Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please, I would love to hear why you think his counteroffer was nonsense. I mean, I know Schumer and Pelosi say it's a non-starter, but that's based on nothing more than their absolute unwillingness to negotiate at all if there's any funding at all for the border wall. The fact that they won't negotiate at all is nonsense. It's not a negotiation if you refuse to consider conceding some things you don't want to get those you do. Trump has shown a willingness to do this, while Democrats have not. Democrats do not want compromise, they want the president to submit. That is nonsense.
It's nonsense because he didn't give up anything. He wasn't negotiating. He's got to give up something. And a three-year extension of people already signed up for DACA, when he was the one who pulled the rug out from other them, is not him giving up something. The courts are already giving them extensions. And we're back in exactly the same place we are today in three years? That's nothing.
The House has passed several bills. McConnell in the Senate refuses to let those bills be voted on. In order to protect Trump.
I don't understand the deterrent effect on the families, a substantial portion who enter at the ports to apply for asylum. Even now when many are forced to wait in Mexico they are not, to my knowledge, spreading out into the deserts to cross in more isolated areas.
Historically, those who cross in isolated areas tend to be young men. I would not underestimate their ability to defeat security. Look at the Spanish enclaves of Melilla and Ceuta.
Quote:
The border fence at Melilla is erected in three layers to slow down people trying to cross. The outermost fence is built at a 15-degree degree angle and coated in a small wire mesh designed to make climbing difficult. Rolls of barbed wire are strung along the most vulnerable sections. Climbing it can be difficult and dangerous, but migrants are successful if they’re very fast or come in overpowering numbers. In July, 602 migrants successfully assailed the Ceuta fence in a massive rush just after dawn. A month later, 118 additional migrants repeated the feat.
This description describes crossings where border guards are already gathered - which is what makes it dangerous as the desperate are cut by the barbed wire etc. You've seen the pictures.
The pattern now is to sneak across the border. I would not underestimate the ability of desperate healthy young men aided by coyotes to organize to defeat barriers. Walls can be broached with again coyote-organized measures. Sure, drones might identify larger numbers of illegals approaching. Or even at night pick up wall broaches. Maybe.
Walls are most cost-effective in urban areas where the border patrol is already present. No argument that they might reduce absolute numbers even in more isolated areas - but at what cost - and not only in dollars but to communities? THAT is the question.
The best deterrent really is policy. There are already enough areas of policy dispute that to further inflame them with "wall nonsense" is counter-productive. The obverse to Trump's wall would be for progressive Democrats to turn current illegals into a "civil rights" issue.
Because both the Senate AND the House have to issue the invitation. If there is not a concurrent motion, no invitation.
I can find no reference to “invitations” in the Constitution. I did find this, though (boldface mine):
Article II, Section. 3. (Referring to the President):
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Trumps plan to open the Government in the Senate just failed L O L guess Republicans are a hell no on the wall to. Now they are voting on the Dems bill to open the Government for 2 weeks.
LMAO - even the GOP controlled Senate voted down a proposal for tRump’s wall. The Dotard’s deal making skills are self evident. When Mitch cannot rally the base that is saying something.
If that's the case, then why are you and your ilk so vehemently opposed to walls when they have been proven to work? Why do you all think you know better than the BP agents who work at the border and see the issues up close and personal? The BP wants barriers as they are stretched thin.
And why do the county sheriffs who LIVE in the counties along the border not support the Wall? Because the picture is more COMPLEX. Sorry for the caps, but the endless repetition starts to become mind-numbing.
There needs to be some compromise between the absolute positions (for, of course, a wall will slow or divert better than open space) and the functional cost of different mechanisms.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was amended to take into account this complexity, after problems were initially encountered with its literal application that Old Glory keeps touting - over and over and over and over.
Homeland Security (the BP agents, you cite) was given greater autonomy. Does anyone seriously think that the Trump we know would allow any position that counters his? Certainly, not Democrats. No argument that politics are played by both sides but really Trump carries no credibility here. He repeatedly tell us that he knows better than anyone (from the generals to about drones) - who dares contradict him?
Plus does it occur to no one that once some bloody wall is built THEN found to create secondary issues that that will not be an easy fix? No reallocation of resources. No flexibility to changing conditions, technology. Not so easy to tear down or move a mistake. Already we have "walls to nowhere" in Texas. Sitting alone ...
I'm not for a wall for the sake of having a wall. I'm for a wall for the deterrent effect of people coming to the border and making it across the border. I could support that advanced technology solution if it meant more than turning the entire border into a de facto admissions processing center. As I said before, repeatedly ignored by Dems, it does little good to catch more if it just means releasing more. We have to increase detention space to hold illegal entrants until they can be deported, we have to increase judges so processing cases doesn't take years, and we need to revise our laws to keep unqualified asylum requests from flooding the system.
It is indeed a very complex issue. One that should seriously be addressed by both parties.
IF the vote in the Senate actually supported the House Bill to 'open' the government for a couple of weeks ...... Nancy still couldn't do it. She did another one of her vacation thingys and put the House in Recess until next week. She sure is serious about these "poor" Federal Workers.
Her Optics are terrible -- she is the Queen of "I don't care".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
