be appropriated later by Congress.

So it sounds like the best deal is to get money on a National Security Emergency basis. Put up several hundred more miles of the shish kebab fence, as I call it, and then let Congress appropriate money for the non barrier security, i.e. software, drones, etc. Win-win for both sides.

You can't take money out of one fund and appropriate it to another, Mulvaney knows better, the Federal budget is not Trump's personal slush fund

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has directed his cabinet secretaries to search for any stray funds that could be repurposed for the construction of a wall along the Mexico border, conceding that Democrats have stymied his efforts in Congress.

But his new approach sets up more budget and political battles, as it’s very difficult to legally redirect taxpayer money without Congress’ approval.

“If you do this without going through the proper reprogramming requests and getting all the proper approvals, you are breaking the law,” said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

A similar assessment was shared by some Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday, but White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said lawyers were reviewing what was possible.

“That’s their entire job is determining whether or something is legal and we are looking to those individuals to find out those specific pots of money that can be used for that,” she said. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/...ld-be-illegal/

And it does not appear that Trump can divert money from the military to pay for the wall or have military personnel construct it for him.

President Trump on Friday said that he was considering the declaration of a “national emergency” along the border with Mexico, which he apparently believes would allow him to divert funds from the military budget to pay for a wall, and to use military personnel to build it.

While it is hard to know exactly what the president has in mind, or whether he has any conception about what it would entail, one thing is clear: Not only would such an action be illegal, but if members of the armed forces obeyed his command, they would be committing a federal crime.

Begin with the basics. From the founding onward, the American constitutional tradition has profoundly opposed the president’s use of the military to enforce domestic law. A key provision, rooted in an 1878 statute and added to the law in 1956, declares that whoever “willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force” to execute a law domestically “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years” — except when “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.”

Another provision, grounded in a statute from 1807 and added to the law in 1981, requires the secretary of defense to “ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel)” must “not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/o...-his-wall.html

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by Kamsack

If in the compromise to the shutdown a bill is passed with wording for enhanced security, incl a fence.... is that acceptable to those that want a wall. It is going to come to an eventual solution of agreeing for more enhanced border security, but without the word wall in there, but money is appropriated for general security enhancements. Would this be ok to those who want Trump to stand firm? A compromise of this sort would allow both to claim victory....Trump can say he got money for border enhancements and Democrats in the House say we always wanted security but no money specific to a wall.

Here's the deal. Congress passed the Secure Fence Act back in 2006 and it was to be for a double barrier along 700 miles of the most porous areas of our border. Only 30 miles of those barriers were built and there was only flimsy fencing erected on some parts of this 700 miles. There has to be specific wording in any new deal to include the good barriers not just more flimsy fencing that don't work. I don't care what word is used whether it's called a wall, barrier or fence. It must be clear that what will be built will be what congress promised back in 2006 and not flip flopped on again. Trump should settle for nothing less.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

Here's the deal. Congress passed the Secure Fence Act back in 2006 and it was to be for a double barrier along 700 miles of the most porous areas of our border. Only 30 miles of those barriers were built and there was only flimsy fencing erected on some parts of this 700 miles. There has to be specific wording in any new deal to include the good barriers not just more flimsy fencing that don't work. I don't care what word is used whether it's called a wall, barrier or fence. It must be clear that what will be built will be what congress promised back in 2006 and not flip flopped on again. Trump should settle for nothing less.

That's too funny, it was a Republican who made sure that 700 miles of fencing would never be built

It's true that in 2006, the Republican-controlled House and a large bipartisan majority in the Senate passed, and President Bush signed, the Secure Fence Act, requiring 700 additional miles of double chain-link and barbed-wire fences with lights and camera poles.

But in 2007, the Homeland Security Department complained of being, er, fenced in, arguing that different types of terrain required different barriers.

So Cruz's predecessor, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, authored an amendment that DHS would not be required "to install fencing . .. if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location." https://www.investors.com/politics/e...mplementation/

[craigiri]

Trump is now saying the steel slats might cost more than the promised concrete or glass.....and anyone who has studied it says the 25 billion was very low for his original promises....

So, tell me again. Why is he throwing people out of work and the country and markets into chaos for 3 Billion or so when that won't touch his dreams?

I think he should hire Mexicans to do the work...maybe he can bring it in under budget since they are so hard working and honest? Giving work like this to his "swamp thing" friends guarantees we'll pay double or more the real price.

I might even be able to get behind it if we employ Mexicans to do it...

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

Here's the deal. Congress passed the Secure Fence Act back in 2006 and it was to be for a double barrier along 700 miles of the most porous areas of our border. Only 30 miles of those barriers were built and there was only flimsy fencing erected on some parts of this 700 miles. There has to be specific wording in any new deal to include the good barriers not just more flimsy fencing that don't work. I don't care what word is used whether it's called a wall, barrier or fence. It must be clear that what will be built will be what congress promised back in 2006 and not flip flopped on again. Trump should settle for nothing less.

And I won't settle for anything less than full universal health care.....this is backed by a majority of the population.

Can we do it? How about a Trade?

In fact, I'll back the 5 Billion and immediate acceleration of construction if both Texas and Florida (both GOP owned) do e-verify.

Deal? That should be easy. Why would ANYONE be against an action that would stop millions of illegals....combined with another action (fence) that will stop 10's of thousands? Win win, right?

[EveryLady]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

They already did. There are thousands of migrants in Tijuana right now that have been there for months because of the walls/fences/barriers along that part of the border. But it's not enough as about 1000 of them have found ways over or under those inferior walls.

"Several thousand people from a migrant caravan are currently staying at the border between Mexico and the United States. According to different estimates, from 6,000 to 9,000 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador may be in the cities of Tijuana and Mexicali."
https://sputniknews.com/us/201901051...shelter-close/

Find me a poster who wants to tear existing walls down. No one is arguing that fencing in urban areas is not appropriate. And no one is arguing against border security.

THAT ^^^ does not justify tax payers paying a bunch of untold billions for a bunch of walls to be plunked down on private property - without any more justification than Trump wanting them. He can't even get passed legislation.

This thread and others is full of folks trying to argue this study or that study to justify walls (or their absence).

What's Trump's justification? Yesterday, I heard him him say that all folks need do is to look at the "newspapers" to figure out the problem. What happened to the fake news rhetoric? Or to the studies (that include actual not rough estimates of costs) that were to have been completed? For this, he's shutting down the government and threatening to declare a national emergency.

Whatever one's position on immigration issue, there ... is .... something ... seriously .... wrong .... about .... this - that's the larger problem.

[Ringo1]

IF the 'wall' was such a National emergency as Trump now calls it ~ why wasn't THAT the first thing he did as opposed to a tax cut for his very rich cronies?


Republicans had complete control of government at that time.


NOW - he expects Democrats to give him what Republicans did not.

[Prophet619]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

Here's the deal. Congress passed the Secure Fence Act back in 2006 and it was to be for a double barrier along 700 miles of the most porous areas of our border. Only 30 miles of those barriers were built and there was only flimsy fencing erected on some parts of this 700 miles. There has to be specific wording in any new deal to include the good barriers not just more flimsy fencing that don't work. I don't care what word is used whether it's called a wall, barrier or fence. It must be clear that what will be built will be what congress promised back in 2006 and not flip flopped on again. Trump should settle for nothing less.

Heres the deal. You and Trump are never getting the wall of your dreams.

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by Prophet619

Heres the deal. You and Trump are never getting the wall of your dreams.

They don't care about actually getting it.
They care about being able to say or think that they got it.