A border deal: Is Trump about to put the hammer down or to go full flaccid and disgrace himself?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TreeFrogTrader, Feb 10, 2019.

  1. This is sort of his last chance to redeem himself.

    Truthfully, all the proposed agreements that are being bandied about in the press only get a about a 2 on the meter with me. So, I am leaning toward the "disgrace himself" category so far. The original number of 5.7 on the wall was already a watered-down very of the original so anything less than that is a complete joke- but quite possible.

    On the other hand, Trump is saying that there are lots of deals being talked about that he will not accept so I dont know.

    But keep my expectations very low because there is no real will in the country to do much. You can argue that the will is there among the people but just not the politicians. Okay, fine, whatever.

    Go ahead. Surprise me Mr. Trump. And no, libs, that does not mean your ilk are looking better. Just means we should all bend over and kiss our arses and the country goodbye as it circles the toilet.
     
  2. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark


    The original number was 25 billion.The great negotiator now has it around 1.5 billion.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  3. Snarkhund

    Snarkhund

    My sense is that Trump would accept a substantial down-payment on wall contruction, something north of $1.5B but the Democrats are trying to poison pill the deal with a cap on the number of violent criminal illegals that can be held in detention. Total non-starter there, we are heading for a second shutdown.
     
  4. He would be better off going with the national emergency plan rather than a second shut-down.

    The courts will probably stop him- or not- depending on what he uses for a source for the money or whether he just assigns troops, etc. But at least on the campaign trail, President Jackson will be able to argue that he did the ballsy thing but the nineth circuit stopped him or whatever. He should do the ballsy thing anyway. If it means one term, then it means one term. As I have said many, many, many times, Trumps ratings are very low BUT THEY WOULD BE EVEN LOWER IF HE WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING.
     
  5. UsualName

    UsualName

    I thought the world’s greatest deal maker was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall. What happened?
     
  6. [​IMG]
     
  7. Tom B

    Tom B

  8. The Breaking News is that Congress has a deal to avoid a shutdown.
     
    vanzandt and Tom B like this.
  9. Tom B

    Tom B

    Hopefully Trump did not completely cave on the barrier.
     
  10. vanzandt

    vanzandt

    Look at at ES go lol.
    Sell the news. :D

    Edit WSJ:

    Lawmakers Reach Agreement in Principle to Fund Border Security, Avoid Shutdown
    Lawmakers have been negotiating agreement to fund government through September
    [​IMG]
    The top four lawmakers on the House and Senate Appropriations committees said Monday night that they had agreed to a framework for all seven spending bills. Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
    1051 Comments
    By
    Kristina Peterson,
    Natalie Andrews and
    Andrew Duehren
    Updated Feb. 11, 2019 8:50 p.m. ET

    WASHINGTON—Senior lawmakers said Monday night they had reached an agreement in principle to fund border security and avoid a partial government shutdown this weekend.

    The top four lawmakers on the House and Senate Appropriations committees said Monday night that they had agreed to a framework for all seven spending bills whose funding expires at 12:01 a.m. Saturday.

    Senate Appropriations Committee Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) and House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D., N.Y.) said congressional aides were now working out the details.

    Republicans and Democrats earlier on Monday had sparred over the number of beds used for immigrants detained by enforcement authorities as they restarted talks aimed at breaking an impasse over border security and avoiding another government shutdown. Mr. Shelby said Monday night the issue had been resolved, but would not specify how.

    For months, the public dispute over the border has largely focused on funding levels and the design of border barriers, spurred by Mr. Trump’s longstanding call for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. But over the weekend, Republicans raised objections to limits that Democrats have long been seeking on the number of beds that would be provided for people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

    Democrats have wanted to force the Trump administration to prioritize the detention of immigrants with criminal records above those who, for example, overstayed their visas.

    “How the government deals with ICE is a very important issue, and that’s why the beds are so critical to this negotiation,” said Mrs. Lowey.

    Democrats have been working to secure some constraints on ICE as a concession from Republicans, in exchange for meeting GOP demands to build more physical barriers along the border. Republicans have balked at the limits on ICE beds, saying they don’t want to restrain their capacity to detain criminals.

    Related Stories
    “This is a poison pill that no administration—not this one, not the previous one—would—or should—ever accept,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said on the Senate floor. “House Democrats want to set a limit on how many criminal aliens our government can detain.”

    Democratic aides said that if ICE officials conduct proper vetting, they could detain all the individuals considered the most dangerous.

    Mr. Trump remains a wild card, and the latest delays in reaching an agreement heightened prospects that he would declare a national emergency and seek to divert funds from elsewhere to go toward miles of a wall along the Mexican border. Such a move would meet swift legal challenges, and GOP lawmakers have raised concerns over siphoning military-construction or disaster-aid funds to build the wall.

    Mr. Trump has been seeking $5.7 billion to go toward a border wall. The amount under negotiation is a range of $1.3 billion to $2 billion, which would include funding for barriers and other measures and could mark an increase from the last fiscal year.


    President Trump made the case in his State of the Union address for the construction of a wall along the southern U.S. border, calling it a “moral issue." Photo: Getty
    In comments Monday, Mr. Trump said Democrats “don’t want to give us the beds,” adding: “We need a wall or else it’s not going to work.”

    Asked if there would be another shutdown, which Mr. Trump ended weeks ago when he agreed to a three-week stopgap measure with no border-wall funding, the GOP president sought to direct any blame away from the White House. “That’s up to the Democrats,” he said.

    Lawmakers have little appetite to shut the government, having just endured a 35-day partial shutdown in which hundreds of thousands of federal employees were furloughed or forced to work without pay.

    Democrats, while balking at a wall, have signaled willingness to fund some physical barriers, such as fencing and levee walls, along the border.

    Democrats had proposed establishing a new limit on detention beds used by ICE officials when apprehending people for violations within the U.S., known as interior enforcement. Those beds would be capped at 16,500, within the existing overall cap of 40,520 beds funded in the fiscal year 2018 spending bill.

    “A cap on ICE detention beds will force the Trump administration to prioritize deportation for criminals and people who pose real security threats, not law-abiding immigrants who are contributing to our country,” said Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D., Calif.), who leads the House Appropriations Homeland Security panel.

    Republicans objected, wanting to exclude violent criminals from that cap. Without an agreement on ICE beds, talks on funding levels and physical barriers stalled.

    “The Democrats do not want us to detain, or send back, criminal aliens! This is a brand new demand. Crazy!” Mr. Trump tweeted on Monday.

    But the dispute over ICE beds has been under the radar for months. Liberal Democrats have urged leaders for weeks not to provide any additional funding to the Department of Homeland Security or ICE in the negotiations.

    Within the group of 17 lawmakers trying to cut a deal, Democrats had initially proposed lowering the overall cap to 35,520 beds, which Republicans rejected. The White House has urged Congress to increase funding for 52,000 beds.

    Matthew Albence, a top official at ICE, said on a call organized by the White House that lawmakers “are trying to undermine our ability to do interior enforcement and to enforce immigration law” by imposing artificial caps on the agency’s funding. “There are people that are buying into this whole ‘Abolish ICE’ movement and are trying to do so through the fiduciary process at this point.”

    Before the talks broke down over the weekend, lawmakers had been discussing funding ICE at a level that would have limited the agency to between 34,000 and 38,500 total detention beds by year’s end, a House Democratic aide said, although Republicans disputed this.

    Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s interim chief of staff, on Sunday said the possibility of another lapse in government operations couldn’t be ruled out. The five-week shutdown that began in December ended with a short-term spending bill that runs out Friday. Lawmakers said if they haven’t reached an agreement before then, they may need to pass a short-term spending bill.

    —Louise Radnofsky
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
    #10     Feb 11, 2019