An idea to resolve the wall impasse and get protections for people crossing the border

[garybeck]

I believe it's time for the Dems to make a move and be seen as the ones to do something to avoid another shutdown. I also see this as an opportunity to ensure safety and protections for people who are crossing the border.

Give the fat ass the money for the wall in exchange for protections for people crossing the border, such as:

-- No child can ever be separated from their parents by border security, ICE, etc.
-- any person under detention has a right to food, health care, a real bed, communication with relatives, legal representation until their case is resolved
-- all procedures and detentions at the border must be logged and recorded in public record
-- codify people have the right to apply for asylum and be given due process
-- permanent protections for Dreamers
-- other stuff like that

-- i would add that all materials (steel) and labor for constructing the wall must be US sourced.

it would be worth it. to put an end to the horrific conditions that people are being put through, in exchange for a wall. and would also take away one of his motivations which is to buy russian steel.

[panader0]

1. NO WALL!

[Demsrule86]

2. No...he would merely lie and would never agree to what you suggest.

No wall period...fuck him.

[garybeck]

5. if it is in legislation, it doesn't matter what he says

if we are thinking about the best interest of those seeking asylum, it would be worth it.

how about if they take the $5B and divide it among the wall cost and the costs of implementing the items I listed?

the bottom line is that politicians are supposed to compromise. i don't see any point it continuing the stalemate.

we can save face and get some real reforms by being the ones to propose a compromise that includes serious protections for people who are being abused and practically tortured as we speak.

and when we get him out of office we can tear it down and recycle it into electric vehicles.

that's my 2 cents

[Arazi]

13. It's in legislation that he enforce Russian sanctions. He isn't

Its in legislation that he issue a report on the Khashoggi murder, he's refused.

Etc etc

Trump is a Russian asset. He feels zero obligation to follow any law

[Demsrule86]

15. He flouts laws all the time like the Russian sanctions.

[shanny]

16. it's the law that people are allowed to apply for asylum

rump and the minions are treating this as a criminal offense

sorry to say but people are being hurt, no deal with rump will prevent them from being hurt (since he won't honor it) and giving him a victory lap is a non-starter

[MineralMan]

3. Don't give Trump anything!

No wall! No separation of children from their parents. Nothing.

The House should say, "Sorry, Mr. President." This chamber is not going to do that. Adjust your expectations."

[garybeck]

8. sorry but that is not what politicians are supposed to do

politicians are supposed to compromise in the best interests of their constituents and the country as a whole.

it is not worth it to have another shutdown over this

this is an opportunity to get protections for immigrants.

[MineralMan]

9. Let me ask you this: Is Trump doing what he is supposed to do?

I suggest that he is not. Congress is equal to the President under the Constitution. It can call Trump to account, and should.

We finally have one house of Congress that is not run by Republicans. Let them do their job, which is to represent the people of the United States.

Compromise for it's own sake is not necessarily the best approach. Compromising one's principles is never required. Nope.

[garybeck]

11. really?

is that how we make our decisions on what to do?

if trump is being an ass, we should be an ass too?


this is a real opportunity to get some good things like protections for dreamers and the other things I listed, which are badly needed.

I say put a proposal out there that includes the wall but also everything else we want in regards to immigration.

politically speaking, it will take the hot air out of Trump's rhetoric. he would have to stop blaming and demonizing the dems and saying that we want open borders. i'm so sick of hearing that and it really gets his side riled up.

personally i think it's a good political move and good for policy. he might even veto it, and then he would never recover from that because we'd always be able to say that we agreed to a wall and he turned it down. it's a win win for dems.

[MineralMan]

12. Let's propose all those things, with no wall.

We don't need a wall. The wall serves no good purpose. No wall for Donald Trump.

Personally, I think that's a good political move and good for policy.

[shanny]

17. "politicians are supposed to compromise"

Well, yes. That is how it is supposed to work. What does that have to do with the current situation?

What happens when one side tries to compromise, and the other shrieks "Fuck no!" Give them something more, because "compromise" is a good thing?

Last year tRump turned down 25 billion for the wall with protection for Dreamers because the mad dog Republicans screamed "Fuck no!" In December tRump said he would not sign a bill passed 100-0 by the Senate because Coultergeist and Limpballs screamed "Fuck no!"--where was the compromise then? Now he's shrieking 5.8 Biliion Or Else...and won't compromise at 2. We've already done all the compromising that could be done, to no avail.

Fuck that noise.

[bearsfootball516]

4. Nope. No wall.

[Fresh_Start]

6. I think we can offer funding for a study of the wall

including impact on migrants, citizens, employment, wages, environment, wildlife, emergency services, economy, etc

including full cost to build the wall and maintain the wall and the cost to purchase the land from the current owners

including construction schedule

including likely replacement of wall on a regular basis where the wall fails due to thinks like landslides and flooding


including the how the wall will be used in border security and what it would cost for it to be effective given current and evolving technology and movement of illegal drugs, etc

so we are being reasonable in wanting information to appropriately evaluate the wall.

[Sherman A1]

7. I must disagree

The wall is nothing more than a campaign stunt. I suggest that there be no further talks as long as the wall is part of the discussion.

[Goodheart]

10. We can get all those things without a stupid wall. So, no thanks.

[lunatica]

14. It's been done when Republicans controlled both Houses and he refused it.

Nancy Pelosi, upon becoming the Speaker of the House offered not one, but two, proposals which the Republicans offered when they were in control.

He accepted, but when Ann Coulter and Limbaugh objected he backed out.