Current Events > Pelosi, Schumer to meet with Trump and offer $1.3 billion for border wall

(+) Yeah! (+)

Set aside the necessity or lack thereof for increased border security: compromising with Trump on this or any other issue won't get Democrats anywhere, other than to disappoint the voters who expect them to work against Trump. If something like this were to pass, Republicans would turn around in a week and accuse Democrats of being in favor of open borders again. Meanwhile, Trump would have visible proof, however diminished, of a campaign promise delivered upon.
---

Ambience posted...

So we now have a direct quote from Trump as such

"I am proud to shut down the government"
-Donald J. Trump

I like the part where he says he wouldn't blame Schumer, because you can already see the preemptive lie brewing and that he will immediately blame Schumer. lol
---

Intro2Logic posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

Tijuana murder count is over 1600. San Diego is like 50. Yes, our drug demand drives most of that, but to ignore the danger to the SD community of just a free for all reeks of someone who doesnt really care and just likes the idea of everything being open

"Mexicans are inherently dangerous and pose a threat to the safety to the wellbeing of Americans" is how I read this. Did you mean it another way?

*yawn* nice try being dramatic. Tijuana is dangerous, not all of Mexico. Due to US consumption of drugs and our lax firearms policy.

Antifar posted...

Set aside the necessity or lack thereof for increased border security: compromising with Trump on this or any other issue won't get Democrats anywhere, other than to disappoint the voters who expect them to work against Trump. If something like this were to pass, Republicans would turn around in a week and accuse Democrats of being in favor of open borders again.

I dont want a compromise to make republicans happy, I would only want border barriers built in areas that make sense and/or repair existing walls that are actually needed for security that would make an impact

---

CruelBuffalo posted...

Tijuana is dangerous, not all of Mexico. Due to US consumption of drugs and our lax firearms policy.

Why do you think it is that the violence is concentrated in Tijuana, if not its proximity to the border making it a hotspot for organized crime?
---

Intro2Logic posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

Tijuana is dangerous, not all of Mexico. Due to US consumption of drugs and our lax firearms policy.

Why do you think it is that the violence is concentrated in Tijuana, if not its proximity to the border making it a hotspot for organized crime?

Because our law enforcement isnt in bed with the cartels as much as Mexicos law enforcement

Also, I believe we defintily need our visa system fixed with Mexico and it should be much much easier for Mexicans to come across to the US. I just dont believe we are at a point where we can let everyone just casually walk across though

Ambience posted...

Picturing himself as president soon
---

Ambience posted...

Lol whats the likelihood that Pence is praying in that moment

Wow what a surprise I cant believe it
---

Ambience posted...

"just please make me president already, you fucking idiots."
---

LMFAO this must be a tough one for the left
---

Pelosi and Schumer schooled Trump on how the government works and what people want.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

LMFAO this must be a tough one for the left

What? They fucking destroyed his ignorant ass. That was very embarrassing for Trump.
---

I feel like this is a pretty smart move by Pelosi. Sure, she takes the short-term PR hit of giving Trump his wall, but it's way less than what he's asking, gets it off the bargaining table since he brings it up every time, and when it does nothing they can use it against him in 2020. The alternative is he keeps bringing it up as a security threat and tries to hold dems accountable for the safety of citizens being a "lower priority" than migrants.
---

Im honestly less interested in the optics. If its honestly needed lets do it, if its just for show, no. Problem is I dont know the org or group that would give that answer.

CruelBuffalo posted...

Im honestly less interested in the optics. If its honestly needed lets do it, if its just for show, no. Problem is I dont know the org or group that would give that answer.

Better border security is needed, but a wall wouldn't be effective. Honestly, if optics aren't a factor, we'd be far FAR better off with a drone program over the border. ISR technology is such that they could have a handful of drones flying patterns over the border and automatically alerting ground patrols to unusual movement. A small team could manage the entire border pretty effectively this way at relatively low cost.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Honestly, if optics aren't a factor, we'd be far FAR better off with a drone program over the border.

given that they needn't be weaponized drones, I don't even see optics as the issue here. bandwidth probably is the bigger challenge, but a viable one.
---

Antifar posted...

Set aside the necessity or lack thereof for increased border security: compromising with Trump on this or any other issue won't get Democrats anywhere, other than to disappoint the voters who expect them to work against Trump. If something like this were to pass, Republicans would turn around in a week and accuse Democrats of being in favor of open borders again. Meanwhile, Trump would have visible proof, however diminished, of a campaign promise delivered upon.

Antifar, I know that you know that is a joke. They're literally mocking him. 1.3 billion won't even build 20 miles of a wall.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Honestly, if optics aren't a factor, we'd be far FAR better off with a drone program over the border.

given that they needn't be weaponized drones, I don't even see optics as the issue here. bandwidth probably is the bigger challenge, but a viable one.

People aren't going to be comfortable with autonomous drones flying spy patterns over US soil, even if they don't have weapons. Especially since the ones they'd use could be easily weaponized between sorties.

Bandwidth could be an issue, depending on the level of onboard processing, but since it's over the US border there should be no shortage of cell towers to connect to.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Honestly, if optics aren't a factor, we'd be far FAR better off with a drone program over the border.

given that they needn't be weaponized drones, I don't even see optics as the issue here. bandwidth probably is the bigger challenge, but a viable one.

People aren't going to be comfortable with autonomous drones flying spy patterns over US soil, even if they don't have weapons. Especially since the ones they'd use could be easily weaponized between sorties.

Bandwidth could be an issue, depending on the level of onboard processing, but since it's over the US border there should be no shortage of cell towers to connect to.

I have no issue with a camera only drone (no guns I mean lol)

But thats what I mean who would be the least biased group to answer which areas need walls or not. Because obviously the TJ crossing needs it, but the deserts do not

CruelBuffalo posted...

I have no issue with a camera only drone (no guns I mean lol)

But thats what I mean who would be the least biased group to answer which areas need walls or not. Because obviously the TJ crossing needs it, but the deserts do not

Probably the border towns themselves. Survey every town within some number of miles from the border and determine which are the most impacted by migration. The problem is then, much like Greece shutting their doors in the EU, people will just start using a different route. Unfortunately border security is an all-or-nothing solution that currently takes only partially effective measures, because as long as there are holes in security people will exploit them.
---

Fuck trump and fuck dems for rolling over like bitches.
---

josifrees posted...

Fuck trump and fuck dems for rolling over like bitches.

You thought that was rolling over?
---

And this is why progressive dems opposed her speakership.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

And this is why progressive dems opposed her speakership.

Because they're incapable of even basic strategizing outside of grandstanding? This move is great for dems.
---

Schumer and Obama once supported tough immigration laws too. What changed? They lost their way and got lost in lunacy.

Schumer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8z2L42qedM" data-time="

Obama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHg93lVbaY4" data-time="
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

And this is why progressive dems opposed her speakership.

No, no, see, they're totally just sexist! /s
---

I dont understand the anger in this topic over a wall. Seems people are more upset about it actually keeping people out than the cost.
---

"We want 5 Billion."

"I'll meet you a 5th of the way."

"Wow look at LIBERALS CAVING"
---

Wall doesnt work and is money pit for upkeep and maintenence
---

Houston posted...

I dont understand the anger in this topic over a wall. Seems people are more upset about it actually keeping people out than the cost.

The probelm is that a wall isn't a viable solution. It's expensive to build, mantain, and patrol. There are places that it can't be built which means it won't even really work the way Trumpers want it to. Let's not forget that there are people who own the property on which it will have to be built so the land will have to purchased, or imminent domained from people who don't want to sell, which is ironic since a good portion of the libertarian right opposes any use of imminent domain.

I'm fine with immigration controls and stopping illegal immigration. The wall is basically baby's first border control idea. It's impracticle, ineffective, and overly expensive but it seems oh so simple when pitched as a concept to the ignorant masses that make up a huge portion of Trump's voter base.
---

It really depends on the cost and how much money it will save. It really wouldn't even need to break even. If it costs 15 billion over X years and saves 10 billion over X years, I think that 5 billion cost would be an an acceptable expense. If it costs 10 billion and saves 1 billion, then it would be pointless.

Right now, we spend $3.8 - $4.2 billion on Border Agent salaries. That number is going to go up in the upcoming years.

A strong border wall would reduce the need to keep hiring agents along the border wall. It would allow them to deploy new technology like motion detection, drones and other forms of tech.

People who doubt the effectiveness of a new border wall are short sighted. They want to be pretend like they're progressives, but what they want is not change anything. The supporters of the wall are the real progressives in this matter.
---

nemu posted...

It really depends on the cost and how much money it will save. It really wouldn't even need to break even. If it costs 15 billion over X years and saves 10 billion over X years, I think that 5 billion cost would be an an acceptable expense. If it costs 10 billion and saves 1 billion, then it would be pointless.

What profit can you see a border wall making that wouldn't be swallowed right back up in maintenance costs, the costs of labor and the price of getting the land on which to build it in the first place?
---

how bout we fix our archaic immigration laws and save those billions for the deficit
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Right now, we spend $3.8 - $4.2 billion on Border Agent salaries. That number is going to go up in the upcoming years.

A strong border wall would reduce the need to keep hiring agents along the border wall. It would allow them to deploy new technology like motion detection, drones and other forms of tech.

People who doubt the effectiveness of a new border wall are short sighted. They want to be pretend like they're progressives, but what they want is not change anything. The supporters of the wall are the real progressives in this matter.

What a load of bullshit
---

Ambience posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Right now, we spend $3.8 - $4.2 billion on Border Agent salaries. That number is going to go up in the upcoming years.

A strong border wall would reduce the need to keep hiring agents along the border wall. It would allow them to deploy new technology like motion detection, drones and other forms of tech.

People who doubt the effectiveness of a new border wall are short sighted. They want to be pretend like they're progressives, but what they want is not change anything. The supporters of the wall are the real progressives in this matter.

What a load of bullshit

i forgot that guy even existed and now im sad that you quoted him and reminded me
---

CADE FOSTER posted...

how bout we fix our archaic immigration laws and save those billions for the deficit

Our immigration laws are not archaic. The U.S. is one of the most generous countries in the world in terms of the amount of immigrants who come here legally and their ability to work towards citizenship, far more so than all of those enlightened European socialist countries that you're always slobbering over.
---

Leave it to Trump to get backed into a corner in the Oval Office
---

s0nicfan posted...

I feel like this is a pretty smart move by Pelosi. Sure, she takes the short-term PR hit of giving Trump his wall, but it's way less than what he's asking, gets it off the bargaining table since he brings it up every time, and when it does nothing they can use it against him in 2020. The alternative is he keeps bringing it up as a security threat and tries to hold dems accountable for the safety of citizens being a "lower priority" than migrants.

Which we all know for an absolute fact he will do even if he DOES get his stupid fucking wall.
---

He's not necessarily wrong about the (current) Government wasting money on Border Patrol

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-administration-paid-company-14-million-recruit-2-border-agents_us_5c0f2f73e4b08bcb27ebbbc9
---

ultimate reaver posted...

nemu posted...

It really depends on the cost and how much money it will save. It really wouldn't even need to break even. If it costs 15 billion over X years and saves 10 billion over X years, I think that 5 billion cost would be an an acceptable expense. If it costs 10 billion and saves 1 billion, then it would be pointless.

What profit can you see a border wall making that wouldn't be swallowed right back up in maintenance costs, the costs of labor and the price of getting the land on which to build it in the first place?

It doesn't need to make a profit. It needs to do its job while not being overly burdensome to the country. If we're spending a large amount of money dealing with illegal immigrants and it can heavily reduce that cost, that is a good thing. If it still costs something on top of that, it's not a problem so long as it's not more than 30%-50% more than the cost of illegals. If it does nothing to curb the problem and costs ten times what we spend on illegals to upkeep, then it's worthless.

Ambience posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Right now, we spend $3.8 - $4.2 billion on Border Agent salaries. That number is going to go up in the upcoming years.

A strong border wall would reduce the need to keep hiring agents along the border wall. It would allow them to deploy new technology like motion detection, drones and other forms of tech.

People who doubt the effectiveness of a new border wall are short sighted. They want to be pretend like they're progressives, but what they want is not change anything. The supporters of the wall are the real progressives in this matter.

What a load of bullshit

You can't refute facts, can you?

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/the-cost-of-immigration-enforcement-and-border-security

Look at the cost of the annual budget related border security and immigration. $19.2 billion a year for 2016, probably well over $20 billion in 2018.

ICE accounts for over $6 billion annually. Instead of fixing the source of the problem, let's throw more money at border patrol and ICE instead. Those numbers will increase every year. In 10 years, the total annual budget can go as high as $30 billion.
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Ambience posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Right now, we spend $3.8 - $4.2 billion on Border Agent salaries. That number is going to go up in the upcoming years.

A strong border wall would reduce the need to keep hiring agents along the border wall. It would allow them to deploy new technology like motion detection, drones and other forms of tech.

People who doubt the effectiveness of a new border wall are short sighted. They want to be pretend like they're progressives, but what they want is not change anything. The supporters of the wall are the real progressives in this matter.

What a load of bullshit

You can't refute facts, can you?

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/the-cost-of-immigration-enforcement-and-border-security

Look at the cost of the annual budget related border security and immigration. $19.2 billion a year for 2016, probably well over $20 billion in 2018.

ICE accounts for over $6 billion annually. Instead of fixing the source of the problem, let's throw more money at border patrol and ICE instead. Those numbers will increase every year. In 10 years, the total annual budget can go as high as $30 billion.

So you agree we should abolish ICE. Got it.
---

JerseyProudBoy posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Ambience posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Right now, we spend $3.8 - $4.2 billion on Border Agent salaries. That number is going to go up in the upcoming years.

A strong border wall would reduce the need to keep hiring agents along the border wall. It would allow them to deploy new technology like motion detection, drones and other forms of tech.

People who doubt the effectiveness of a new border wall are short sighted. They want to be pretend like they're progressives, but what they want is not change anything. The supporters of the wall are the real progressives in this matter.

What a load of bullshit

You can't refute facts, can you?

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/the-cost-of-immigration-enforcement-and-border-security

Look at the cost of the annual budget related border security and immigration. $19.2 billion a year for 2016, probably well over $20 billion in 2018.

ICE accounts for over $6 billion annually. Instead of fixing the source of the problem, let's throw more money at border patrol and ICE instead. Those numbers will increase every year. In 10 years, the total annual budget can go as high as $30 billion.

So you agree we should abolish ICE. Got it.

If there is no updated and secure border wall, there is no reason to abolish ICE. A strong border would reduce the role of ICE.
---

A Border Wall isn't going to do shit.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Houston posted...

I dont understand the anger in this topic over a wall. Seems people are more upset about it actually keeping people out than the cost.

The probelm is that a wall isn't a viable solution. It's expensive to build, mantain, and patrol. There are places that it can't be built which means it won't even really work the way Trumpers want it to. Let's not forget that there are people who own the property on which it will have to be built so the land will have to purchased, or imminent domained from people who don't want to sell, which is ironic since a good portion of the libertarian right opposes any use of imminent domain.

I'm fine with immigration controls and stopping illegal immigration. The wall is basically baby's first border control idea. It's impracticle, ineffective, and overly expensive but it seems oh so simple when pitched as a concept to the ignorant masses that make up a huge portion of Trump's voter base.

This is the best post in this topic. So much sense!!!
---