Why do Dems want to shut the government down?

Sand Bar Bill

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
570
Reaction score
435
Location
Putin's backyard
Country
llUnited States
Schumer says he offered to back wall funding. Schumer says he withdrew the offer. Trump didn't reject it...
WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Schumer has retracted his offer to help fund President Trump’s border wall with Mexico in exchange for helping young undocumented immigrants.


They don't have any cards to play at all.
You must work for Fox News. There was a plain deal on the table: the wall for DACA. Then Trump wanted more and more. AFTER the shutdown ended is when Schumer withdrew funding for the wall.

The Democrats seem to have 9 cards [senators] to play, but your side of the aisle isn't interested in making deals.

Meanwhile, your party incompetently passes month-to-month spending bills, seeing anything other than total concession of the Democrats as a defeat. Unwilling to make good faith deals.
 
Last edited:

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
334
Reaction score
47
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
You must work for Fox News. There was a plain deal on the table: the wall for DACA. Then Trump wanted more and more. AFTER the shutdown ended is when Schumer withdrew funding for the wall.

[...]
Schumer didn't offer anything...

"In exchange for strong DACA protections, I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for discussion," Schumer said at the time. "Even that was not enough to entice the President to finish the deal."
"In exchange for strong DACA protections, I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for discussion"...

Schumer offered to discuss funding for the wall in exchange for strong DACA protections. Later that same day, Schumer withdrew the offer to talk about the wall.

Schumer withdraws offer for border wall
By Phil Mattingly, Daniella Diaz and Tal Kopan, CNN

Updated 4:03 AM ET, Wed January 24, 2018

Washington (CNN) Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer withdrew funding for President Donald Trump's border in negotiations over immigration issues with the White House, according to a Democratic aide.

A staffer who works for Schumer called the White House on Monday and said the proposal, which Schumer put on the table during a Friday meeting with Trump, was no longer operative, the aide said.

Politico first reported that Schumer had taken the wall funding off the negotiating table.

Trump invited Schumer to the White House on Friday over lunch to negotiate a deal for a funding bill, which was being held up over a fight for commitments to address the expiring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

[...]

The border offer went beyond what was included in the bipartisan plan conceived by Sens. Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham which Trump rejected earlier this month in vulgar terms.

Sen. John Cornyn, second-ranked Republican in the chamber, called Schumer's decision to withdraw the offer "a step backward."
"If he wants a solution, that's a step backward," he told reporters.

[...]

During his speech on the floor Friday, Schumer said he reluctantly put the border wall on the table.

"In exchange for strong DACA protections, I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for discussion," Schumer said at the time. "Even that was not enough to entice the President to finish the deal."

[...]​
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/chuck-schumer-border-wall-donald-trump-immigration/index.html

Only an idiot would have given Schumer DACA for an agreement to talk about the wall.

Trump has been very clear: No DACA without the wall, merit-based immigration and an end to the visa lottery program

[...]

The Democrats seem to have 9 cards [senators] to play, but your side of the aisle isn't interested in making deals. Its like dealing with the mafia.

Meanwhile, your party incompetently passes month-to-month spending bills, seeing anything other than total concession of the Democrats as a defeat. Unwilling to make good faith deals.
The Democrats have no cards to play...
More than 30 senators join push for immigration deal

BY ALEXANDER BOLTON AND JORDAIN CARNEY - 01/24/18

More than 30 senators — about a third of the entire Senate — met late Wednesday afternoon to discuss the outlines of an immigration deal before a March 5 deadline for hundreds of thousands of immigrants facing deportation.

The senators huddled shortly before President Trump announced he would be willing to create a 10- to 12-year-long path to citizenship for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program recipients in exchange for $25 billion to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The White House announced it would unveil a more detailed framework for immigration reform on Monday.

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) told Trump in a one-on-one meeting Friday that he would be willing to put $25 billion for the border wall “on the table” for negotiation.

But Schumer later rescinded the offer after Trump refused to negotiate with him during a government shutdown triggered by a fight over immigration.

That put negotiations in limbo until senators met Wednesday to put the talks back on track.

[...]

The majority of participants were Democrats, including many centrists.

[...]

At the same time, there’s growing skepticism that a dozen Republican moderates will be able to persuade the rest of the Senate Republican Conference to back the effort.

One GOP aide called the meeting “inconsequential.”

And even lawmakers at the center of the immigration talks are beginning to talk about a two- or three-year “patch” or “extension” to keep DACA program recipients protected from deportation but without a long-term solution or path to citizenship.

House Republicans are talking about pushing a conservative immigration plan sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) that Democrats are already dismissing out of hand.

It would end chain migration or family reunification, the diversity visa program and crack down on employers who hire immigrants who are not legally permitted to work in the country by requiring them to use the E-Verify system.

[...]​
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/370616-more-than-30-senators-join-push-for-immigration-deal

The Democrats aren't going to agree to do anything in exchange for DACA. They certainly aren't going to anything like Goodlatte's proposal.

A stand-alone DACA bill won't get 60 votes in the Senate. Even if McConnell gets around the filibuster, a stand-alone DACA bill won't pass the House... It probably wouldn't even be brought up for debate.

Come February 9, Schumer will be right back where he was... Threatening to shut the government down if he doesn't get DACA... And Trump will tell Chucky...

 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
567
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
You didn't ask where he was getting it initially. You asked for a ROI, specifically.
Well, if no one is going to defend the wall value of the wall, I consider my case made. You seem to want to play word games rather than debate the merits of your policy choices.
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
403
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
Well, if no one is going to defend the wall value of the wall, I consider my case made. You seem to want to play word games rather than debate the merits of your policy choices.
LOL. Speaking of words games. I win because I ask my opponent for data that I have excused myself from providing. See ya chump. Just another hypocritical liberal at the end of the day.
 

Marty Ward

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
196
Reaction score
197
Location
Maryland
Country
llUnited States
Well, if no one is going to defend the wall value of the wall, I consider my case made. You seem to want to play word games rather than debate the merits of your policy choices.
Well wouldn't you need to put a value on the life of your child in order to put a value on the wall? If it stopped 10 deaths would that value be $10 or $100 million?
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
334
Reaction score
47
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
Well, if no one is going to defend the wall value of the wall, I consider my case made. You seem to want to play word games rather than debate the merits of your policy choices.
The Cost of a Border Wall vs. the Cost of Illegal Immigration

By Steven A. Camarota on February 15, 2017

The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. This analysis takes the likely education level of illegal border-crossers and applies fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level. NAS calculates the future fiscal balance immigrants create — taxes paid minus costs. NAS reports fiscal balances as "net present values", which places a lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.

Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall.1

[...]​
https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration

Will the wall reduce illegal immigration by 9-12%?

GAO: SOUTHWEST BORDER SECURITY: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing's Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps

Appendix I, page 50, Yuma Sector...
Approximately 16 percent of all primary border fencing miles along the southwest border are located in the Yuma Sector, including a third of all secondary and tertiary fencing. While all 15 border zones in the sector have some border fencing, only three border zones are completely covered by pedestrian fencing. In zones with no pedestrian fencing, agents recorded 26 percent of total estimated known illegal entries and had an apprehension rate of 56 percent. Yuma Border Patrol agents had the highest apprehension rate (83 percent) of all border zones on the southwest border in the one border zone in the sector with complete coverage by a mixture of legacy and modern pedestrian fencing.
  • Zones with no fencing: 74% of estimated illegal entries were not observed and the apprehension rate was 56% of those that were observed.
  • Zone with complete fencing: 83% apprehension rate.
Data from most of the other sectors weren't definitive. GAO concluded that CBP had adequate data to measure the effectiveness of fencing and recommended that CBP "should develop metrics to assess the contributions of pedestrian and vehicle fencing to border security along the southwest border using the data Border Patrol already collects and apply this information."

It looks like border fencing is effective in reducing illegal immigration and on a NPV basis, is economically justified.
 
Last edited:

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
567
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Hey hey, someone stepped up.

Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children.
Steven seems to neglect the cost to maintain and man this wall over time while aggregating the first generation cost of the immigrant. From his footnote citation we see:

The U.S. government would have to pay to maintain the wall, which could cost as much as $750 million a year, according to an analysis conducted by Politico. And then if it wanted to man it with personnel, that would be an additional cost — border patrol has an operating budget of $1.4 billion for 21,000 agents.
Per my earlier quote from the same report, those costs are also recovered in follow-on generations.

Sounds like a great idea.

It looks like border fencing is effective in reducing illegal immigration and on a NPV basis, is economically justified.
Existing border fencing is effective.

From the same cited article.

Border walls work in densely populated areas — such as Israel's wall in the West Bank — where slowing down a person trying to illegally enter by five or 10 minutes can make a difference to border patrol. But when the migrant trying to enter is traveling over remote mountains and deserts for three days, using a fence to slow them down by a few minutes doesn't have the same effect — it borders on the trivial, Rosenblum said.

"There is a reason people don't build fences in the middle of nowhere; it doesn't change the enforcement profile in the middle of nowhere," the migration expert said. "The existing fence has worked because of where it is, near populated areas. Both Democrats and Republicans have testified that they have the fencing they need," Rosenblum said.
 
Top