Another golden opportunity missed by republicans


They have become so programmed now that border security only equals a wall.


Perhaps something like:

"You are 100% correct, Mr President. Before you were elected I advocated for secure borders. I regularly recommended that we enact a multi-layered approach to border security that includes physical barriers, drones and other technology, enhanced security at airports, e-verify systems that reduce the incentive for illegal immigration, an immigration system with enough resources to quickly make a determination on appeals for asylum, and much more. As I have demonstrated in our conversation just moments ago, I remain committed to those strategies.

“Build a wall” makes a great bumper sticker slogan, but a big beautiful contiguous wall is a simplistic, horribly inefficient and downright reckless use of the limited dollars available to secure our borders. I remain in favor of a strong border. I oppose reckless spending on vanity projects that are causing deficits to skyrocket and our national debt to reach all-time record highs. Have you taken a look at our national debt today? Never in the history of the United States has our national debt been as high as it is right now at this very instant. It’s a record that is occurring on your watch.

And since we are discussing finances along with the rhetoric of the 2016 campaign, i have to ask: One candidate in the 2016 presidential election often engaged his supporters in chants of “Who is gonna pay for the wall? MEXICO! Who? MEXICO? Who? MEXICO! Who?..” well I think you get my point. So now that candidate sits before me in the oval office pleading for billions of US taxpayer’s dollars to finance the first phase of his big beautiful wall and he is willing to shut the government down if he doesn’t get his wall. My questions are: Why weren’t you able to get Mexico to pay for the wall? In truth isn’t this wall turning into a monument to your ego that we are building at the American taxpayer’s expense? Wouldn’t it be better use of taxpayer dollars if we considered all options, not just one big dumb wall?"


What part of democratic border security did Trump say he was opposed to? You are speaking for them. I really don’t care what your explanation is. I want Chuck to explain why he was in favor of a wall before he was against it. So far nobody is asking him. Is it so terrible that I would like to see him answer this not you?


Why are we paying for a wall when Mexico is supposed to foot the bill


Because again you are trying to conflate boarder security with building a 2000 wall, the two are not the same.

The 2013 Act passed by the Senate which died in the House increased border security using agents, technology and improved fencing where needed.,_Economic_Opportunity,and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013#Title_I-_Border_Security

@Party-Free, thanks for the reminder. I had to go look it up.



Perhaps nothing. I’m not asking for anybody to attempt to speak for Chuck. I would like somebody, anybody to have the smarts to ask Chuck why he was for a border wall before he was against it. Ley Chuck explain. Then we won’t have to do “perhaps.” Fair enough?


Strawman; their prior (and current) advocacy for physical barriers, as part of comprehensive security, IS NOT the same Trumps ridiculous “big beautiful wall” that he wants the vast majority of security spending allocated towards.


Is it possible that republicans can be idiots? Yes it is. But republican stupidity does not explain why Chuck was for a wall before he was against it. I would like somebody to ask Chuck this question. But of course, they will not.


Everytime trump has an opportunity to show us that he has the best brain with the best words and is a master negotiator he always fails and insread prives he is an ignorant buffon…



The entire, lengthy, first section of the bill addressed border security including the things you mentioned, as well as adding to the number of judges to process cases more quickly.

House republicans refusing to take up the 2013 bill, to me, further cemented the fact that Rs don’t want to attempt to legitimately and earnestly address immigration. 2016 and 2018 proved it’s one of their biggest election bogeymen. And the only solution they’ve mustered so far is sending some troops to the border to screw around and not actually do much of any great import regarding the border. Not the fault of the troops, of course-they were just Republican election pawns.


Please show where Chuck was for a 2000 mile wall across the sourthern border. The 2013 act isn’t the place that happens as it clearly increased border security through other means.

Again being for border security <> build a wall.

As a Republican I have no problem with physical barriers where they make sense. I’d much rather though attack the problem of illegal aliens at the source: Job, social services, and birthright citizenship if here illegally.



Please provide a direct source for Schumer being before a WALL before he was against it. Not border fencing in areas where it would be beneficial. A WALL.


Tin man, So exactly what type of physical barrier does Chuck want? I have not heard him favor anything since Trump was elected. Why not have somebody simply ask Chucky the question and remove all doubt? What’s the harm?


Chuck was… and still is… for border security… just like the rest of the Democrats…

Itsthe republicans that keep blocking efforts to secure the borders while blaming dems…

Its as if they refuse to secure the borders and lie about for political purposes…


Hoisted by his own campaign device.


Are you aware that the border already has barriers in the areas that make sense? At this point it is just filling in limited areas with the types of barriers we already use, and their maintenance.

Which is occurring as we speak, and the President brags about… because Democrats approved it…

Seriously, pay attention…


This right here. I am a liberal and everything you stated in this sentence I completely agree with. A 2000 mile border wall is the most idiotic solution to this immigration issue I’ve ever heard.


It’s weird when people here start threads making a certain argument, and then explicitly refuse to provide evidence to support the key element of the argument. Anyway . . .


That was not my question. At all. You totally whiffed. I would like somebody to ask Chuck why he was for a border wall before he was against it. It’s a pretty simple question. Why not ask it?


See, this is why you and I couldn’t be in Congress. We might actually agree on something and make improvements under the concept of country over party.