• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the $5.7 billion actually for?

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
3,510
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I’ve not dived in much to the whole border wall fiasco recently because all the discussions quickly descend in to the political hate-fest I’ve no interest in. This doesn’t mean that’s change and I’ve no interest in the blame game between Republicans and Democrats here – I hold you all in equal contempt. :cool: I can’t shake the curiosity about what is actually going on there though and I don’t know whether the details just aren’t being reported internationally or Americans are equally in the dark.

Basically, what exactly is the oft-quoted $5.7 billion for? Is there an actual detailed proposal or plan detailing exactly what it’d be spent on? If there is, why aren’t the politicians on either side talking about those details – surely Trump and the proponents would want to sell what they’re going to achieve and the opponents would want to challenge specific flaws and issues. If there isn’t, where did the specific amount come from?

On a related note, what’s the deal with those test sections that were being built last year and the testing of different types of wall being reported about briefly? It seems like progress is being made on some kind specific plan yet at the same time the politicians talk about whether they want a (concrete) wall or a steel barrier? Shouldn’t the policy be to investigate which of those options are best?

I’ve also not heard anyone talk about exactly where a new wall would go, only in generic terms about it being the full length of the border or not. I know there are existing barriers at various points along the border and I’ve also not seen anything about whether the plan is to replace these with something different and/or to add to the length covered.

Please note that I’m not really interesting in opinion here, I’m wondering if there are any factual details and plans in existence that simply aren’t being talked about or if this is really as haphazard and on-the-fly as it appears.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
54,583
Reaction score
42,053
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I’ve not dived in much to the whole border wall fiasco recently because all the discussions quickly descend in to the political hate-fest I’ve no interest in. This doesn’t mean that’s change and I’ve no interest in the blame game between Republicans and Democrats here – I hold you all in equal contempt. :cool: I can’t shake the curiosity about what is actually going on there though and I don’t know whether the details just aren’t being reported internationally or Americans are equally in the dark.

Basically, what exactly is the oft-quoted $5.7 billion for? Is there an actual detailed proposal or plan detailing exactly what it’d be spent on? If there is, why aren’t the politicians on either side talking about those details – surely Trump and the proponents would want to sell what they’re going to achieve and the opponents would want to challenge specific flaws and issues. If there isn’t, where did the specific amount come from?

On a related note, what’s the deal with those test sections that were being built last year and the testing of different types of wall being reported about briefly? It seems like progress is being made on some kind specific plan yet at the same time the politicians talk about whether they want a (concrete) wall or a steel barrier? Shouldn’t the policy be to investigate which of those options are best?

I’ve also not heard anyone talk about exactly where a new wall would go, only in generic terms about it being the full length of the border or not. I know there are existing barriers at various points along the border and I’ve also not seen anything about whether the plan is to replace these with something different and/or to add to the length covered.

Please note that I’m not really interesting in opinion here, I’m wondering if there are any factual details and plans in existence that simply aren’t being talked about or if this is really as haphazard and on-the-fly as it appears.



You’re pretty much up to speed. Generalities and platitudes, short on specifics. I believe the “wall” has become more of a political symbol than anything else. Some think Trump cares less for a wall and just wants to fight.
 
Last edited:

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
32,552
Reaction score
16,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The short answer is that the $5.7B is for 220 miles of new border barrier of unknown design, unknown specification and questionable location. How is it possible that the administration can be trying to secure $5.7B for something without definition? Because they are trying to bootstrap it to a CR as opposed to going through the Appropriations process. My guess is that the administration never intended or intends to make a formal proposal to the Congress to secure New Appropriations through our system of checks and balances and is going to try to bootstrap more of these to CR's to a total of $25B+.

But it now looks like Trump is just going the National Emergency route which is doomed to failure. I should qualify this by post by stating that nobody really knows what Trump wants to build where or if he really wants to build anything anywhere. Without a proposal from the Administration, nobody knows what the $5.7B would fund.
 

holbritter

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
18,040
Reaction score
8,056
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I’ve not dived in much to the whole border wall fiasco recently because all the discussions quickly descend in to the political hate-fest I’ve no interest in. This doesn’t mean that’s change and I’ve no interest in the blame game between Republicans and Democrats here – I hold you all in equal contempt. :cool: I can’t shake the curiosity about what is actually going on there though and I don’t know whether the details just aren’t being reported internationally or Americans are equally in the dark.

Basically, what exactly is the oft-quoted $5.7 billion for? Is there an actual detailed proposal or plan detailing exactly what it’d be spent on? If there is, why aren’t the politicians on either side talking about those details – surely Trump and the proponents would want to sell what they’re going to achieve and the opponents would want to challenge specific flaws and issues. If there isn’t, where did the specific amount come from?

On a related note, what’s the deal with those test sections that were being built last year and the testing of different types of wall being reported about briefly? It seems like progress is being made on some kind specific plan yet at the same time the politicians talk about whether they want a (concrete) wall or a steel barrier? Shouldn’t the policy be to investigate which of those options are best?

I’ve also not heard anyone talk about exactly where a new wall would go, only in generic terms about it being the full length of the border or not. I know there are existing barriers at various points along the border and I’ve also not seen anything about whether the plan is to replace these with something different and/or to add to the length covered.

Please note that I’m not really interesting in opinion here, I’m wondering if there are any factual details and plans in existence that simply aren’t being talked about or if this is really as haphazard and on-the-fly as it appears.



A fiscal 2019 spending measure was introduced in the House on Wednesday that provides $5 billion for a southern border wall and additional funding for border security that aims to achieve “100 percent scanning” of the border within five years.

The Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee measure would fund more than 200 miles of “new physical barrier construction” along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The legislation also includes $223 million to add 375 additional border patrol agents above the Trump administration request, including 140 canine teams, that, according to the House Appropriations Committee, will “initiate a five-year strategy toward achieving 100 percent scanning on the southern border.”

The measure increases the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement by $328 million over fiscal 2018. Of that new funding, $78 million is allotted for the hiring of 400 additional ICE agents and support staff.
The legislation calls for spending $4.1 billion on detention and removal programs for illegal immigrants who cross the southern border. The funding would pay for 44,000 detention beds, an increase of 3,480 beds.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...on-for-wall-adds-ice-and-border-patrol-agents
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
32,552
Reaction score
16,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A fiscal 2019 spending measure was introduced in the House on Wednesday that provides $5 billion for a southern border wall and additional funding for border security that aims to achieve “100 percent scanning” of the border within five years.

The Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee measure would fund more than 200 miles of “new physical barrier construction” along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The legislation also includes $223 million to add 375 additional border patrol agents above the Trump administration request, including 140 canine teams, that, according to the House Appropriations Committee, will “initiate a five-year strategy toward achieving 100 percent scanning on the southern border.”

The measure increases the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement by $328 million over fiscal 2018. Of that new funding, $78 million is allotted for the hiring of 400 additional ICE agents and support staff.
The legislation calls for spending $4.1 billion on detention and removal programs for illegal immigrants who cross the southern border. The funding would pay for 44,000 detention beds, an increase of 3,480 beds.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...on-for-wall-adds-ice-and-border-patrol-agents

Great...now Trump can wait for the normal Appropriations process to work its way on the proposal ....or wait....isn't he just trying to bootstrap the whole thing to a CR using the lever of the Gov shutdown to force feed it? This isn't a proposal made by Admin officials formally to the Congress as far as I know. It has simply seen the light of day in the "negotiations" between the WH and Hill Leadership which is all about ending the Shutdown.
 
Last edited:

holbritter

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
18,040
Reaction score
8,056
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Great...now Trump can wait for the normal Appropriations process to work its way on the proposal ....or wait....isn't he just trying to bootstrap the whole thing to a CR using the lever of the Gov shutdown to force feed it? This isn't a proposal made by Admin officials formally to the Congress as far as I know. It has simply seen the light of day in the "negotiations" between the WH and Hill Leadership which is all about ending the Shutdown.


Don't know what you're going on about. The OP asked a question, I tried to answer without opinion as requested. Period. Plenty of other threads around for what you're looking for.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
32,552
Reaction score
16,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't know what you're going on about. The OP asked a question, I tried to answer without opinion as requested. Period. Plenty of other threads around for what you're looking for.

When you get to b a forum censor just let us all know.

For the record, the OP's question was about the $5.7B. You appear to be trying to cloak the entire pile of crap that the WH tossed on the table in these bogus negotiations in some sort of legitimacy which it does not have unless the Administration proposes it to the Congress through the normal Appropriations process.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
49,813
Reaction score
22,059
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Great...now Trump can wait for the normal Appropriations process to work its way on the proposal ....or wait....isn't he just trying to bootstrap the whole thing to a CR using the lever of the Gov shutdown to force feed it? This isn't a proposal made by Admin officials formally to the Congress as far as I know. It has simply seen the light of day in the "negotiations" between the WH and Hill Leadership which is all about ending the Shutdown.

The point is, the House passed a measure that included $5 billion that the president requested and Schumer has filibustered it. The way our government and simple logic works is that it is Schumer and the democrats who are responsible for the government being closed. But lets be honest, you dont really give a **** about the government employees. You care only about defeating Trump at any cost. I wish you guys would just be honest and admit that so we could have an honest discussion but expecting honesty from you guys is a silly ask at this point.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
32,552
Reaction score
16,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The point is, the House passed a measure that included $5 billion that the president requested and Schumer has filibustered it. The way our government and simple logic works is that it is Schumer and the democrats who are responsible for the government being closed. But lets be honest, you dont really give a **** about the government employees. You care only about defeating Trump at any cost. I wish you guys would just be honest and admit that so we could have an honest discussion but expecting honesty from you guys is a silly ask at this point.

That is ancient history. 115th Congress is dead. Welcome to the 116th.

I wish Donald would own up to never intending to build a Wall.
 

holbritter

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
18,040
Reaction score
8,056
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
When you get to b a forum censor just let us all know.

For the record, the OP's question was about the $5.7B. You appear to be trying to cloak the entire pile of crap that the WH tossed on the table in these bogus negotiations in some sort of legitimacy which it does not have unless the Administration proposes it to the Congress through the normal Appropriations process.


Whatever. Read the link, it's what was introduced to the House back in July. Not the current negotiations Einstein.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
32,552
Reaction score
16,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Whatever. Read the link, it's what was introduced to the House back in July. Not the current negotiations Einstein.

Which was the 115th Congress...again, ancient history. It was never even given the time of day by the House of the 115th Congress which had a GOP majority.....why....no justification provided for it.

The $5.7B found its way to the surface again as a bootstrap to a CR and apparently the whole mess found its way to the surface again as a negotiating piece between the WH and Hill Leadership. The best the Trump Admin has ever done is back of a napkin nonsense.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
93,565
Reaction score
56,635
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
At this point it as as well defined as a military "victory" in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan. It is something to allocate large sums of money toward in the hopes of reaching some barely defined goal.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
93,565
Reaction score
56,635
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When you get to b a forum censor just let us all know.

For the record, the OP's question was about the $5.7B. You appear to be trying to cloak the entire pile of crap that the WH tossed on the table in these bogus negotiations in some sort of legitimacy which it does not have unless the Administration proposes it to the Congress through the normal Appropriations process.

The normal appropriations process (passing the complete set of federal government 'budget' bills before the start of the FY) has not been used since 1997.

The “standard” appropriations process, as laid out in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, goes like this: After the president submits his budget proposal, the House and Senate adopt their own budget resolution. While it doesn’t have the force of law, the budget resolution sets out the overall spending framework for the coming fiscal year and serves to guide lawmakers as they address specific tax and spending decisions.

But agreeing on a budget resolution has itself often proven problematic. Although the Congressional Budget Act establishes April 15 as the target date, Congress frequently misses that deadline (this year, for example, the resolution wasn’t agreed to till Oct. 26) – or, as in six of the seven most recent fiscal years, never adopts a formal budget resolution at all.

Next, Congress is supposed to pass a series of separate bills funding various agencies and activities of the federal government. (For the past decade, the number of spending bills has stood at 12, one for each subcommittee of the House and Senate appropriations committees.) The deadline for doing that is Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year starts. But since 1997, Congress has never passed more than a third of its regular appropriations bills on time, and usually has done considerably less than that: For instance, for six straight years (fiscal 2011 through 2016), not a single spending bill was passed by Oct. 1.

Congress has long struggled to pass spending bills on time
 
Last edited:

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
93,565
Reaction score
56,635
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That is ancient history. 115th Congress is dead. Welcome to the 116th.

I wish Donald would own up to never intending to build a Wall.

That (bolded above) is exactly why we have the current shutdown - they failed to pass the "required" 'budget' bills or CR replacements for them.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
104,071
Reaction score
84,037
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I’ve not dived in much to the whole border wall fiasco recently because all the discussions quickly descend in to the political hate-fest I’ve no interest in. This doesn’t mean that’s change and I’ve no interest in the blame game between Republicans and Democrats here – I hold you all in equal contempt. :cool: I can’t shake the curiosity about what is actually going on there though and I don’t know whether the details just aren’t being reported internationally or Americans are equally in the dark.

Basically, what exactly is the oft-quoted $5.7 billion for? Is there an actual detailed proposal or plan detailing exactly what it’d be spent on? If there is, why aren’t the politicians on either side talking about those details – surely Trump and the proponents would want to sell what they’re going to achieve and the opponents would want to challenge specific flaws and issues. If there isn’t, where did the specific amount come from?

On a related note, what’s the deal with those test sections that were being built last year and the testing of different types of wall being reported about briefly? It seems like progress is being made on some kind specific plan yet at the same time the politicians talk about whether they want a (concrete) wall or a steel barrier? Shouldn’t the policy be to investigate which of those options are best?

I’ve also not heard anyone talk about exactly where a new wall would go, only in generic terms about it being the full length of the border or not. I know there are existing barriers at various points along the border and I’ve also not seen anything about whether the plan is to replace these with something different and/or to add to the length covered.

Please note that I’m not really interesting in opinion here, I’m wondering if there are any factual details and plans in existence that simply aren’t being talked about or if this is really as haphazard and on-the-fly as it appears.

From what I understand, the $5.7 billion is to build another 200 miles or so of wall/fencing/steel slats barrier on the southern border. Pretty simple. It's being called "border security" but in reality, that's what it is.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I’ve not dived in much to the whole border wall fiasco recently because all the discussions quickly descend in to the political hate-fest I’ve no interest in. This doesn’t mean that’s change and I’ve no interest in the blame game between Republicans and Democrats here – I hold you all in equal contempt. :cool: I can’t shake the curiosity about what is actually going on there though and I don’t know whether the details just aren’t being reported internationally or Americans are equally in the dark.

Basically, what exactly is the oft-quoted $5.7 billion for? Is there an actual detailed proposal or plan detailing exactly what it’d be spent on? ...

On a related note, what’s the deal with those test sections that were being built last year and the testing of different types of wall being reported about briefly? ...
As goes wall money:
  • DHS FY 2019 Summary of Budget Request
    Border Wall Construction: $1.6 billion [FY 2018 President’s Budget Request: $1.571 billion (1.8 percent increase)].This item would support construction of 65 miles of a “new border wall system” in the RioGrande Valley Sector, including real estate and environmental planning, land acquisition,design, construction and oversight.
  • H.R. 695 --> This is the continuing resolution that would have kept the government funded through February 2019 and that Congress passed (unanimously in the Senate) and that Trump refused to sign.
    • It originally included $1.6B for border security, but not for building new barrier structures. The money as appropriated for construction related to maintaining existing barrier structures.
    • Trump was expected to and had agreed to sign this bill, but then Ann Coulter used her "megaphone" to say that because the bill lacked new wall funding, it'd be the end of Trump politically. So Trump suddenly refused to sign it, even though it contained what his DHS budget requested.
    • After Trump abjured signing HR 695, the House hastily revised it so it included what you see now as the $5.7B+ appropriated to CBP for "Procurement, Construction, and Improvements’ $5,710,357,000 for fiscal year 2019, to remain available until September 30, 2023."
    • HR 695 wouldn't, however, obtain 60 Senate votes and Mitch McConnell was unwilling to "go nuclear" with Senate rules so the bill could pass with a simple majority.
What would the $5.7B specifically purchase? Whatever it can (labor and materials) leading up to and including some construction of new physical barriers on the southern border. Those things might include:
  • CBP personnel's labor on the wall project
  • Land surveys and analysis (labor provided by CBP and/or consultants)
  • Parcels of land purchased via typical negotiation or land condemned, commandeered and compensated via the eminent domain process
  • Whatever "groundbreaking" and actual wall design, development and installation it can
How does what CBP requested originally and what Trump now wants reconcile? I don't know; I haven't reconciled the two. I know Secy Nielsen noted some specific sums, how they tie to the original request I cannot say. If you want to know, you'll need to tick and tie the two. I'm not going to until I see a proper quantitative business case (functional, financial, accounting and economic dimensions) for building the wall.
  • See third major bullet point section here and the linked-to content for it.
  • Read finding and recommendation here.
Re: your question about the prototypes, see: CBP Is Evaluating Designs and Locations for Border Barriers but Is Proceeding Without Key Information. AFAIK, CBP/DHS have not acted on GAO's recommendation. CBP's prototyping exercise, like everything else about the wall undertaking, has occurred sans anything remotely resembling the rigorous analysis any business would undertake in advance of a construction project.

Off-Topic:
Out of curiosity:
  • Is DP from where you obtain information about the "ins and outs" of current events and public policy?
  • Do you not read original content (on matters about which you give a damn)? With one exception, all the linked-to content above is original content from the gov't, which is what I often read because I don't care for, fully trust, nor need distilled opinions/analysis in order to form my own.
 

Carleen

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
8,009
Reaction score
3,335
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
You’re pretty much up to speed. Generalities and platitudes, short on specifics. I believe the “wall” has become more of a political symbol than anything else. Some think Trump cares less for a wall and just wants to fight.

The wall is his snake oil to keep his base on their toes.
 

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
3,510
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Off-Topic:
Out of curiosity:
  • Is DP from where you obtain information about the "ins and outs" of current events and public policy?
  • Do you not read original content (on matters about which you give a damn)? With one exception, all the linked-to content above is original content from the gov't, which is what I often read because I don't care for, fully trust, nor need distilled opinions/analysis in order to form my own.
This is more a source of opinion than a source of information. I also like to go to primary sources (or at very least a cross-section of reliable reports) but I struggled to search them out on this topic, in part because of the especially thick layer of partisan politics over it and a lack of experience searching things in this from US sources.
I do confess to a slight ulterior motive in posting beyond my honest interest in the answers to my questions of inspiring others to think about those questions given that nobody seemed to be asking them. Either supporters of the wall would benefit from supplying detailed answers or objectors of the wall would benefit from demonstrating the lack of detailed answers.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is more a source of opinion than a source of information. I also like to go to primary sources (or at very least a cross-section of reliable reports) but I struggled to search them out on this topic, in part because of the especially thick layer of partisan politics over it and a lack of experience searching things in this from US sources.

I do confess to a slight ulterior motive in posting beyond my honest interest in the answers to my questions of inspiring others to think about those questions given that nobody seemed to be asking them. Either supporters of the wall would benefit from supplying detailed answers or objectors of the wall would benefit from demonstrating the lack of detailed answers.

Off-Topic:
Black Bold:
I'm not sure why that poses an impediment.


Pink:
Try preceding your search string with the phrase "scholarly paper" and following your string with "pdf." Alternatively, commence your search here -- "Google for Geeks" -- instead of here -- regular Google.


Blue and Red:
What?
  • Red: I don't understand what you're getting at:
    • Since when do supporters of "anything Trump" supply detailed answers/ to any question?
      • It's certainly not my observation that Trump supporters posting on DP do.
    • Since when do supporters of "anything Trump" even give a damn about the most basic of details, existential and historical facts?
      • Quite simply, they don't.
        • Example 1
        • Example 2
        • Example 3
        • Example 4 -- This example is a particularly egregious one because the other member attempted to "throw in my face" a work and when I responded with a detailed rebuttal (replete even with page references) apropos to the book the member cited, the other member had nothing but "radio silence" in return.
    • Since when do supporters of "anything Trump" read and comprehend detailed answers/explications re: any topic?
      • I can count on ten or fewer fingers the number of DP Trump supporters who read detailed explications. Indeed, I think most of them construe DP as an alternative to Twitter.
      • Hell, when folks who seem to me to be Trump supporters ostensibly read detailed expositions, they don't well comprehend it. I observed that just eight days ago when a member offered a Ben Shapiro essay as a discussion rubric. The member's remarks disregarded the context of Shapiro's essay, and when I succinctly illustrated the nature of his/her having elided Shapiro's context, s/he seemed also incapable of understanding that too.
  • Blue: I don't know what you're getting at.

DP's Trump supporters exhibit the curious dichotomy of:
  • When presented with a comprehensive and detailed explication of a well-defined topic, they don't actually respond directly to the central themes of the discussion rubric. For example:
  • When presented with a cursory depiction of a topic, they proffer in isolation, without regard to context, and in a jejune/banal attempt to discredit or refute the central theme because "this or that" detail isn't expressly noted in it. For instance:
    • In a discussion re: illegal immigration, no Trump supporter presents a cogent case supering illegal immigrants contribution of ~$400B to US GDP or who even considers the matter from a net impact standpoint. What you'll find is many of them ranting and railing about the cost element of the matter, but not the gains side of it.
Given the procrustean discursive tacks Trump supporters take, why at all engage with them? Perhaps if one has didactic designs, cause exists, but if one seeks debate with well informed people who exhibit discursive integrity, Trump supporters are, as a class, the last folks to entreat to discourse. Better to chat with children; they at least know they don't know what they're talking about.​
 

Rogue Valley

Ruscism = Russian fascism
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
85,267
Reaction score
70,535
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No further negotiations were scheduled, so everyone on the Hill has left town for the weekend. Nothing Congressional will get accomplished before Monday at the earliest.
 

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
3,510
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Off-Topic:...
Off topic and getting in to the partisan politics I specific asked to avoid. I'm afraid you'll have to live with your unsatisfied curiosity. :cool:
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
16,428
Reaction score
10,582
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I’ve not dived in much to the whole border wall fiasco recently because all the discussions quickly descend in to the political hate-fest I’ve no interest in. This doesn’t mean that’s change and I’ve no interest in the blame game between Republicans and Democrats here – I hold you all in equal contempt. :cool: I can’t shake the curiosity about what is actually going on there though and I don’t know whether the details just aren’t being reported internationally or Americans are equally in the dark.

Basically, what exactly is the oft-quoted $5.7 billion for? Is there an actual detailed proposal or plan detailing exactly what it’d be spent on? If there is, why aren’t the politicians on either side talking about those details – surely Trump and the proponents would want to sell what they’re going to achieve and the opponents would want to challenge specific flaws and issues. If there isn’t, where did the specific amount come from?

On a related note, what’s the deal with those test sections that were being built last year and the testing of different types of wall being reported about briefly? It seems like progress is being made on some kind specific plan yet at the same time the politicians talk about whether they want a (concrete) wall or a steel barrier? Shouldn’t the policy be to investigate which of those options are best?

I’ve also not heard anyone talk about exactly where a new wall would go, only in generic terms about it being the full length of the border or not. I know there are existing barriers at various points along the border and I’ve also not seen anything about whether the plan is to replace these with something different and/or to add to the length covered.

Please note that I’m not really interesting in opinion here, I’m wondering if there are any factual details and plans in existence that simply aren’t being talked about or if this is really as haphazard and on-the-fly as it appears.

Nope. No plan. Nada. Nothing.

No idea how much fence we get for 5 B. No idea on how long it would take. No idea of the locations of the fence. Nothing. Not a thing.
 

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
24,870
Reaction score
16,699
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I’ve not dived in much to the whole border wall fiasco recently because all the discussions quickly descend in to the political hate-fest I’ve no interest in. This doesn’t mean that’s change and I’ve no interest in the blame game between Republicans and Democrats here – I hold you all in equal contempt. :cool: I can’t shake the curiosity about what is actually going on there though and I don’t know whether the details just aren’t being reported internationally or Americans are equally in the dark.

Basically, what exactly is the oft-quoted $5.7 billion for? Is there an actual detailed proposal or plan detailing exactly what it’d be spent on? If there is, why aren’t the politicians on either side talking about those details – surely Trump and the proponents would want to sell what they’re going to achieve and the opponents would want to challenge specific flaws and issues. If there isn’t, where did the specific amount come from?

On a related note, what’s the deal with those test sections that were being built last year and the testing of different types of wall being reported about briefly? It seems like progress is being made on some kind specific plan yet at the same time the politicians talk about whether they want a (concrete) wall or a steel barrier? Shouldn’t the policy be to investigate which of those options are best?

I’ve also not heard anyone talk about exactly where a new wall would go, only in generic terms about it being the full length of the border or not. I know there are existing barriers at various points along the border and I’ve also not seen anything about whether the plan is to replace these with something different and/or to add to the length covered.

Please note that I’m not really interesting in opinion here, I’m wondering if there are any factual details and plans in existence that simply aren’t being talked about or if this is really as haphazard and on-the-fly as it appears.

You ask for specifics, and I will offer specifics. Nevertheless, as many on the right don't hold 'truth to be truth' it will command a slurry of pro-Trump supporters attempting to refute what I'm saying about the wall and the 5.8 billion to pay for it. The end cost would be more like 50 billion and 100 billion is possible.

In order for the U.S. Government to build any wall, the land they're building it on must be owned by the public. In order to obtain this property, the government will use 'imminent domain'. There's 1,954 miles of border on the U.S.- Mexico border. Seven hundred miles of that border is already secured under the Secure Fence Act (SFA) so that is publicly owned. On the Texas - Mexico border, which is 1,254 miles long, only one-hundred miles is publicly owned. That means that there's 1,154 miles that the U.S. Government must own and take away from private land owners. The Government will go to these land owners and offer 'fair compensation' for whatever that land is. But there's a problem, the landowner doesn't just say 'oh, okay' because they think their land is probably worth more. As with the SFA, the landowners will actually go to court. Today, there are currently 120 cases still in federal court dating back 13 years as a result of the Secure Fence Act which is why the border fence isn't 100% built.

The fence isn't continuous, the wall is like Swiss cheese. You'll see literally 100 yards of fence then you can just walk around it. Land owners simply do not want to lose their land, it impacts them in many ways including grazing issues. Because of logistical and terrain variations the wall will not go directly on the border, in some cases it may go 2- 3 miles North of the U.S. - Mexico border which will in fact be giving Mexico parts of the United States. One rancher in Texas said that if there's a fence on his property and he needs to move his cattle he may have to get permission from the U.S. government before he can do that.
 
Top Bottom