Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Border Wall category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Border Wall’ Category

Thank God that Lindsey Graham isn’t doing the negotiating on DACA for the Republicans. Thank God that President Trump is the negotiator, instead. First, according to Ed Henry, “the White House is planning on taking a hard line” on DACA negotiations. Henry also reported that ICE is stepping up enforcement activities at businesses like 7-11s in an attempt to put greater pressure on Democrats to negotiate a better deal for the White House. But I digress. Back to Sen. Graham.

Sen. Graham is stuck in a Gang of Eight rut. Tuesday, Sen. Graham implored President Trump to “close this deal.” Next, Sen. Graham explains his plan, saying “So here’s what I would suggest to you. Phase one: To expect my friends on the other side to go comprehensive for us, and DACA for them, is not going to happen. I’m telling my friends on the other side, DACA and nothing else is not going to happen. The sweet spot is DACA-plus, more than the DACA kids. And making down payments on border security. Moving slowly but surely towards a merit-based immigration system, to be followed by Phase Two.”

With all due respect to Sen. Graham, in this instance, slow and steady lets too many illegal immigrants into the U.S. It doesn’t win a race. With this administration putting pressure on Democrats and with the Democrats’ special interests freaking out, don’t be surprised if President Trump’s pressure isn’t a game-changer.

Last week, Rep. Martha McSally, (R-AZ), made things exceptionally clear that the Democrats’ clean DACA bill was essentially dead and buried:

This wasn’t communicated in gentle speak. Rep. McSally laid down the law on immigration. Don’t be surprised if McSally’s star doesn’t rise during the DACA negotiations. Footnote: If that happens, the likelihood that she replaces Jeff Flake as Arizona’s junior senator would increase significantly.

The Democrats are facing tons of pressure from immigration special interest groups, though they’ve been pressuring Democrats to hold to a hard line on DACA. Now that ICE is stepping up raids, don’t be surprised if these special interest organizations don’t experience a change of heart.

Appearing on Fox News’ Outnumbered, David Asman started off the show by saying that he thinks Democrats don’t want a DACA deal because they don’t want to give President Trump a political victory. That’s an opinion I hold because the Democrats’ Resistance Movement has been their strategy since President Trump’s inauguration. The proof is plentiful that Democrats have deployed obstructionism since President Trump’s inauguration. They’ve used every Senate rule to slow the confirmations of President Trump’s Cabinet secretaries.

Further, Democrats unanimously voted against the Trump/GOP tax cuts even though many so-called moderates said there were parts of the tax cuts that they really liked. Despite liking major parts of the Trump/GOP tax cuts, every Democrat in the House and Senate voted against helping their constituents in the hopes of retaking the House of Representatives.

Multiple Senate Democrats oppose the building of Trump’s wall, saying that it doesn’t work. There’s tons of proof that it does. It’s in ICE’s official reports. It’s in FBI reports, too. The statistics speak for themselves. It isn’t that the Wall doesn’t work. It’s that the special interests that fund the Democrats’ campaigns insist that Democrats not vote for anything that would improve border security.

Here’s the dirty truth: Democrats would much rather do what their special interest allies instruct them to do rather than make life better for DACA recipients. Here’s another dirty little truth: Democrats don’t want a merit-based immigration system. Asman explains why we need to implement a merit-based immigration system immediately in this video:

Nothing that Asman said in describing his sister-in-law interests the Democrats. Why would they want self-sufficient immigrants with a history of creating small businesses to move to the United State? Democrats have shown that they prefer people who can’t stand on their own or that need government programs. If you don’t think that’s the truth, explain why Democrats insist on increasing the number of refugees entering from terrorist-infested nations.

Finally, Democrats want to create the storyline that Republicans shut down the government. Democrats are playing with fire this time. They’re saying no to increasing military spending, something that won’t play well this November. Think about this: Democrats don’t want to secure the Tex-Mex border. Democrats don’t want to rebuild the military, either. Democrats oppose stopping drug cartel-related crime, too.

Perhaps Democrats would like to explain something that they’re for that the American people want. And when I say that they should explain what they’re for, I’m talking about actually voting for it, not just saying that they’re for it. Words don’t mean much without actions.

Spoken like a true cookie cutter Democrat, last Friday night, newly minted U.S. Senator Tina Smith said that she’s opposed to building the wall, saying that “the wall is just a dumb idea”, adding that “most people don’t think it’s a good idea.” It’s good to know that Democrats think it’s smart to set national security policy based on public opinion rather than on what works.

I’d love hearing Democrats explain why they’re opposed to the wall after people read this article about El Paso. In the article, it says “Tell that to the residents of El Paso, Texas. Federal data show a far-less imposing wall than the one Trump envisions — a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration — already has dramatically curtailed both illegal border crossings and crime in Texas’ sixth-largest city, which borders the high-crime Mexican city of Juarez. In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data reviewed by me. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251.”

In other words, a wall has already significantly reduced illegal border crossings in El Paso. That isn’t the only benefit of building the wall:

And crime abated with the reduced human traffic from Juarez, considered one of the most dangerous places in the world due to drug-cartel violence, helping El Paso become one of the safest large cities in America.

Let’s summarize. The wall in El Paso dramatically reduced illegal border crossings and it helped reduce drug-related crime, too. Let’s hear Democrats explain their opposition to something that dramatically reduces illegal border crossings and drug-related crimes.

Before 2010, federal data show the border city was mired in violent crime and drug smuggling, thanks in large part to illicit activities spilling over from the Mexican side. Once the fence went up, however, things changed almost overnight. El Paso since then has consistently topped rankings for cities of 500,000 residents or more with low crime rates, based on FBI-collected statistics.

Democrats opposed to the wall need to explain why they’re opposed to stopping violent crime and drug smuggling.

Another core promise made by Trump to justify constructing a massive wall spanning from Texas to California is that it will slow the flow of drugs coming across the border from Mexico. “We need the wall for security. We need the wall for safety,” Trump said last week while answering questions about the sweeping new GOP immigration bill. “We need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in.”
On that score, El Paso already has exceeded expectations.

Drug smuggling along that border entry point has also fallen dramatically. In fact, since the fence was completed, the volume of marijuana and cocaine coming through El Paso and seized by Border Patrol agents has been cut in half. The year before the wall was fully built in 2010, the volume of illegal drugs confiscated by the feds along the El Paso border hit 87,725 pounds. The year after, the amount of drug seizures plummeted to 43,783 pounds. Last year, they dropped even further to a total of 34,329, according to Border Patrol reports obtained by The Post.

Obama, Schumer and Feinstein all voted for building a wall in 2006:

I don’t doubt that Democrats will insist that things have changed since 2006. That’s true. Since then, large portions of the wall have been built. The FBI and ICE have had time to accumulate crime data. Since those sections of walls were built, illegal crossings have dropped, illegal drug confiscation has significantly increased and crime has dropped.

In other words, we now have proof that walls work. This isn’t theory anymore.

Ladies and gentlemen, Tina Smith gave us proof that she’s a typical Metrocrat when she was interviewed by Almanac’s Eric Eskola and Cathy Wurzer. During the interview, Cathy Wurzer asked Smith if she thought the Senate was close to a DACA deal. Sen. Smith replied that she thought there was a good chance of senators coming together on a deal on DACA. Then Eskola essentially asked why Democrats weren’t willing to trade funding for President Trump’s wall for protection of DACA-protected illegals.

That’s when Sen. Smith said “Well, you know the wall is just a dumb idea. To try to pay for a big wall is just — most people don’t think it’s a good idea. At the same time, we have to have really strong border security and so I hope that a compromise can be reached that makes sense so that we can have strong border security.” Eskola jumped in, saying “That’s a compromise — wall- DACA”. Sen. Smith then countered, saying “I don’t think a wall is — I think a wall is — what? $18,000,000,000? I think we need to focus on border security and not the idea of tons and tons of cement, which doesn’t really work.”

There’s reason to question Sen. Smith’s commitment to border security. She recently participated in a DACA rally that featured her and Keith Ellison.

At the rally, Smith told the crowd of about 200 people “Minnesota Dreamers are American in every way except their immigration status. They work hard to improve our communities and to make our state better, not just for themselves and their families but for all of us. So the notion that we would turn our backs on Dreamers now … it’s just disgraceful.”

In other words, Sen. Smith thinks that there’s no problem admitting lots of illegal immigrants into Minnesota. On Almanac, Smith talked repeatedly about needing to secure the border. At this rally, Smith talked about how DREAMers were “American in every way except their immigration status.”

Which is it, Sen. Smith? If DREAMers are “American in every way except their immigration status”, why do we need tight security at the border? If we need tight security on the border, how can DREAMers be “American in every way except their immigration status”? It’s apparent that Sen. Smith is already adept at talking out of both sides of her mouth.

Smith’s interview is the first segment of Friday night’s show:

It’s understatement to say that it didn’t help improve her trustworthy rating.

Technorati: , , , ,

These days, Democrats are using the term border security as their new euphemism for comprehensive immigration reform. To Democrats, border security means not building the wall or ending chain migration. Democrats insist that the wall is a poison pill, that linking DACA to building the wall is a deal-breaker.

I’m upset with Republicans for not fighting that by questioning Democrats why they think that building a border wall is a poison pill. For that matter, I’d love seeing Chairman Goodlatte invite someone from the Israeli Defense Forces, aka the IDF, or Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee on whether their wall has protected Israel from terrorist attacks.

The Israelis are the gold standard at keeping their people safe. They’re surrounded by water and terrorists. The terrorists have a virtual unlimited supply of short- and medium-range rockets. They also have the determination to kill Israelis. During the “Second Intifada”, which started in 2000, Israelis built the border wall. From 2000 to 2003, there were 73 terrorist attacks. After the wall was built, from 2003 through 2006, terrorist attacks dropped to 12.

Let’s hear Democrats insist that a border wall doesn’t work or that it’s a poison pill after hearing that type of testimony. The Democrats insist that the wall is a poison pill because special interest organizations that fund their campaigns want to keep the stream of illegal aliens flowing. Period. That’s why it’s imperative Republicans hold onto the U.S. House. Everyone knows that there’s enough Senate Republicans who will cave on the wall. We need to keep our majority in the House to shut down any bill that doesn’t include funding for President Trump’s wall.

Let’s be exceptionally clear about this. Conservative hardliners should stop debate of any immigration bill that doesn’t end chain migration, doesn’t end the visa lottery and doesn’t fund the building of President Trump’s wall. That’s our poison pill because, without all of those things, the border isn’t secure.

No amount of happy talk will make it so. Finally, Republicans should insist that Democrats eliminate any euphemisms that make it sound like they’re serious about securing the border when they aren’t serious about securing the border. If Chuck Schumer wants to throw a hissy fit on the Senate floor after getting called out on this, that’s fine. Let him look like a jackass. After Sen. Schumer finishes his diatribe, the Republicans should then reiterate how the border wall between Israel and the West Bank has kept Israel safe for a decade.