A House-Senate conference committee is working on a package of border security policies that could win the support of both Democrats and Republicans.

The final product is certain to include several measures that already have full, bipartisan approval: more immigration judges, more technology to detect illegal drugs at ports of entry, more humanitarian aid for migrants in custody, etc.

The hang-up, of course, will be a border barrier. President Trump insists on money — his demand is $5.7 billion — that would build new steel-slat barriers along about 230 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. About 80 miles of that would replace current, dilapidated, inadequate fencing, while 150 or so miles would cover currently unfenced areas.

On the other side are Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called a border wall “an immorality between nations” and denies evidence that a barrier would increase border security by decreasing the number of illegal crossings into the United States.

Pelosi won the 35-day partial government shutdown by sticking to her position. The new negotiations will test whether she and other Democratic barrier deniers can prevail again.

The need for new and improved barriers along some parts of the border is in the news almost daily.

The border is 1,954 miles long. Everyone agrees that big parts of it do not require any fencing because the terrain is so rough that it makes crossing very difficult.

On the other hand, a significant part of the border does need barriers. Right now, there are about 705 miles of fencing — about 405 miles of pedestrian fencing and about 300 of vehicle fencing.

Some of the pedestrian fencing is easy to breach because it is old, falling apart and was never that imposing in the first place. The Trump administration seeks to do three things: 1. Replace some ineffective pedestrian fence; 2. Replace current vehicle fence with new pedestrian fence; and 3. Build new pedestrian fence in some currently unfenced areas.

The construction of barriers dramatically reduces illegal border crossing attempts. Looking at the Yuma Sector along the border in western Arizona, in 2005, before the construction of barriers, the Border Patrol caught 138,438 illegal crossers, according to figures compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors greater restrictions on immigration. Last year, with barriers, there were 26,244 such apprehensions in the Yuma Sector.

The San Diego Sector in California is a case study in the effectiveness of a border barrier. In 1986, before the construction of a barrier, there were more than 628,000 apprehensions, while untold numbers of others successfully made it across the border illegally. In 2017, after the construction of extensive barriers, there were 26,086 apprehensions, according to the Border Patrol.

Would anyone argue that border barriers had nothing to do with those striking before-and-after reductions?

The effectiveness of border barriers is a settled fact. Yet some Democrats, led by the speaker of the House, deny that fact and insist that new and improved barriers would not increase border security. Other prominent Democrats, such as recently declared presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, have called the Trump barrier proposal a “medieval vanity project.”

At the same time, other Democrats seem more willing to take a fact-based approach.

Who will prevail in the border talks? The president and Congress have two weeks to find out.

Byron York is a nationally syndicated columnist.

(89) comments

Emile Pope

The Democrats are against a wall. This article is deliberately deceptive...

Carlos Ponce

How is the column deceptive, Emile? Some Democrats in Congress are willing to talk about funding the wall while the Democrat leadership is against it. Those are facts.

Ron Woody

No one, including the President has been talking about a "GREAT WALL OF CHINA" for several years. The President and others have stated that they just want to give the professionals what they are asking.

Mr. Pope, how long must the rhetoric of a wall and hatred of the President continue as more Americans die, our tax dollars are misspent and our culture destroyed?

Barrier/Fencing/Wall are all synonyms do you really enjoy these games that both parties are playing while Americans die? I am so tired of hearing people state this is about a campaign promise. No it is about preserving the border and protecting America.

Mr. Pope, do you find it ironic that the LA Teachers continue to endorse candidates that promote Open Borders for all and then strike, with one of their issues being overcrowding in the school?

Please put aside your hatred for one individual and start thinking about what is best for our citizens.

Emile Pope

No it isn't. No they aren't. No they don't...

George Croix

ALL of the Democrats, Pope?
Really?
Was that in the Daily Talking Points?
Would they be against a wall like the one Nancy has around her mansion....???
[beam][beam][beam]
Or the 700 miles of it their Top Dogs ALL voted for in years past?
They're against Motherhood and Apple Pie if Pres. Trump is for those, but that's OK - that's politics.
You'd think, though, that 'evolving' into a two-faced weasel on the subject would be considered a bad thing, rather than a badge of courage....well, that's leftists politics these days....

Emile Pope

No she doesn't.

George Croix

She's got more than one mansion, Pope.
Sucking up everything SNOPES says, or, as often, doesn't say, is convenient for obfuscation, but not comprehensive.
But, that's the point of doing that, isn't it......
If you care, look it up yourself.
If not, then just business a usual......

Carlos Ponce

Emile, look up her Napa Valley Estate surrounded by vineyards and a stone wall. She maintains her San Francisco home only to legally represent California's 12th Congressional District. She also maintains a home in the DC area.

Dalton Logan

Your right, I do think that they have their backs against a wall[beam]

Kelly Naschke

Can someone please give Emile the link to Obama's 2005 comments on border security and illegal immigration? Its not fair to watch him embarrass himself
yet again,

Emile Pope

How about showing me where he spoke about supporting a wall...

Paul Hyatt

How about telling everyone why you have walls in your home and doors that lock? If securing our border is immoral then you having walls and doors with locks on them are immoral.... Of course I doubt that you can make that connection....

Carlos Ponce

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l01_2tvtQcE
Obama uses the term "fences" but as posted in Politifact: "Experts have repeatedly told PolitiFact that the differences in semantics between a wall and a fence are not too significant because both block people."

George Croix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S88i1eWNhPM

Already been done, Kelly. Multiple times.
That Nobel Prize for 'what might someday be done' evidently didn't include someday walking his talk.....
Easier to teach a goat to tap dance, though, than to get The Faithful to admit it......

Jarvis Buckley

If Emile doesn't have ulcers he will soon. I suspect hypertension, high blood pressure. High heart rate. Emile you need to relax. Enjoy the salt air appreciate life . It's all good.
Market climbing, unemployment,
nearly non existent. Sky is blue. Take in a show at the Grand. Listen to the piano player at the Treemont. Go to
Rudy & Paco's as you walk in when Rudy says welcome home friend. Shake his hand. Have breakfast at the mosquito cafe. Life is good shed your negativity. 100 years all new people. Remember no one is all bad.

Emile Pope

I prefer Henry’s...

Mike Zeller

This is what was posted on the Trump campaign website, According to the Trump campaign, “It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year.” I say we start construction, the day the check clears the bank.[lol]

George Croix

Mexico is simply not yet 'shovel ready'.....Trump's error.

But, the precedent is to excuse such Presidential hyperbole, certainly considering that 800 BILLION in 'shovels' beats all heck out of 5 to 10 billion in wishful thinking.....
Still, 6 more years to make good on it.....

Carlos Ponce

It is an easy decision for Mexico to make, Mike. They're not writing a check but they did concede much in the USMCA negotiations. The money will be coming in.

Jim Forsythe

First, it is not law yet and will not start until 2020 or latter if passed.
If any money comes into the government from the USMCA it will not be placed into a wall fund.
Any funds will be mixed with all the other money the government has coming in.
The Congress will have to pass any funding unless the President at that time try's to go it on his own which he can only try and use money from groups already funded, not new money not already budgeted.
Just like NAFTA, the funds will go to all the needs of the USA and not to a WALL.

Carlos Ponce

"Any funds will be mixed with all the other money the government has coming in."
That's the intention. There will be plenty for a wall. Nancy just wants it for projects which benefit her contributors. Unlike Hillary, she did not make millions off futures.[rolleyes]

Jim Forsythe

The time frame for the wall should it ever happen will be years after Trump is out of office, the fight over Eminent Domain will go on for years, finding Contractors, American Steel Companys, the list goes on and on. This is nothing more than a Ruse, this is a fight that everyone knows is irrelevant, the Repubs can't even muster all of their elected Senators and Congressmen to vote for this wall, they had 2 years to do it and couldn't that's why they never tried. McConnel could have gone Nuclear if this was such a terrible National Security problem, he can still go Nuclear, why doesn't he?

Carlos Ponce

"the fight over Eminent Domain will go on for years" No Jim. Courts have held up the right for the US government to obtain land for border barrier construction. CNN found that ALL landowners lost in litigation to retain their property. But there are lawyers out there willing to take their money in a hopeless case. They will not only lose their land but also their money to litigation. The only thing they can contest is the money received in compensation. (Hint: They should ask for a lot because in the end the lawyers will get most of it.)
And Jim, the protection of American lives is not "irrelevant".
"they had 2 years to do it and couldn't " What part of 60 votes needed to pass the Senate do you not understand? were there ^) Republicans in the Senate??? No.
Going "nuclear"? As of November 2018, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation.

Jim Forsythe

Trump most likely will try and go it on his own, and declare a National Energy.
By doing this he is assured that it will be tied up in the court system past 2020. He can declare that he tried, and it is not his fault that it did not happen.
If was such a “National Emerge, he should have pushed this his first day in office and demanded it at that time. At that time, Republicans had control of the House.
Now the Democrats control the House, Trump decides that now is the time to push a issue that was sure not to pass the House?
If instead, Trump decides to shut down the Government again, he will lose more people that have supported him.
At that time, Feb.15(Trump decides to shut down the Government) the Senate and the House may pass funding at a level that Trump will not veto,because he knows it would be overrode.
At this time, Congress is working on making it almost impossible to shut down the Government.

Eloisa Tamez, 81, case — United States of America v. .26 Acres of Land — dragged on in Hanen's court for seven years. She knew how it would end. In federal condemnation cases, whether for dams, highways or national parks, the government almost always wins.

As of February 23, 2017.
More than 300 fence cases in District Judge Andrew Hanen court in Brownsville. He calls himself "the fence judge." court. Two-thirds of them have been resolved, One-thirds have not.

Carlos Ponce

"One-thirds (sic) have not." They are contesting the amount of money to be paid in compensation. You may find a few contesting land procurement but a lawyer will fight a no-win situation as long as he or she is being paid.

Jim Forsythe

The process will take many years. If the past is any indicator, Trump will not be in office if it is ever settled. The next President could push to have the land revert back to the owners. The government is now faced with some large landowners with a lot of money, that do not want to give up their land.
The other issue is just compensation. The taking of a few acers may impact landowners that depend on the river to irrigate their crops and water livestock. If proven in court, and it will not be hard to do so, the government would have to pay for all the loss that the land owner would occur for the lack of water.

Jim Forsythe

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a rule – specifically the 60-vote rule to close debate – by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.

George Croix

Soon as a national emergency is declared, Jim, the fight is over, where it needs to be.....
Your other points ARE legitimate, which is one reason I disdain the Republicans only somewhat less than the socia....uh, Democrats......[wink]

Jim Forsythe

For me George, as soon as a national emergency is declared,the fight is just started. The legal wrangling and fighting will take time, possibly many years which could mean that Trump may not be in office at that time it is concluded.
If after all the fighting Trump is allowed to do what he wants with just saying do it, all control of future Presidents will be no longer possible.
To me this is not a fight over the wall, but how much power a President will be allowed to have.

Part of the problem Trump will have is he “would be wide open to a court challenge saying, where’s the emergency" not just him saying so.
A problem that Trump would have to overcome is that none of the intel chiefs brought up a threat at the southern border as being one of the most pressing threats facing the country, which could be used in a challenge to any kind of a declaration of a national emergency.
Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed skepticism about whether a national emergency would work.

We may know the answers by Feb. 15, or it may take a lot longer.

George Croix

Ya figure a national emergency called by ANY Presidentshouldbe tied up in courts?
The idiocy of it is staggering.
We’d still be waiting on the dam_ lawyers to decide if we could fight WWII if the same attitudes existed in ‘41....🙄

George Croix

ps:
We elect a President precisely TO have him say so.

Jim Forsythe

George, I was not talking just about Trump but all the President forward. If we allow this to happen, all Presidents forward will do the same. At what point do we want Congress to be a check on what a President does? If the answer is never,we will have a government ran by one person!

Carlos Ponce

How many national emergencies were declared by Obama? 13, 11 are still active.
President GW Bush? 12, 10 are still active.
President Clinton? 17, 6 still active.
President GHW Bush? 4, none currently active.
President Reagan? 6, none currently active.
President Carter? 2, one still active.
ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/trump-wall-active-national-emergency/index.html
Were any of these challenged in court?
To date, Trump has declared three under the National Emergency Act:
1. Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (December 20, 2017)
2. Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (September 12, 2018)
3. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (November 27, 2018)

Carlos Ponce

Jim posts, " If we allow this to happen, all Presidents forward will do the same."
Looks like they already started back in the 1970s: Carter 2, Reagan 6, GWH Bush 4, Clinton 17, GW Bush 12, Obama 13, Trump 3.
Didn't need Trump's help for Democrat president to enact 32.
The score is Democrats 32, Republicans 25 National Emergencies.
Jim must think it is okay for Democrats to declare a National Emergency but HOW DARE Republican presidents do likewise!!!!!!!
"If we allow this to happen, all Presidents forward will do the same."Really, Jim?

Jim Forsythe

Of all the National Emergencies, how many did the Congress not agree with? If the Senate had a vote today, the wall may not even get 50 votes.
President Obama could have declared, ‘Listen, a national emergency, there isn’t enough health insurance around, we’re gonna start paying for it,'” is this the path you want to go down. Remember the next Democrat President may push something you do not like and they can declare, Trump did it, so can I. To push a unfunded issue that he wants by using his power in this method, just sets up more unfunded projects being pushed by Presidents from now on.
If he does this, the money is going to come from? It can not come from budgeted money.
If this issues was that important, why did he not declare a National Emergency before he shutdown the government?
If it was a National Emergency when he was first elected, why did he not act at that time.?
A Emergency is not something you wait to act on!


Emile Pope

Name them...

Emile Pope

Garbage. Bypassing Congress and taking money intended for something else and using it for something that wasn't approved is entirely different and has never been done before. Another weak argument...

Carlos Ponce

Jim, Congress has already given the president authority to declare national Emergencies. Action on individual acts not necessary. This or a future Congress may try to rescind those powers. See how far it will get......

George Croix

Jim, at SOME point people HAVE to start thinking for themselves, or we're sunk.... and put their Party directed talking points way, both of them, and REASON just a bit - it's INSANE to P&M about a 'wall' while ALSO doing the same about 'education funding' as but ONE of the MUCH higher costs than being asked for.....
Spend a dollar once to save 20 every year is a GOOD thing.... except to 'the resistance'.....and, even they woudl take that ratio in a minute if ANYBODY else proposed it..... lots of noses on the ground and spited faces....
Just parroting such inanity or pretending we can pay for everybody to come on in and get what ever they want, is how we elect LOONS who,as but ONE example, think the whole country can stop using fossil fuels in a decade and the costs done' matter if they just legislate it and wish it to be so.....
JHC!!! People have gone stark raving NUTS when they can't even protect themselves from....themselves.....

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, if this issues is that important, why did he not declare a National Emergency before he shutdown the government?
If it was a National Emergency when he was first elected, why did he not act at that time.?
A Emergency is not something you wait to act on!
By not acting on it in a timely manor,Trump may have a hard time convincing the courts that it is a true National Emergency.

Carlos Ponce

"...why did he not declare a National Emergency before he shutdown the government?"
Answered time and time again. He would like a BIPARTISAN approach to this since the barrier construction benefits ALL Americans. Also because he knows the Liberals will toss it to an Obama appointed judge in a fruitless effort to prevent border barrier construction.
Have problems convincing the courts? Only Obama appointed judges and the Ninth Circus. It will pass scrutiny by a majority of the Supreme Court.

Emile Pope

In other words, if the legislative branch (congress) won’t agree, and the judicial branch won’t agree, then it’s ok to overrule them and do something anyway? Right wing hypocrisy at its best...

Carlos Ponce

" then it’s ok to overrule them and do something anyway?"
Congress gave the president that authority.
Hypocrisy when Democrats have enacted National Emergencies 32 times since Carter??????

Emile Pope

Wrong on both counts...

Carlos Ponce

Jim posts, " If it was a National Emergency when he was first elected, why did he not act at that time.?"
This has explained many times. But since you are not paying attention.....
Trump wants bipartisan input and support on something this important. And Liberal will try to stop him (as they usually do) by going to an Obama appointed judge and the Ninth circus to try to block him. In the meantime, PEOPLE DIE!
Guatemalans have been told it's easy to get into the United States. Just walk in and say, "Quiero asilo!" But on the trip, they get hurt, women get raped, children are malnourished and dehydrated.
Americans are being killed by those illegals who are "Hombres malos". Are these Visa overstays? Usually not. Did they enter a port of entry? Usually not.
And for every pound of illegal drugs caught at ports of entry, there is an equivalent or more coming in at non ports of entry. I wish Americans would not buy this ...excrement. What can the government do? STOP IT!
Message from Timmothy Ballard:
"As a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special agent on the southern border who fought sex trafficking for over a decade, I can say with certainty that the issue of the border wall should be not about power and partisan politics. It should be about the children – the tens of thousands of them who have been and are being trafficked into the U.S. and forced into the commercial sex trade.
Not long ago, a 13-year-old girl from Central America – let’s call her “Liliana” – was kidnapped from her village, then trafficked into the U.S. at a location where there is no wall or barrier. From there, she was taken to New York City, where she was raped by American men 30 to 40 times a day.
Without a wall to protect her, Liliana didn’t get to enter America in a way that would have allowed her to experience the promises of the Statue of Liberty. Instead of breathing and living freely with a loving American foster family, she found herself enslaved by American sex predators.
The wall, contrary to President Trump’s adversaries, doesn’t contradict the Statue of Liberty. Rather it protects and preserves everything for which it stands."
Timothy Ballard is founder and CEO of Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R.), an organization dedicated to rescuing children from sex trafficking.
https://ourrescue.org/
Many Democrats want the wall. It is only Democrat Party leadership who is against it.

Carlos Ponce

Emile posts, "Wrong on both counts..."
No, Emile. Take time to look things up.
Start by doing a web search On the National Emergencies Act of 1976 which was passed by Congress, signed by the president on September 14, 1976.
And I've already posted the link that shows the numerous National Emergencies from each president since:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/trump-wall-active-national-emergency/index.html
Now if you're too lazy to look them up......[whistling]

George Croix

You exceed yourself again, Pope.
The Nobel Prize Winner with his ‘pen and phone’ did precisely, nearly exclusively’ what you now decry with the current Pres. Bypass the legislative and judicial branches and ‘just do it’.
So you’re against it after you were for it. Well, nothing new on the left there...

Jim Forsythe

All that you posted has nothing to do with the best way of protecting the USA. You want a wall and others want a different way.

How much BIPARTISAN work did Trump do before the shutdown?
Any president that wants to be BIPARTISAN does not make a statement like this.
“If the committee of Republicans and Democrats now meeting on Border Security is not discussing or contemplating a Wall or Physical Barrier, they are Wasting their time!” . He needs to stay out of the work they are doing, as he did not give them enough time to get what they need done.
Bipartisanship does not mean that you do not consider anything but what you want.
You also do not say, ‘This would be a very good time to do a shutdown,’ and expect for others to give in to your points.
As far as "barrier construction benefits ALL" that your take and does not make it true for others. Others have a point that the WALL is not the best way to go.
Over 50% of the USA citizens do not want the wall, so "ALL" do not want it.
If Trump forces the wall, he will lose many voters. The Supreme Court ruling on this is down the road and there is no guarantee as how they will rule.
If it is ever OKed, it still may not be built , because there is a good chance that Trump may not be in office at that time and could be dropped at that time. This is because of the amount of time that would take to buy land and such.

Some Republicans Senators that did not vote to fund wall.
Utah Senator Mitt Romney joined five other “Republican” senators in voting against funding President Trump’s border wall. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine,Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. They are part of "ALL" and do not agree with you.

George Croix

Here's hoping that nobody is further physically victimized by the invasion of illegal aliens, but, if...when...it does, here's hoping it's someone that the opposition to stopping this insanity can personally relate to, so it moves out of the realm of their PC theory lives into their reality lives.....
Sadly, it WILL take that for the 'resistance' to have the tiniest chance of getting on boat with bailing the sinking lifeboat, rather than constantly knocking more holes in it....

Carlos Ponce

"You want a wall and others want a different way." So Jim Forsythe agrees that the wall constructed there prohibits illegal entry! The agents say walls would "funnel" potential illegal entrants to places that are easily monitored, where agents won't be ambushed.
"How much BIPARTISAN work did Trump do before the shutdown?"
Quite a bit, Jim.
See NYT article dated December 11, 2018:
"Trump Threatens Shutdown in Combative Appearance With Democrats"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/us/politics/trump-border-wall-government-shutdown.html
Don't you remember Trump and Pence met with Pelosi and Schumer in the White House? Nancy did not want to express her views in front of the cameras.
"The meeting — the first time in more than a year that the pair the president likes to call “Chuck and Nancy” traveled to the White House to negotiate with Mr. Trump — was to be a private session. But Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, later said that Mr. Trump had been 'grateful for the opportunity' to place his disagreement with Democrats on display."
That's the meeting where Trump said, "I’ll tell you what: I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck." I bet you remember that, Jim.

Carlos Ponce

"Any president that wants to be BIPARTISAN does not make a statement like this."
He agreed to several of the Democrat demands in return for border barrier funding. THAT'S BIPARTISAN!!!!!!!

George Croix

"Bipartisanship does not mean that you do not consider anything but what you want.'

THAT works BOTH ways, Jim....not just the one way you keep mentioning....
BOTH Nancy and Chuck have said from the get go they will not support any money for a 'wall' and will urge their Party members to oppose same.....
Does 'No' mean 'Bipartisan' in Dem speak but not Rep speak......
Well, yes, in this case...too...it certainly does,

Jim Forsythe

The tone of a meeting is what sets what happens. If the President says wall or else, and the other side says no wall, meeting over. Nothing to bargain for, at that time.
If they let the committee working on this, do there job, maybe something will happen.

Carlos Ponce

The only obstacles in getting a wall are members of the Democrat Party leadership. The rank and file i willing to fund a wall. Nancy is playing a political game. "Re-open government and we'll talk about a wall." I heard on the news that Nancy will let the proposed compromise will go the House floor. But WOE to any Democrat who DARES vote for it. Remember what Nancy's daughter said about her mother: “She’ll cut your head off and you won’t even know you’re bleeding.”
Nancy is not a nice person.

George Croix

BUT, the President from day 1 has been a 'wall' guy, and every last one of the Big Dems has within the past decade or so spoken PASSIONATELY about actually securing our border and getting control over immigration, but, now, suddenly find that 'immoral'....
Tone?
How about a 'two-tone' - one for each left wing persons faces in the room.....[wink][whistling]
It's all BS semantics....only the biggest liars since 'Wiped the disk? You mean, like with a cloth...(cackling)...." say walls don't work.....
They KNOW walls work, which is exactly why they make a big show of claiming they don't work, despite having them on their own houses and properties. The Top Dems don't want any walls, so ever more future amnesty recipients/voters for them will keep pouring in....imo, of course....
Of course, I could be wrong about that....but, I'm not........

Jim Forsythe

"He agreed to several of the Democrat demands in return for border barrier funding." no really, just recycling ejected items.
Pelosi rejected the plan , saying: "Unfortunately, initial reports make clear that his proposal is a compilation of several previously rejected initiatives, each of which is unacceptable and in total, do not represent a good faith effort to restore certainty to people's lives."

Carlos Ponce

"no really, just recycling ejected items"
So why were the Democrats demanding them???????

Jim Forsythe

The only obstacles in not getting the wall are members of the Republican Party leadership.
As of today 53 Senators are Republican. When the last vote was taken to fund the wall some of the rank and file Republicans vote against it. When a party can not get all in that party to vote for something, it must be that not "ALL" are for it. One Democrat did vote for it.
To say that the Democrats are keeping the wall from being built is not true. Even some Republicans are against it.

Nancy Pelosi’s daughter did not mince words Wednesday when she was asked about her mother’s leadership style. “She’ll cut your head off and you won’t even know you’re bleeding.” is how she describe her mother style of governing. At the same interview, she said.
When asked about her mother’s expected speakership, Alexandra Pelosi applauded “all those women” entering the new Congress.“When Nancy Pelosi came to town, it was a boy’s club. That was 30 years ago,” she said. “Look around tomorrow. It’s going to be a whole new America. You’re going to see something so magical that you have not seen before if you think about how this country is changing when you look at who is representing us.”

"So why were the Democrats demanding them?" What are they demanding?

George Croix

Jim, help me out here, is 60 a bigger number than 53...???

When this 'resisting' idiocy, all around, ever ends, perhaps rather than protecting Party backsides of elected officials and people who won't even walk their own talk, we'll get around to protecting the citizens and legal residents from the massive unnecessary expenses for and criminal activities of as many illegal aliens as possible......

And then, I woke up.....................

Jim Forsythe

"Jim, help me out here, is 60 a bigger number than 53...???" If someone argues that the Democrats are thee reason that the wall is not happening and his group is not 100% behind it, that lacks .
The Republicans can not think about 60 votes if they can not get 53 from there own. To me it is hard to understand why some people were thinking that the Democrats were going to be for the wall, after they said the would not be!The reason that 60 votes are required is so a majority of the Senators would have to agree. What is happening now is what they were thinking when they set the requirement. They made it hard to pass bills on purpose.
If the wall is the only thing one group will be happy with, and the other does not want it, one group will not get there way. The Democrats already said that the would talk about some security fencing. If the President does not listen to the offer on the 15th, he will have missed a change to start working out the differences.
The Democrats are in DC to represent the people that elected them. Polls, phone calls, letters tell them that democrats want them to oppose the wall as presented now, so they will.

George Croix

I didn't argue anything, Jim.
I asked a simple question related to how the United States Senate actually works, as opposed to the MSM version and the dishonesty of their oft parroted "who's in charge' silliness, as if a majority in the Senate means automatic passage of any favored bills.
You are the one saying that unless ALL of any Party are on board, then can't blame the other guys for anything.
That's BS, old buddy.........

Carlos Ponce

"The Democrats already said that the(sic) would talk about some security fencing."
Yes, their marching orders are to talk and then offer NOTHING. Let's see how many will dare cross Pelosi with threatened loss of committee assignments, loss of funding from DNC, etc.

Jim Forsythe

George, did you really expect the Democrats to vote for the wall? As a Demarcate, I would have been surprised if they did so in December. I would also been surprised if the Republicans had not vote to fund it. It now more of getting ready for the elections in 2020, than anything else. No matter the out come, Trump can claim that he exhausted all means he has.

George there's a difference if a party accuses the other as being all the reason and not factor in the ones in their party that does not agree. If you look back, Carlos said "ALL" were in favor, which is not true. The truth is the majority of the American people are not in favor of the wall. About the same number of republicans are for the wall as the number of democrats that are against it. The larger percent of rest of the people are not so much in favor of the wall. People do change their minds, so who knows.
The House has already said that they will vote to resend the national Emergencies, if Trump issues one. If they do, the Senate may vote as to whether they agree or they do not.
Of course if the Senate votes not to fund the wall, Trump will veto it. This will place on record, who is in favor of funding the wall, and who is not.
"Congress can rescind a declared emergency, not only must they pass the joint resolution, but the President must sign the legislation."
The results of all this posturing may be over on Feb.15 or it my take many years.

Carlos Ponce

Jim posts, "Carlos said 'ALL' were in favor, which is not true."
I never said anything of the sort.

George Croix

Jim, I expect anybody with a functioning brain cell, regardless of political affiliation, to abandon the wash job that 'walls don't work', temporarily think of the HONEST citizens and legal residents, for a change, and USE that brain to decide for themselves HOW In THE HECK it's better to spend a hundred billion, plus, every year, plus, than to one-time GREATLY increase border security against unwanted immigration, or, invasion, by any realistic viewpoint at all,

So, YES, I expect anybody not totally eaten up with the cancer of PC and 'resistance' to pop their head out and demand that the benefits of this country be used, FIRST, for the legal residents of this country.

Hey, I can't help it.....I'm just not capable of being told what to think by people who will never...NEVER.....be effected by and experience the slightest bit of inconvenience themselves from that which they get their True Believers to think is holy-speak......

It's a darn shame that ONLY the advocates for the continuing insanity can't be the ones that reap the negative effects........

Jim Forsythe

George, you and I disagree about the best way to handle people that are not suppose to be here.
You want a wall and I want us to use different means to not just protect the border but also remove the one's that should not be here. You and I will not make a difference in which way is chosen, unless you have more juice than I do .
The wall has become this years Obama care.
In the next two years, Social Security looks like the big issue that will become a political football.

Carlos Ponce

Jim, you just don't get it - or you refuse to. A virtual wall and electronic gizmos has been tried. By itself IT DOES NOT WORK - THEY TRIED IT BEFORE!
But where a physical wall/fence barrier like at Yuma illegal entry reduces illegal entry.
"Sheriff: Border Fence Helped Cut Crime in Yuma by 91 Percent"
https://www.theepochtimes.com/sheriff-border-fence-helped-cut-crime-in-yuma-by-91-percent_2749236.html
"Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it"
https://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/Border-walls-work-Yuma-sector-proves-it/td-p/2097678
"Walls Work"
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work
"Medieval" perhaps - but works. Electronic gizmos are fine but not by themselves. A wall will funnel people seeking illegal entry to more controllable points.
FACT: Pelosi gets a lot of her campaign funding through Silicon Valley sources.
A government contract with only "virtual wall " funding would mean additional $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for those companies who contribute to her campaign. Trump's plan would only mean only $$$$$$$$ for those companies.
WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THIS!
Nancy didn't become a millionaire by doing what is best for this country - only her contributors.

George Croix

Jim, what 'different means' are you claiming...as you've claimed several times, without specificity, WILL STOP...STOP.... anyone, or at least most, from entering...entering...this country illegally?? Too late once in here......

NOT 'detect' or 'point out' - again, it's too late by then. And unless a Border Patrol is RIGHT On SITE, chances are slim and none of catching them, and slim's headed out of town....
Once your front door is kicked in, your alarm system just lets you know you're already standing on the wrong side of the proverbial fan.

Be specific, and finally say what 'other means' will PREVENT...halt....most illegal entry?

Old friend, a case of cold Diet Coke against a small bag of Fritos says that, unless you name physical barriers, I'm gonna have chips for my next sandwich.....

George Croix

ps:
We already HAVE the means to remove the one's already here illegally. We just don't have the will....too many too lazy to mow their own lawns, and too many hoping for permanent political power when amnesty is voted ....

Jim Forsythe

George, you and I will not agree on the wall.
We have satellites that can detect any movement in the world, of just four inches. No one is sneaking up to the border, that we do not have the capabilities to detect. This can be used anywhere we need it. This is the technology that made it possible for us to recreate the compound that Osama bin Laden was at. We new the exact size of all the rooms without ever being in the compound. This is how they practiced entry, before they were ever at the compound.
Fiber-optic cables that could secure the border can also be used for telecommunications — and even provide broadband internet access to communities that live nearby.
Fiber-optic cables have been previously tested at the US-Mexico border, and can detect a range of intrusions — from animals, to people, to vehicles — and determine their exact location.
One Texas lawmaker, Rep. Will Hurd, a Republican who represents more of the border than anyone in Congress has been arguing for years that stretching a fiber optic cable "from sea to shining sea" would do far more to secure the border than physical barriers.
Even though the technology has been around for years, and is ready to be deployed, the US government has been slow to adopt it.
"We already HAVE the means to remove the one's already here illegally. We just don't have the will" How many people did the President hire that should have not been working for him? Just like other employers, he said his golf clubs were using E-Verify and they were not. Require it for every employer, and the jobs will dry up and also apply stiff penalties(jail time) for the employers that do not use E-Verify.
Rework the visa system to reflect the needs we have now. If we have labor needs, make it workable to fill that need . Only after we have look at all other means

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, the head of the Republican party is a Billionaire. How much has his net worth gone up since he has been in office and he is not even getting a salary. Why would it bothered you that Nancy's family has been successful in it's managing of their assets.

Pelosi reported having a minimum of $32.9 million in assets, divided between investments and real estate, and a minimum of $17 million in liabilities. Much of this comes from her husband Paul Pelosi’s investment firm.

Carlos Ponce

"Why would it bothered you that Nancy's family has been successful in it's managing of their assets."
Surely you jest, Jim.
Nancy used her position as Speaker in the past, California representative and current Speaker to gain lucrative deals in quid pro quo investments.
Since Donald Trump never held office before becoming President one cannot compare the two.
Do your own RESEARCH, Jim. How DID Nancy Pelosi become a millionaire?????

George Croix

Which husband has been able to get some sweetheart investments and business variances due to some connection(s) or other...from 'somewhere'....[beam]
At LEAST, as a far as we know so far, Mr. Pelosi was not in on the Uranium 1 pay-for-play.....by comparison, then, he and his are virtual saints among thieves....[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

George Croix

I'll have REGULAR Fritos, Jim.
Satellite detection. Well, whoop de doooo.....got 'em covering every part of the border, huh...?????...!!
How about if somebody told you just take off all your door locks and take down the doors because we'll get satellite pix of anybody breaking into you house, then send the Police to see if they can round up those trespassers/thieves....go for that, too???
Swell.
We'll have nice pix of the folks ALREADY HERE as we then send somebody to round some of them up that have not disappeared already, and then the taxpayers start footing their bills for food/shelter until released into this country in short order under catch-and-release, and for their kid's schooling, and for their ER/medical care trips, and for their anchor babies, and get the benefits of crimes committed that never should have been and maybe someone we know will be DEAD because of a murder that could have been kept outside the country, but, by golly, we'll have a really good pix of the guy to show the jury........???
Forget the Fritos....lost my appetite.........

George Croix

Jim, as to whom the President hired, do ya suppose he interviews all the help personally....??
At least, so far, nobody he's hired has passed along thousands of classified documents, obtained from a violator of the Espionage Act, their boss, to their spouse on an unsecured laptop, since we want to get into deflecting......[beam][beam][beam]

Jim Forsythe

Has Nancy Pelosi ever been charged and convicted of anything that you may think she has done. Trump has increase his wealth while President. If you compare the two for the last two years ,Trump has increased his wealth the most.
Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach resort owned by the Trump Organization, doubled its initiation fee to $200,000 following the election of Donald Trump as president. On top of the initiation fee of $200,000 plus tax, members also pay $14,000 a year in annual dues (plus tax).
A membership at Mar-a-Lago now includes a chance to mingle with the 45th president.
The Mueller investigation will be out, maybe in about year, and at the time it may be clear if Trump is not involved in bad dealings.

If you are talking about the eight IPOs, it was not illegal because, at the time, insider trading laws did not apply to members of Congress.
Paul is the one making most of the money.
Paul Pelosi owns large stakes in companies like Apple, Walt Disney, and Facebook.


Carlos Ponce

"Has Nancy Pelosi ever been charged and convicted..?" Of course not. The fix is in. Speaker of the House wields a lot of influence. Just like Obama's Secretary of State.

George Croix

I was talking about hillary as 'the boss', Jim..... but that nancy comparison you made will get you on the Blue Emu commercial with Johnny Bench after stretching thaaaaaaat far.....and, you won't stink.......!![beam]

George Croix

Wait...wait...I left out the 'who's making the most money' dodge.....
Very unlike you, Jim....you should leave that totally off the wall stuff to the "resistance'....I know a LOT better Jim than that.....
Donald Trump would be making billions if a lifetime political hack and 'bus undercarriage inspector' had NOT lost to him.
So, if you want to keep deflecting from the 'wall' issue and claiming that satellite pix of a violator are better than preventing violation, rather than just admit that's TOTALLY bull-o-knee and give me my darn Fritos, then lets deflect over and discuss how big of a wealth and influence increase, by percent change from original status, that a 95% voting 'present' Senator nee community organizer parlayed a Presidency into, which he'd never have done without it.....
We can start with the million bucks Nobel prize, for 'what might be done'.....
If he was honest, he'd give it back....with interest....
Then, let's move on to the new mansion.....etc........
Ahhhhh.......forget that......I'm still waiting to hear the obvious admission that a WALL is a LOT more than a SATELLITE PHOTO.....
And, to show good sportsmanship, make it a can of Original Lays Stax, and I'll split the chips with you.....even give you one...one...cold Diet Coke......[beam]

Jim Forsythe

George, as I said we are not going to agree about the wall.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, if you are going to say Nancy is doing something illegal, prove it.
She has not been convicted of a crime but in your mind she is guilty.
What is she guilty of beside being a Democrat?
Which person has been accused of more, Trump or Nancy?

Carlos Ponce

Not to worry,. Jim. As for Nancy ...
"Her day will come
And we'll know everything."

George Croix

Jim, I'm not TRYING to get you to agree on The Wall.
I'm just attempting to get you to admit that a physical barrier is more effective than a satellite photo to deter unwanted entry. You don't have to AGREE to build a wall, but nobody can possibly actually believe they do not work....that 'surveillance' beats pre-emption.
Don't have to say so, but then I don't HAVE to say that I'm uglier than a busted blister...I can just deny the reality and move along....[wink]

Jim Forsythe

George, if you remember I said that the wall was on the bottom of the list as to what I would do.
To increase the amount of wall to me, is not what is needed.
I believe that the combination of all the methods that I talked about and a few more, is what is needed.
You believe the wall is needed.
As I said before, it does not matter, as they are not going to listen to either one of us.

George Croix

Well, Jim, we can both certainly agree on that last sentence.....

Jarvis Buckley

Jim I think you are confusing our security wall for the Coastal barrier.
Which do you think is needed most & which do you think will actually be built?

Jim Forsythe

Jarvis , those are two different issues. I believe that both will not be built as they are portrayed now.

Jarvis Buckley

Unfortunately I agree with your comment on both.

Carlos Ponce

"The last time the United States tried to build a virtual border wall, it wasn’t exactly a big success"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/30/the-last-time-the-united-states-tried-to-build-a-virtual-border-wall-it-wasnt-exactly-a-big-success/?utm_term=.c9d8057503cf
A virtual wall is only part of the solution. Nancy wants all the government money to go to her campaign contributors in Silicon Valley. They'll get their fair share under Trump's plan but not all the billions. Pelosi is playing Washington politics as usual.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.