The President's Proposal For Border Security is Reasonable

The only reason Democrats are opposed is beca​use it is Trump proposing it. Obama had similar border security.

Last night, President Trump addressed the nation and called for Congress to authorize funds to secure the border between the United States and Mexico. The media seemed far more concerned with suggesting he is a racist or lying than to actually, honestly address the merits of his proposal.

The reality is that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both strengthened our border security and everyone was fine with it.

The President is not calling for a border wall to be built across the entire border. His proposal has been scaled back to add just 234 more miles in areas identified by the Department of Homeland Security at a cost of $5.7 billion. On top of that, he requests

  • $675 million to deter and detect narcotics, weapons, and other materials crossing our borders;
  • $211 million to hire 750 additional Border Patrol agents;
  • $571 million for 2,000 additional ICE personnel;
  • $4.2 billion for 52,000 detention beds, personnel, transportation, and detention alternatives; and,
  • $563 million for 75 additional immigration judges and support staff

These are all reasonable requests.

The only reason Democrats are now opposed is because Donald Trump is the one asking. But Democrats were willing to build fencing and walls for Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

President Trump is additionally right to keep the government shutdown until the Democrats are willing to negotiate. We all know the Democrats will not offer up any funding for a wall the moment the government reopens. It is unfortunate that the Democrats' refusal to compromise on an issue they were fine with just eleven months ago is keeping federal employees from getting paychecks, but it is unreasonable to offer nothing for border security when the data and federal border patrol agents all objectively show we need increased border security.

Comments
No. 1-22
DavidMKern
DavidMKern

@NeilMcKenna I had provided an answer to your questions about

  1. A wall funding for climate change funding deal

  2. NATO

  3. The campaign promises kept by Trump

My post was in the reply section of my post from 5 days ago (the one with no spacing between paragrahps). I didn't know whether you found it as I got no response. I thought perhaps you simply wanted to end our discussion - which is okay if that is the case.

I thought the deal Trump offered yesterday was a fair compromise that would be a good first step toward a broader compromise. I suspect Trump's suggested compromise has the Republican votes to pass in the Senate, unless the Democrats filibuster it. I suspect it might also pass in the House, if Pelosi allowed a vote on it. But I suspect the Democrats will vote to kill this compromise, as I don't think they want any deal.

Perhaps that will work out to their long term benefit. Perhaps not. Time will tell.

Best wishes. David.

DavidMKern
DavidMKern

@NeilMcKenna My post below with space between the paragraphs.

@NeilMcKenna Although it showed up for a while, they seem to have taken down the reply I sent you on the new Resurgent website. The new Resurgent website does not seem to have a spot for starting new conversations, so I think this our back and forth discussion may be coming to an end. But I thank you for your honest discourse about our very different opinions. I am posting it here, in case you want to read it:

@NeilMcKenna Our old exchange did not make it over with the Resurgent transition. This is a reply to your post 4 days ago on the Maven.com version of Erick's post. After the transition, my new id is @dmk8591 rather than the @DavidMKern that I was posting as.

I would prefer to separate our debate about border control issues, from other issues such as Trump’s alleged criminality or the crisis of climate change. As I have repeatedly stated in other posts, focusing on other issues will do nothing to fix real border control problems. If we want to debate non-border issues, we should seek to find someplace other than Erick's border control articles to do it.

As to Trump’s criminality, I would prefer that Trump’s critics wait for him to be indicted/convicted of a crime before advocating for him to be hung for treason live on CNN (with play-by-play done by Jim Acosta for a figurative – and perhaps literal – hanging ceremony). Although many of Trump’s critics accuse him of being a dictator, they are the ones who are abandoning “innocent until proven guilty” in seeking to eliminate a political opponent. As I recall, Comey said that Trump is not a target of the investigation. In practical terms, this was an outright lie, as Trump has been the one and only true target of the investigation from long before it was placed under Mueller’s control (i.e., the witch the hunters hope to exterminate). If the investigation was really about Russian collusion by a political campaign, then Hillary would be in prison for her campaign paying Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS to hire Russian sources to create a dossier with unprovable accusations implicating Trump. The FBI people in charge of the Russian collusion investigation relied on this Russian-supplied information to get a FISA warrant to survey people in the Trump campaign, which means the investigators are actually more guilty of the crime they were investigating than Trump is.

As to climate change, are you aware the EPA reported that “that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reported decreased by 2.7 percent from 2016 to 2017.” Are you aware that “Preliminary estimates published today in the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) annual ‘trends and projections’ assessments show a 0.6% emissions increase in 2017 from 2016?” In other words, the US is doing more to reduce carbon emissions than EU countries, despite Trump withdrawing from the Paris Climate accord.

On the global warming debate, there are lots of factual reasons that people (including many reputable scientists) are skeptical. We could attempt to have a serious discussion about the reasons for this skepticism. Or I could suggest numerous proposals that would make sense if global warming alarmism was really something to be feared. For example, if the science of climate change is truly settled, it would make sense to abort any further climate research, and devote these funds to paying carbon offsets to subsidize reduced carbon production. After all, Al Gore's Doomsday clock expired 3 years ago, and we are already past the point of no return for saving our planet. The only question now is how long we can survive before the catastrophe kills us all. If one takes global warming alarmism seriously, this is the most logical thing to do.

However, I am a climate change skeptic and I don’t subscribe to Bernie Sander’s view that climate change is “the biggest crisis of all.” To rebut that ridiculous nature of that extreme viewpoint, I offer you this tongue in cheek proposal in both the mocking spirit of a climate change skeptic and the terrified spirit of a global warming alarmist. Because climate change is so catastrophic, logic dictates that it should take precedence over all other environmental issues. According to Reuters, just “6.6 percent of [the EPA’s] workforce” are considered essential employees. Because non-essential EPA employees are certainly worth sacrificing to avoid the “biggest crisis of all,” I propose permanently removing 93.4% of the EPA’s staff. We could then agree to use ½ of the budget savings to combat each of our crisis (with your half going to combat the crisis of climate change and my half being used to combat the border control crisis). Your side would get to help save the world from climate change and my side would get to implement border control that works. The non-essential EPA employees could also take the essential jobs of the millions of illegal immigrants that Trump would remove via “catch and deport.” Returning to fully serious mode, there are compromises to be made on border security that would not only hinder illegal immigration but also help illegal immigrants who are already in the US (such as DACA recipients) and end the need for sanctuary cities protecting criminals (who don’t deserve sanctuary simply because they are illegal aliens). I am sure Trump is willing to bargain. But according to everybody involved, including Nancy/Chuck, the Democrats are not willing to lay any offers on the table.

In a January 11 tweet, Trump posted a picture of a 30 foot bollard wall that was recently installed. If you examine that photo, I think you will agree that a barrier of this type will prevent most immigrants from even trying to illegally cross the southern border. According to a Fox News report, the Border Patrol Chief under Obama said border walls “Absolutely Work.” The current Border Patrol management makes the same argument. If wall critics dispute the effectiveness of a border barrier, then they should make that argument rather than focusing on bashing Trump. I appreciate that you are not like the typical border wall critic in that you are at least willing to discuss sharp areas of disagreements in the hope of finding a reasonable win-win compromise. But I think part of you is still deeply infected with a “bash Trump addiction,” which will not lead to a resolution of the budget stalemate or do anything to fix the real problems of a porous border and millions of undocumented immigrants. Note, that this is not an argument about whether there are good reasons to bash Trump, which is a debate best decided by the 2020 election.

I care about the plight of illegal immigrants, which is why I have taken the time to discuss this issue with you in detail. The current porous border is enriching the drug cartels and encouraging more immigrants to undertake a long and dangerous journey with severe abuse being common. Mexico and the Central American countries have enormous problems with organized crime that make the mafia atrocities of Al Capone look like child’s play. Building a border barrier will slow the flow of drugs and human trafficking and rob the drug cartels of a major source of revenue. This will in turn reduce the drug cartels power and hinder their ability to corrupt political leaders with bribes. There are other things that can be done to attack the problem at the source. But as long as half of America only wants to focus on attacking Trump, the horrible status quo will not change. When all is said and done, and the thoughts and attitudes of our hearts are judged, I would rather be on the side seeking to solve the border control problems than on the side that places a hatred of Trump above all else.

DavidMKern
DavidMKern

@NeilMcKenna Although it showed up for a while, they seem to have taken down the reply I sent you on the new Resurgent website. The new Resurgent website does not seem to have a spot for starting new conversations, so I think this our back and forth discussion may be coming to an end. But I thank you for your honest discourse about our very different opinions. I am posting it here, in case you want to read it:

@NeilMcKenna Our old exchange did not make it over with the Resurgent transition. This is a reply to your post 4 days ago on the Maven.com version of Erick's post. After the transition, my new id is @dmk8591 rather than the @DavidMKern that I was posting as.

I would prefer to separate our debate about border control issues, from other issues such as Trump’s alleged criminality or the crisis of climate change. As I have repeatedly stated in other posts, focusing on other issues will do nothing to fix real border control problems. If we want to debate non-border issues, we should seek to find someplace other than Erick's border control articles to do it. As to Trump’s criminality, I would prefer that Trump’s critics wait for him to be indicted/convicted of a crime before advocating for him to be hung for treason live on CNN (with play-by-play done by Jim Acosta for a figurative – and perhaps literal – hanging ceremony). Although many of Trump’s critics accuse him of being a dictator, they are the ones who are abandoning “innocent until proven guilty” in seeking to eliminate a political opponent. As I recall, Comey said that Trump is not a target of the investigation. In practical terms, this was an outright lie, as Trump has been the one and only true target of the investigation from long before it was placed under Mueller’s control (i.e., the witch the hunters hope to exterminate). If the investigation was really about Russian collusion by a political campaign, then Hillary would be in prison for her campaign paying Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS to hire Russian sources to create a dossier with unprovable accusations implicating Trump. The FBI people in charge of the Russian collusion investigation relied on this Russian-supplied information to get a FISA warrant to survey people in the Trump campaign, which means the investigators are actually more guilty of the crime they were investigating than Trump is. As to climate change, are you aware the EPA reported that “that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reported decreased by 2.7 percent from 2016 to 2017.” Are you aware that “Preliminary estimates published today in the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) annual ‘trends and projections’ assessments show a 0.6% emissions increase in 2017 from 2016?” In other words, the US is doing more to reduce carbon emissions than EU countries, despite Trump withdrawing from the Paris Climate accord. On the global warming debate, there are lots of factual reasons that people (including many reputable scientists) are skeptical. We could attempt to have a serious discussion about the reasons for this skepticism. Or I could suggest numerous proposals that would make sense if global warming alarmism was really something to be feared. For example, if the science of climate change is truly settled, it would make sense to abort any further climate research, and devote these funds to paying carbon offsets to subsidize reduced carbon production. After all, Al Gore's Doomsday clock expired 3 years ago, and we are already past the point of no return for saving our planet. The only question now is how long we can survive before the catastrophe kills us all. If one takes global warming alarmism seriously, this is the most logical thing to do. However, I am a climate change skeptic and I don’t subscribe to Bernie Sander’s view that climate change is “the biggest crisis of all.” To rebut that ridiculous nature of that extreme viewpoint, I offer you this tongue in cheek proposal in both the mocking spirit of a climate change skeptic and the terrified spirit of a global warming alarmist. Because climate change is so catastrophic, logic dictates that it should take precedence over all other environmental issues. According to Reuters, just “6.6 percent of [the EPA’s] workforce” are considered essential employees. Because non-essential EPA employees are certainly worth sacrificing to avoid the “biggest crisis of all,” I propose permanently removing 93.4% of the EPA’s staff. We could then agree to use ½ of the budget savings to combat each of our crisis (with your half going to combat the crisis of climate change and my half being used to combat the border control crisis). Your side would get to help save the world from climate change and my side would get to implement border control that works. The non-essential EPA employees could also take the essential jobs of the millions of illegal immigrants that Trump would remove via “catch and deport.” Returning to fully serious mode, there are compromises to be made on border security that would not only hinder illegal immigration but also help illegal immigrants who are already in the US (such as DACA recipients) and end the need for sanctuary cities protecting criminals (who don’t deserve sanctuary simply because they are illegal aliens). I am sure Trump is willing to bargain. But according to everybody involved, including Nancy/Chuck, the Democrats are not willing to lay any offers on the table. In a January 11 tweet, Trump posted a picture of a 30 foot bollard wall that was recently installed. If you examine that photo, I think you will agree that a barrier of this type will prevent most immigrants from even trying to illegally cross the southern border. According to a Fox News report, the Border Patrol Chief under Obama said border walls “Absolutely Work.” The current Border Patrol management makes the same argument. If wall critics dispute the effectiveness of a border barrier, then they should make that argument rather than focusing on bashing Trump. I appreciate that you are not like the typical border wall critic in that you are at least willing to discuss sharp areas of disagreements in the hope of finding a reasonable win-win compromise. But I think part of you is still deeply infected with a “bash Trump addiction,” which will not lead to a resolution of the budget stalemate or do anything to fix the real problems of a porous border and millions of undocumented immigrants. Note, that this is not an argument about whether there are good reasons to bash Trump, which is a debate best decided by the 2020 election. I care about the plight of illegal immigrants, which is why I have taken the time to discuss this issue with you in detail. The current porous border is enriching the drug cartels and encouraging more immigrants to undertake a long and dangerous journey with severe abuse being common. Mexico and the Central American countries have enormous problems with organized crime that make the mafia atrocities of Al Capone look like child’s play. Building a border barrier will slow the flow of drugs and human trafficking and rob the drug cartels of a major source of revenue. This will in turn reduce the drug cartels power and hinder their ability to corrupt political leaders with bribes. There are other things that can be done to attack the problem at the source. But as long as half of America only wants to focus on attacking Trump, the horrible status quo will not change. When all is said and done, and the thoughts and attitudes of our hearts are judged, I would rather be on the side seeking to solve the border control problems than on the side that places a hatred of Trump above all else.

DavidMKern
DavidMKern

@NeilMcKenna Our old exchange did not make it over with the Resurgent transition. I posted a reply to your post from 4 days ago on the new Resurgent website version of Erick's post “The-presidents-proposal-for-border-security-is-reasonable.” After the transition, my new id is @dmk8591 rather than the @DavidMKern that I was posting as.

NeilMcKenna
NeilMcKenna

I agree about this perhaps not being the best venue in which to continue our discussion, except in one respect because these exchanges have given me an idea.

I have consistently held out the possibility that there are circumstances under which I would agree that reaching a resolution on the illegal immigration issue could be so beneficial as to outweigh the value of discrediting Mr. Trump. Before getting to that, however, I was wrong to have said that stuff about conservatives being driven by fear. It was a shot at you that was inconsistent with the spirit of our exchanges. Though meriting this apology, like other aspects of our exchanges, it nevertheless caused me to reflect on my own views in a way that may have produced a small patch of common ground. You see, there is an issue on which my perspective is driven by fear just as real as any for which I might accuse Republicans. And at least for me, it is one for which progress on that front would easily justify looking past Mr. Trump to get it done.

(Frankly, I find it hard to imagine that anyone that dishonest in word has not been similarly dishonest in deed. So with Mueller about to drop his report and Congressional Democrats in a position to dig even further than that, I expect Trump to soon be unmasked as the garden variety, white collar criminal that he is anyway. Though I digress, you strike me as a man of logic. So in passing, I would urge you to ponder the that-dishonest-in-word = dishonest-in-deed hypothesis I just offered. Kind of makes sense, don't you think?)

I will go into further detail after a preliminary response from you, but the short and sweet of it is this: Were I to accept the validity of your fears about illegal immigration, might you accept the validity of mine concerning climate change? Because speaking for at least one Democrat, for progress on that front, there is definitely a deal that could be had on your stupid wall.

This for that. This is the essence of any bargain, yet it would seem to have never occurred to your deal artist, Donald Trump, who takes hostages instead. (Sorry but I just couldn't resist taking one more shot at your boy.)