Speaker Pelosi, Tear Down That Wall - Granite Grok

Speaker Pelosi, Tear Down That Wall

And the beat goes on

With the country now into the second month of partial government shutdown, the partisan battle over border security is ice cold. Monday President Trump tweeted, “If Nancy Pelosi thinks that Walls are ‘immoral,’ why isn’t she requesting that we take down all of the existing Walls between the U.S. and Mexico, even the new ones just built in San Diego at their very strong urging,” he continued, “Let millions of unchecked ‘strangers’ just flow into the U.S.”

The President’s question refers to Speaker Pelosi’s repeated effort to refer to the president’s border security plan as immoral or as an immorality. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) installed hundreds of miles of various fencing along the southern border as of May 2015, according to the Federation for American Immigration Services (FAIR).Trump has also pointed out in a Jan. 19 immigration speech several Democrats in the past have advocated for similar border security policies in the past. Their support included a physical barrier, wall or fence.

What do the fact checkers say about the president’s representations?

An analysis by The Washington Post agrees Trump is correct on this point. It says, “In 2006, 90 Democrats voted to authorize $1.4 billion for 700 miles of fencing along the southern border. And every Senate Democrat voted to authorize $7.5 billion for an additional 700 miles of fencing in 2013…” There are ample quotes available showing who supported what in the past and they articulate why…

The Speaker responds

Pelosi again rejected another Trump proposal to reopen the government. This time he offered a trade-off: $5.7 billion of funding for the border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers as well as extended legal status for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders.

The Speaker’s response boils down to Trump must cave and reopen the government before we will talk about protect the border. The president has now tried more than one approach to finding a resolution to the impasse. Each time he has been rebuffed. He has been summarily rejected. No attempts at negotiations are even be made by the opposition.

The Speaker of the House said by way of response to the latest presidential offer, “Unfortunately, initial reports make clear that his proposal is a compilation of several previously rejected initiatives, each of which is unacceptable and in total, do not represent a good faith effort to restore certainty to people’s lives. It is unlikely that any one of these provisions alone would pass the House, and taken together, they are a non-starter. For one thing, this proposal does not include the permanent solution for the Dreamers and TPS recipients that our country needs and supports…”

Logic check

Hey Nancy, if you don’t come to the table to negotiate it makes getting a deal done difficult. Demanding capitulation on all matters border security and immigration as a precondition for coming to the negotiating table is what one might expect from Kim Jung Un. The position of the House Democrats is to demand unconditional surrender… in advance. They do not care who is hurt as a result of their actions nor do they care how much they may be hurt.

So let me ask you, is it immoral to get people to travel hundreds of miles to storm the borders of a country they don’t belong in? What about then stripping money from existing programs to pay to get them to vote illegally? Is employing them without paying taxes immoral? If you knowingly allow child trafficking to sexual predators just to keep increasing a racial group that will vote for your preferred form of Marxism immoral?

Tell me, is it immoral to allow drugs like heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine to cross into the United States, killing people. What comment should be made about being in Congress and refusing to provide safety and security to the country you swore to serve and protect? Would that be immoral? How about shutting down the government out of spite to the detriment of your constituents and the national security… would that be immoral?

Conclusion:

It may be difficult for some to grasp but the high ground in this encounter belongs to the President. He is asking the Dems to join him in supporting protection of the southern border. The position he has taken is their position, the Dem’s position. They have passed and funded previous sections of border wall to the tune of $8.9 billion. Now they are digging in their heals; not on the basis of cost, not on the basis of lack of need… but because it is immoral? Well Nancy, tear down the walls around your home… tear down that wall. That the wall is there to protect the people within… right? You feel threatened…right? We feel threatened too.