January 9, 2019

"And, most important, Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear — compromise."

"But Trump did. That is why the president won the night. Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans."

Writes Marc A. Thiessen in The Washington Post.

Here's the text of Trump's speech, if you want to look for where Trump used the word "compromise." He uses it twice, but both times it's about not compromising. First, there's a criticism of those who oppose the wall and won't compromise:
How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job? To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: Imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?
Second, there's a refusal to compromise "safety and security":
My fellow Americans, there is no challenge so great that our nation cannot rise to meet it. We can re-open the government and continue to work through disagreements about policy. We can secure our border without an expensive, ineffective wall. And we can welcome legal immigrants and refugees without compromising safety and security.
But perhaps he does, overall, sound conciliatory.

I watched the speech in real time last night, and it was much more moderate than I expected (because I was expecting him to announce that he was going to use "emergency powers" to build the wall). I haven't watched the Pelosi/Schumer response. But I will.

ADDED: I've now watched the Pelosi/Schumer response. I observed my emotional reaction, and I can tell you for sure that the line that reached me was "The fact is: the women and children at the border are not a security threat, they are a humanitarian challenge – a challenge that President Trump's own cruel and counterproductive policies have only deepened" (spoken by Pelosi).

The word with emotional resonance for me was "humanitarian." So I went back to the text of Trump's speech, and I see that he used the word in his first sentence:
My fellow Americans: Tonight, I am speaking to you because there is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.
And, to skip ahead to the 6th paragraph:
This is a humanitarian crisis — a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.... 

117 comments:

wendybar said...

You haven't missed anything except the same old "We hate Trump, and we will not compromise with anything he puts out there, because we hate Trump"

Ralph L said...

We can secure our border without an expensive, ineffective wall

This wasn't Pelosi? The point of the Wall is that future idiots can't open it without someone noticing. Not so for just sensors and patrolling.

To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask:

Did he leave out the "NO" before "border"?

Sharc 65 said...

Plus children. And farmers.

rhhardin said...

If you haven't watched the response, you've missed the night entirely.

Trump was bad, but not in the response's league.

rhhardin said...

Trump was disappointingly back in the presidential speech as bullcrap boilerplate mode that we'd voted out.

We don't want mexicans in because they don't want to assimilate. That covers the crime but crime isn't the reason.

David Begley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

But Trump was talking to women. No structural reasoning would work with women.

rehajm said...

Good catch, Ann. It wasn't really a speech with a compromising mood and the parsing backs that up. I don't know what motivates WaPo to take that angle but WaPo always has an agenda to serve...

I think the speech let Trump speak directly to the American people in a more serious forum than a tweet. He has a leverage for negotiations today and he's made a foundation to justify use of emergency powers later when negotiations fail.

David Begley said...

The omission of emergency powers was intentional. He knew that was a losing idea.

I thought Trump’s speech was weak. Trump needed to say - repeatedly - that his first duty is to American citizens and not foreigners. Dems don’t care about dead and drug-addicted Americans. They are just collateral damage in Nancy’s will to power.

Trump now must offer the Dems a DACA deal and the Gateway Tunnel. The Dems won’t accept the compromise.

Trump then can say that the Dems are against American citizens, DACA kids, NYC commuters and unpaid government workers.

rhhardin said...

Americans are not longing to hear compromise. Quite the opposite.

Ralph L said...

In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings.

Why hasn't this been on the news every night? YUGELY more than anyone knew. What are they doing with these criminals?

rehajm said...

If you haven't watched the response, you've missed the night entirely.

Best meme: Oscar co-hosts.

Phil 3:14 said...

Speaking for all Americans, I didn’t watch the speech.

Kevin said...

Trump: I’m trying to protect the American people.

Schumer and Pelosi: If closing the border were important, we would have done it long ago.

rhhardin said...

I put no weight whatsoever on humanitarian, but I'm a guy.

Who knew about magic woman words.

Kevin said...

Both parties want to “control the border”.

Trump wants control to shut things down.

Schumer and Pelosi want control to ensure he can’t.

rhhardin said...

Humanitarian means helping in spite of what worthless scum the people are.

They're not worthless scum. They're just not seeking to assimilate as Americans. They're fine Mexicans or whatever.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Best meme: Oscar co-hosts

American Gothic

Shouting Thomas said...

You came through this time, professor.

Thanks.

A very young woman friend after listening to my political views asked me: "So you think I should learn to hate people and be a hard ass?"

My reply: "You shouldn't and don't need to hate people. You just need to be a hard ass."

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

I watched the address and the response. Both blessedly brief.
The Pres was uncharacteristically restrained. Probably for strategic reasons.
The Dems response had an Animatronic affect. Probably because they did not have an advance copy of the address to craft a poll-driven response to.
Nobody's minds were changed.

Bay Area Guy said...

In 1860, one party wanted to preserve the practice of slavery (Dems), one party wanted to end the practice (Repubs).

In 2020, one party wants to preserve the practice of lax border enforcement and lax voting enforcement (Dems), and one party wants to end it (Repubs).

Of course, there's always a few strays. In 1860, there were a few Northern Dems supporting the South, and a few Southerners against the war. In 2020, there's a few elite Open Borders, Chamber of Commerce Republicans, and a few sane Democrats. But the general contours still hold.

Anyone who believes the "humanitarian" aspect of the southern border is hopelessly naive.

Breezy said...

Fact is, the Dems suggestion to open govt and keep working on the border policy is malicious.

Skeptical Voter said...

All that botox meant Nancy didn't look a day over 40. It also meant that blood did not flow properly to her brain cells. Chuck Schumer looked like Edgar Bergen's dummy whilst Nancy talked.

Much of CNN and MSNBC coverage before the speech was devoted to battle space preparation. But since for once nobody had leaked the text of the speech in advance, a lot of the prep was misdirected.


The funniest, most misdirected attack post speech was Larry O'Donnell on MSNBC whining that Trump had promised that the Mexicans would pay for the wall---"He promised that on three different dates" during the campaign. And now, (as Larry reaches for the rhetorical smelling salts) he wants the taxpayers to pay for the wall!!!!!! Go away Larry. You're looking old and gray--probably have some Botox in your hair gel.

My name goes here. said...

I, for one, are happy that Herman and Lily Munster are getting work.

Darrell said...

People forget that we let nearly a million and a half people come here legally every year. Europeans, in particular, miss that. And they can thank Ted Kennedy for putting them on the bottom of the list and giving shithole countries preference.

Darrell said...

No Borders, No Wall, No USA at all!
--Chuck and Nancy.

Kevin said...

The news coverage afterward:

Hannity: repeating some of Trump’s facts and figures.

Cuomo: trying to keep Ana Navarro from spinning off into space while Rick Santorum tries to get in a word.

Maddow: Manifort! Russians!

Robert Cook said...

Where is the proof there is a "growing crisis" at the border? In fact, the number of illegals crossing the border has declined significantly over the past 15 or so years.

Frankly, I don't believe there is a crisis. This is Trump's "We must invade Iraq to protect ourselves!" In other words, a lie.

Bruce Hayden said...

"The fact is: the women and children at the border are not a security threat, they are a humanitarian challenge – a challenge that President Trump's own cruel and counterproductive policies have only deepened" (spoken by Pelosi).

Right. And so we should allow in unfettered numbers of military or gang aged single males because there are some women and YOUNG children crossing the border too? (I emphasized "young" because very likely a sizable majority of the "children" are either adolescent males, or older who are lying about their ages. The Dems try very hard to hide this in order to fudge their numbers). We saw with the 2016 election Caravan that the bulk of illegal immigrants, esp there, were males old enough to join gangs. They may be legally children, but are old enough to father their own children, or to kill someone in a gang initiation. My question to Nancy Palsi and the Democrats is, How many MS-13 (etc) gang members are you willing to allow across the border illegally for every mother arriving with one or more of her actual genetic prepubescent children?

The real humanitarian challenge for the Democrats is making sure that they maintain a steady flow of uneducated peasants who can be recruited to ballot harvest in order to form their hoped for permanent electoral majority, as minorities who have been here longer leave that party to join the mainstream and ultimately the Republican Party.

Darrell said...

No Borders, No Wall, No USA at all!

Cookie and Freder.

Tank said...

I watched. This speech was not aimed at Tank. It was the simply the next move, and probably the right one. We'll see.

Shouting Thomas said...

Robert Cook is in favor of undermining the U.S. government and in favor of undermining the rule of law in the U.S.

He's a commie.

His facade of concern is a lie. Everything he says is a deliberate lie intended to hide his true intentions.

Robert Cook said...

Declining to spend billions to build a wall is not equivalent to advocating (or having) open borders. We have policies and barriers to illegal entry in place. They are not perfect, but the numbers of illegal entries has declined significantly in recent years. To claim there is a "growing crisis" is to claim the opposite, that rates of illegal entries are growing and are at record highs, to the point where a wall is the only solution. That is a lie.

But, everyone knows that.

gilbar said...

My question to Nancy Palsi and the Democrats is, How many MS-13 (etc) gang members are you willing to allow across the border illegally for every mother arriving with one or more of her actual genetic prepubescent children?

Well, Governor Newsom of California has said: 'Sanctuary to all who seek it'
SO, the answer to your question is: ALL OF THEM

gilbar said...

Plus, the ENTIRE Population of China, and Syria

gilbar said...

Sanctuary to all who seek it

Jeff Brokaw said...

It *is* a humanitarian crisis and the only way to address that along with our border security is to have a secure border that is not being exploited by cartels.

Listen to Scott Adams’ podcast from yesterday with Brandon Darby who is an expert on the situation, it’s very informative.

David Begley said...

The Democrats are actively working against the interests of American citizens.

rehajm said...

Frankly, I don't believe there is a crisis.

Then why so much angst from Democrats? Trump's asking for a decimal point in the discretionary budget to fund a number of projects for border security, not just a physical barrier (things we need without a barrier) and a wall won't make any difference if crossings are down and there isn't a crisis, as you say....

Shouting Thomas said...

But, everyone knows that.

I follow the news and documentaries about the cartel/government terror in northern Mexico.

You know exactly what's going on there, too, Bob. You're a liar. You're possessed by demons.

Your role in this life is malicious destruction for pleasure. You're a commie. I'm not fooled.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Of course, there's always a few strays. In 1860, there were a few Northern Dems supporting the South, and a few Southerners against the war."

Not sure if "few" Northern Democrats supporting the south is correct. The Republicans were worried about losing the 1864 election, even with most of the Southern Democrats not voting since their states had seceded, and might have lost except for some key victories by Grant and Sherman in the months before the election. There were draft riots in the big cities by recently arrived ethnic minority immigrants, while those who had fought for the Union are still honored for their sacrifices across the upper Midwest and New England over a century and a half later.

rehajm said...

Terminus: Sanctuary for all.

AllenS said...

Robert Cook said...
... but the numbers of illegal entries has declined significantly in recent years.

Where on earth are you getting your facts from?

David Begley said...

It really pissed me off that Chuck and Nancy were standing in front of a field of American flags when they don’t give a shit about American citizens. Someone here rightly noted that they should have been standing in front of flags from Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala.

johnhenry100 said...

Shouting Thomas,

I have to disagree with you about Cook.

He is not a commie.

He is a fascist.

He identifies as a "progressive" but that's just a euphemism.

John Henry

iowan2 said...

Robert Cook said...
Where is the proof there is a "growing crisis" at the border? In fact, the number of illegals crossing the border has declined significantly over the past 15 or so years.

Frankly, I don't believe there is a crisis. This is Trump's "We must invade Iraq to protect ourselves!" In other words, a lie.


This response is repeated dozens of times a day in the media. No surprise it gets regurgitated here. It is a meaningless data point. Cookie wont tell us what the acceptable level of crime is. Ignoring the lefts common refrain about stripping citizens of their enumerated rights "If it saves just one life". How many murders and drug overdoses do we accept from illegal aliens?

On a brighter note Cancer deaths are down 25%. Meaning we no longer need to invest $millions on cancer research, the status quo is the goal. Or so goes the logic of Cookie, serving today as the proxy for leftist idiocy.

rehajm said...

but the numbers of illegal entries has declined significantly in recent years.

The government's own statistics on apprehensions don't support that conclusion.

rehajm said...

...and if it is true despite the apprehension stats to the contrary, Trump is the reason they are down. Crossers making a rational choice not to risk apprehension/deportation/loss of US welfare benefits. More evidence to justify erection of a physical barrier for the time when Trump isn't there...

tim maguire said...

I didn't watch the speech because I know how I feel about the whole thing. I am a supporter of the "high fence/wide gate" approach to border security, but that is a metaphorical fence. I don't want a real one.

I want to reduce illegal immigration by reducing the incentives. First by cracking down on employers who turn a blind eye and second by reforming immigration law to make it more responsive to labor needs, especially as regards seasonal work and such.

Most importantly, be consistent. Those who are here illegally are, officially, not here. That means no jobs, no drivers licenses, no education, no welfare, no nothing. Persona non grata.

No wall needed

Mike said...

Someone here rightly noted that they should have been standing in front of flags from Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala.

I would Photoshop that up but I've got too much on my schedule already! Odds are someone on Twitter is posting this somewhere as we speak.

Ralph L said...

No wall needed

Until President Gavin Newsome.

alanc709 said...

Until the day that both parties insist on actual enforcement of existing law, including shutting down so-called sanctuary cities/states, we absolutely need a physical barrier. Ask the Israelis how well "reducing incentives" worked.

Sebastian said...

"an effective appeal to persuadable Americans"

How many are there?

Maybe Althouse. If you say "humanitarian" often enough.

alanc709 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lucid-Ideas said...

They didn't speak of "compromise" because as reptilian pod-people that word does not exist in their vocabulary.

"Humanitarian" does however. It is located right next to "vegetarian" in their lexicon, filed right under things on earth able to be devoured.

Gahrie said...

Once again Althouse promotes feeling over thinking, emotion over reason.

Repeal the 19th.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Watching Schumer and Pelosi's response was eerie. They looked like robot upper-halves, like Humma Kavula from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...ready for their true alien lower halves to mount the table and scurry after Trump supporters with their millions of tiny feet.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Schumer's right eye (to our point of view his left) kept twitching and looking off-camera at something outside the camera field.

His left eye (to our point of view his right) remained on camera. It was almost like he had the ability to look and process the teleprompter separately.

Creep-show.

rehajm said...

"an effective appeal to persuadable Americans"

How many are there?


If the soft, mushy persuadable model of the electorate ever existed in America Obama demonstrated definitively you can hash together a few seemingly disparate voting blocks and avoid appeasement politics.

AllenS said...

tim maguire said...
That means no jobs, no drivers licenses, no education, no welfare, no nothing. Persona non grata.

No wall needed


Next thing you need to work on is what to do about states and towns declaring that their area is a sanctuary. Which means a drivers license, free education, and welfare.

Gahrie said...

If building the wall wouldn't be effective, the Democrats wouldn't oppose it.

Lucid-Ideas said...

The entire back being draped with flags didn't help either. Like some broadcast from the holodeck of their spacecraft. I was waiting for some staffer to accidentally crash the whole panoply to reveal a view of the earth...from orbit.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Yeah, Cook, weren't you one of the cunts saying that the "caravan" was fake, that they were thousands of miles away, that they'd never get to the border, etc?

Yeah, you were. Liar, ass, fool, Democrat party member.

Carter Wood said...

"Challenge" is an over-used euphemism that replaces more accurate terms like threats, problems, difficulties, puzzles, dangers, etc.

"Solutions" is the other weasel word of the moment. Listen to the ads on NPR sometimes: "Offering innovation solutions in the cyber-age." Crap like that.

Jack Wayne said...

The ironic thing is that so far, Trump has had to do nothing. There is no bill to veto. There is actually no shutdown. I assume Schumer and Pelosi want it that way. So far, this whole “crisis” is laughable. Writing about it is fake news until Trump actually does something. So I guess they don’t want to send him a bill because then he would have a pretext to declare an emergency and start building. At that point, it would set Democrats hair on fire if he also dealt with visa overstays with an EO. Meanwhile, get back to Occasional Cortex. Now there’s a true story!

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Tim maguire@7:49AM and all the others making this argument- A wall works no matter who is in control, unlike laws and rules which can be ignored, and people who can be commanded to look the other way.

The wall isn't going to wink at the law, accept a fake ID, or give illegals sanctuary.

Meade said...

I've got your post-9/11 "humanitarian" proposal right here: Anyone caught in this country without legal status has 3 days to vacate. On the 4th day, if you're an adult male over 16, we euthanize, cremate, and deliver your remains to your country of origin. If you're a woman or child, we make you a slave.

Sure I'll compromise. What's your first offer?

Darrell said...

I wondered if the President still has the authority to issue Wanted: Dead or Alive posters. Legal aliens must get established going for those bounties.

narciso said...

How does she know this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailycaller.com/2019/01/09/trump-oval-office-maggie-haberman

Mazo Jeff said...

Nancy and Chucky looked like an ad (if you've been in an accident) representing the law firm of Dewey, Hatem and Howe

Leland said...

Starting with W's 2nd term; I quit watching the political speeches. I occasionally we see parts in clips, but if I wanted to know what they said; I found the transcript better. All the speeches are intentionally framed to stoke a certain emotion. I want to judge with less emotion, and really the best thing to measure isn't the speech but the action.

At this point, I think Trump has made his point with his base. 3 weeks of a government shutdown has been barely noticeable to anybody that doesn't make watching the news a daily habit. If Trump doesn't get the Wall, it won't be from lack of trying on his part, and his base knows it.

On the other hand, Pelosi's base demands no wall of any type. She can't compromise. Schumer is just there to look useful, but he's mostly powerless. Trump can't end the shutdown until Congress puts a bill in front of him. The last Congress did, but this one has not. As Jack Wayne has pointed out: "The ironic thing is that so far, Trump has had to do nothing. There is no bill to veto. "

Darrell said...

must = might.

Lucid-Ideas said...

On the whole "humanitarian" question...

Why is it always a "humanitarian crisis" for us? What about a humanitarian crisis for - you know - their friends and neighbors back home? Or the people in other countries that speak the same language? Or worship the same god? Or happen to be right next door instead of 3 or 4 other borders away? Or the person or group of people that caused said humanitarian crisis? Or something for white people to worry about? Why is it our money, time, and labor? Why is it our job to GET their shit together? Why are we the world's relief organization, policeman, father-confessor and head-of-fucking household?

Why is it always ours not to question why, it is ours to do, and die?

Big Mike said...

To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security ...

@Althouse, you don’t read that as an invitation to compromise? I think most honest people disagree with you. As for “humanitarian,” I care about the lost humanity of Mollie Tibbetts, of Kate Steinle, of Sarah Root, of Kayla Cuevas and her friend Nisa Mickens, and so many more. Do you think they count for nothing?

Known Unknown said...

11D chess. Playing the Dems like a fiddle.

rcocean said...

I feel so sorry for the rapists, criminals, con-men, grifters, future welfare recipients, hospital patients, and labor scabs, who drift across our border illegally.

If only we could raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for all the damage they do. Perhaps even raise the capital gains tax.

Ralph L said...

What's your first offer?
Ship them to the Mexican border--with Guatemala.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

The great thing about the Left is they will refuse to make sense and just keep shouting nonsense, no matter how many times you prove its nonsense.

Like the Commies, their message discipline is amazing. Why people keep arguing with them, when they're engaged in propaganda as opposed to honest debate is puzzling.

Anyhoo, anyone truly in favor of Border Security is in favor of a Wall. The two go together, like Marx and dishonesty.

mockturtle said...

Please enlighten me. Apparently, a crowdfund has raised more than sufficient funds to build the wall. If there is [and I assume there is] a legal barrier to the use of private funds to build public structures, why can't there be legislation to alter this? Since Pelosi & Co. know that the money is not the issue, they are now raising the 'morality' banner.

rcocean said...

Remember the Left wing plan:

Stop enforcing immigration Laws
Bring in millions of Illegals
Give them the vote

Result? Power for ever. CF: California.

rcocean said...

Once again the Democrats have shown what anti-American cold-blooded shits they are.

They don't care about the people being hurt in the shutdown. They DON'T want to enforce the immigration laws or secure the border against drugs, criminals and illegals. They don't care about American Workers.

All they care about is getting future Democrat voters. I.e. Power.

TreeJoe said...

400-500k people are caught annually on the southern border trying to enter illegally. Four hundred thousand. More than the entire population of Pittsburgh. Every year.

And do you think we catch them all? Do you think up to half a million people are trying this every year because they've heard it's unlikely to work? No. They try because far more get in successfully.

It's a security crisis. It's a humanitarian crisis. It's a national crisis.

People think it's not an emergency because they've grown up used to it. But that doesn't mean it's not an emergency, and it doesn't mean it's ok for a population in excess of pittsburgh to be illegally crossing our southern border every year and requiring that level of resourcing to deal with.

Big Mike said...

All they care about is getting future Democrat voters

In fairness, Democrats also like illegal drugs and the Mexican drug cartels — anyone besides me recollect how one of Obama’s first acts as President was to use the BATF to send guns to the Mexican drug lords?

mockturtle said...

My daughter texted me a campaign poster that said:

TRUMP
Elect that MF-er again!
2020

Seeing Red said...

Venezuela is toast.

Nicaragua is on its way to being toast.

Mexico is a narco state and their problems have moved north.



Cookie: nothing to see here, move along.




Matt said...

Compromise? Lol, no thanks. I want the left beaten into the ground and then curb-stomped for good measure.

Why should Trump compromise? So the left will like him? The hatred of him is not on based on policy. It's an irrational, all-consuming hatred for him. So what possible motivation would he have to bend on something he feels strongly is the correct path and what he feels he was elected to do?

Ken B said...

Sigh. Is this to be another rhhardin vindication?

Imagine the Wall was suddenly in place, in the form of a natural barrier, like the English Channel. Would that reduce the “humanitarian “ costs? It would. People don’t try to slip into England by swimming or rowing very often. Few cases then of family separation or injury trying.
If the “humanitarian” word is what you really care about, consider that a wall has some humanitarian benefits you need to consider.

Ken B said...

Mockturtle
Remember when David Duke was a candidate? His opponent was a known crook, and the slogan was “Vote for the crook. It's important.”
I can imagine the same thing with MFer ...

Seeing Red said...

Cali is down to 55 gal of water pp unless you have a pool.

How exactly does one “protect the environment” and “save our resources” by letting in more people?

Seeing Red said...

Power and benjamins. More money to fund the poor.

Meade said...

What's your first offer?
Ship them to the Mexican border--with Guatemala.

Deal.

hombre said...

The women and children at the border, like most people in the world, want to live in the USA. That is why they are there. With few exceptions there is no evidence to the contrary. Any humanitarian crisis results from their unwillingness to attempt to immigrate legally, an unwillingness pandered to by the leftmedia, Democrats and their pet judges.

Most would-be immigrants, particularly from the Middle East, are military age young men, a fact conveniently distorted by the media and the Democrats. Trump’s fibs are piddling compared to the whoppers of the left.

mockturtle said...

The women and children at the border, like most people in the world, want to live in the USA.

I might want to live in Nancy Pelosi's mansion, too, but I'm quite sure she wouldn't let me.

Brian said...

The one advantage of a wall is that it serves as a visual. Drones and high tech solutions aren't visually seen so they can be dismissed from the mind before setting out on a border-crossing journey.

A wall serves as a mental deterrent, whether it is complete or not.

It's later removal would also serve as a visual. No longer allowing the advocating for both open borders and strong border security at the same time depending on the audience.

Seeing Red said...

ADDED: I've now watched the Pelosi/Schumer response. I observed my emotional reaction, and I can tell you for sure that the line that reached me was "The fact is: the women and children at the border are not a security threat, they are a humanitarian challenge – a challenge that President Trump's own cruel and counterproductive policies have only deepened" (spoken by Pelosi).


A. We’re they Trump’s policy or did Obama and previous presidents have a hand?

B. Which is why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. You fell for it.

mockturtle said...

Disclaimer related to hypothetical: I wouldn't really want to live in Pelosi's mansion nor to live in California.

Seeing Red said...

Actually, Cali should be allowed to become a sancuptuary state. If The surrounding states want to builspd a Wall to block off Cali, let them.

hombre said...

End humanitarian crises. Seal the border.

MadTownGuy said...

Seeing Red said...
"Power and benjamins. More money to fund the poor."

The two go hand in hand. The issuance (and/or withholding) of benefits is, like taxation, a means of control; therefore even more power accrues to the State.

mccullough said...

Send them all to Spain. It was their colony.

hombre said...

Think of the real humanitarian crises we could address with the billions of dollars we spend providing welfare and services to illegals, cleaning up after their crimes, policing the border and ICE efforts.

Democrats are insane!

Bay Area Guy said...

It was nice that Schumer and Pelosi used several flags as backdrops to their little response.

It's also nice that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

But they really don't care too much about the flag or the Constitution if the symbol and organic law of the land, prevent them from doing what they want to do, which is:

1. Open the Southern Border
2. Ignore all the immigrants who waited in line, and LEGALLY Obtained citizenship.
3. Eliminate all enforcement standards for lawful voting
4. Harvest votes in California
5. Elect a lotta Democrats; and
6. Hopefully, do to Arizona and Texas what they've already done to California.

California is a rich state (on the west coast side), so leftists cannot destroy it in one fell swoop. But look at the direction it's going.....

Jim Bob LA said...

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

The chart cited by Rehajm is revealing. Apprehensions on the border dropped substantially in Feb. 2017, right after Trump took office. They stayed low compared to the prior year until Feb. 2018 when they began to surge. Probably because a year had gone by with no action and the economy was good. March 2018 apprehensions tripled the prior year's numbers and have been at 150%+ of prior year levels ever since. There is an obvious surge. And larger portions of the more recent apprehendees are families or minors, as the smugglers became more sophisticated in observing what works and can be exploited as a tactic.

Yes, there is a crisis, and it is escalating. Is it not possible to reasonably just yawn and claim "no big deal" when 500,000+ annual apprehensions on our soil of illegal entrants are happening on the Southern border. That means far more are making the attempt and that hundreds of thousands are getting in.

This is not sustainable. Anyone who denies this is ignoring (or misstating) objective reality.

Molly said...

(eaglebeak)

No wall needed

Well, except for the terrorists and the mammoth drug cartel traffic flow, MS-13, etc. Don't think their incentives are among the ones Tim Maguire listed.

Otherwise, starting to wonder if perhaps rhhardin is a woman.

WA-mom said...

Ann makes an interesting point. She thought he would declare emergency powers. Perhaps that's why Schumer and Pelosi seemed so wooden. Their speech was originally written to rage against the audacity of emergency powers for this "made-up" crisis.

Ed Brenegar said...

All this back and forward raises more questions than answers for me.

Here are three.

1. Is the border crisis principally a domestic one or an international one?

2. Is the critical humanitarian crisis at the border or in the countries where those seeking to enter the US are coming from?

3. Why is it that we are willing to send our military into Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan where the threat to Americans seems more remote and not into Central and northern South America where there seems to be a more real threat to American citizens?


MB said...

They are using women and children as human shields, aren't they.
Women and children also have their role in the struggle.
"Women and children first" takes a whole new meaning here.

FIDO said...

Robert Cook,

How can you KNOW that they are declining? It is like 'unrecorded rapes'; there is no good information.

So this is an assertion sans evidence.

But allow me to rebut: illegals have been a problem for decades. Whether their numbers are declining at all is irrelevant. Those here are a problem and we have the right as a nation to solve it however we want.

That being said, your 'solution' is fraught with bad faith. Democrats and socialists like yourself like border protections which you can turn off without anyone else becoming the wiser.

You can't do that with a Wall.

So it is your own bad character which is forcing this solution.

FullMoon said...

No talk of the jobs illegals are keeping legal immigrants or Americans from.

Anyway, arguments for or against don't really matter.
Trump made some campaign promises and for some reason, maybe because he is some sort of narcissistic, racist misogynist psychopath, he feels he needs to follow through on them..

mockturtle said...

Ed Brenegar asks: 3. Why is it that we are willing to send our military into Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan where the threat to Americans seems more remote and not into Central and northern South America where there seems to be a more real threat to American citizens?

Why, indeed? Maybe our response to this illegal influx should be to declare war on Mexico [and Guatemala, etc.] and annex them as territories. If not, then BUILD THAT WALL!

Skippy Tisdale said...

If a wall is immoral, then a paywall is down right evil.

Rabel said...

If "humanitarian" reached into your soul, did any of this:

In California, an Air Force veteran was raped, murdered, and beaten to death with a hammer by an illegal alien with a long criminal history.

In Georgia, an illegal alien was recently charged with murder for killing, beheading, and dismembering his neighbor.

In Maryland, MS-13 gang members who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied minors were arrested and charged last year after viciously stabbing and beating a 16-year-old girl.

Over the last several years, I've met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration. I've held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers. So sad. So terrible. I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, and the sadness gripping their souls.

Imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?

JAORE said...

Where is the proof there is a "growing crisis" at the border? In fact, the number of illegals crossing the border has declined significantly over the past 15 or so years.

Assuming your statement is true....

The number of murders are down too. Let's quit adding resources to stop that.
The number of rapes is down too. Problem solve?
The number of people on food stamps is down. No more need for added money for those programs, right?

mockturtle said...

I sit on a grand jury in SW AZ. Probably 85% of cases are drug-related. Of those, probably 95% involve Hispanics. We are not told whether or not they are here legally but most of the drugs come across the border.

Joanne Jacobs said...

I want to know the Democrats' immigration policy. What should we do when very poor, uneducated people cross our borders saying they are fleeing poverty, corrupt governments and violence in their home countries. If we let them live and work in the U.S., millions will come. Few will be criminals; nearly all will be poor. How many can the U.S. absorb? Are we morally obliged to take the world's poor -- or even the poor of Central America and Mexico? If the Democrats aren't advocating for open borders, what's their plan? Being against Trump's plan is not a plan.

Yechiel said...

Joanne Jacobs -

You answered your own question. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is the Democrats' Constitution.