So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[nereo]

Was it the pressure? Or was it simply because having a big televised State of the Union Address was more important to him than his wall?

I suspect it was more likely that the potential of air traffic disruption to Trump's personal flights to Florida for golf.

AF1 has priority over all other planes and airspace within the US.  Nothing will disrupt DJT's trips down to Mar-a-Lago to golf "work". AF1 *causes* disruptions, every time and ever where it flies, particularly within a narrow airspace like Palm Beach.

[nereo]

Oh, what will Carlson, Coulter and Limbaugh say about this?

[OtherJen]

Oh, what will Carlson, Coulter and Limbaugh say about this?

From Ann Coulter’s Twitter feed:

Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States.

I predict that in 3 weeks, we’ll be right back where we started.

[Glenstache]

Oh, what will Carlson, Coulter and Limbaugh say about this?

For fun, I went and looked at the Fox News comments section. There were some good quips about spelunker in chief, caveman, looking for Batman (aka, bat cave), etc.

[nereo]

Wait a minute... I just looked at the calendar.  3 weeks from now is Feb 14th.  Could another shutdown seriously start on Valentine's Day??!

[MDM]

Wait a minute... I just looked at the calendar.  3 weeks from now is Feb 14th.  Could another shutdown seriously start on Valentine's Day??!

Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget.

[thd7t]

I keep reading people saying that 3 weeks from now is the declaration of emergency.  He's going to be livid about this.  It's possible that Sean Hannity will stick with him and sooth his ego or that delivering the SOTU will make him feel all better.

[Glenstache]

Wait a minute... I just looked at the calendar.  3 weeks from now is Feb 14th.  Could another shutdown seriously start on Valentine's Day??!

The clock runs out on Friday the 15th.

[JLee]

Wait a minute... I just looked at the calendar.  3 weeks from now is Feb 14th.  Could another shutdown seriously start on Valentine's Day??!

Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget.

It's not about the percentage of the budget - it's for the specific appropriation of the funds.  An equal amount was offered for border security.

[Glenstache]

Wait a minute... I just looked at the calendar.  3 weeks from now is Feb 14th.  Could another shutdown seriously start on Valentine's Day??!

Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget.

It's not about the percentage of the budget - it's for the specific appropriation of the funds.  An equal amount was offered for border security.

Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget. an idea with so little support that the Senate bill with no funding for it prior to the shutdown had overwhelming support (right up until Trump threw a fit).

[MDM]

It's not about the percentage of the budget - it's for the specific appropriation of the funds.  An equal amount was offered for border security.

Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget. an idea with so little support that the Senate bill with no funding for it prior to the shutdown had overwhelming support (right up until Trump threw a fit).

And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

[GuitarStv]

It's not about the percentage of the budget - it's for the specific appropriation of the funds.  An equal amount was offered for border security.

Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget. an idea with so little support that the Senate bill with no funding for it prior to the shutdown had overwhelming support (right up until Trump threw a fit).

And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

I have it on very good authority (the best really) that Mexico will be paying for the wall.  So why should it be part of the budget?

[Davnasty]

It's not about the percentage of the budget - it's for the specific appropriation of the funds.  An equal amount was offered for border security.

Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget. an idea with so little support that the Senate bill with no funding for it prior to the shutdown had overwhelming support (right up until Trump threw a fit).

And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

I think there are a number of discussions about this elsewhere on the forum, but that's not really the issue.

A bill with no wall funding had unanimous support before Trump threw a fit. If congress gave him what he wanted for throwing a fit and holding unrelated government functions hostage, what kind of precedent does that set?

[Kris]

It's not about the percentage of the budget - it's for the specific appropriation of the funds.  An equal amount was offered for border security.

Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget. an idea with so little support that the Senate bill with no funding for it prior to the shutdown had overwhelming support (right up until Trump threw a fit).

And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

I have it on very good authority (the best really) that Mexico will be paying for the wall.  So why should it be part of the budget?

Reason one of literally dozens.

[MDM]

And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

I have it on very good authority (the best really) that Mexico will be paying for the wall.  So why should it be part of the budget?

Reason one of literally dozens.

Excellent non sequiturs, but other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

ETA: and other than the wall he is proposing is taller than the existing fence.

[Kris]

And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

I have it on very good authority (the best really) that Mexico will be paying for the wall.  So why should it be part of the budget?

Reason one of literally dozens.

Excellent non sequiturs, but other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

Huh. Did I say "it was Trump's idea"? Or did you just assume that because it's easier and more fun for you than actually believing someone on the left might be able to think critically?

I'm guessing I know the answer to that one.

Here. An article by the conservative Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

[MDM]

And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

I have it on very good authority (the best really) that Mexico will be paying for the wall.  So why should it be part of the budget?

Reason one of literally dozens.

Excellent non sequiturs, but other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

Huh. Did I say "it was Trump's idea"? Or did you just assume that because it's easier and more fun for you than actually believing someone on the left might be able to think critically?

I'm guessing I know the answer to that one.

Here. An article by the conservative Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

Oh, I wasn't assuming anything - just asking what [people think] is so terrible about having a wall for border security?  Your reply here gives some reasonable reasons.  Before that, ....

One can find pro/con reasons for practically any undertaking.  For the border wall, most of the reasonable (as opposed to "it's immoral", etc.) cons can be segregated into "it won't work" or "it will be difficult and expensive".  If one believes "it won't work", then spending any money on it makes no sense.  If one believes "it will be difficult and expensive" then the 0.1% of the federal budget becomes pertinent.

[JLee]

And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

I have it on very good authority (the best really) that Mexico will be paying for the wall.  So why should it be part of the budget?

Reason one of literally dozens.

Excellent non sequiturs, but other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

Huh. Did I say "it was Trump's idea"? Or did you just assume that because it's easier and more fun for you than actually believing someone on the left might be able to think critically?

I'm guessing I know the answer to that one.

Here. An article by the conservative Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

Oh, I wasn't assuming anything - just asking what [people think] is so terrible about having a wall for border security?  Your reply here gives some reasonable reasons.  Before that, ....

One can find pro/con reasons for practically any undertaking.  For the border wall, most of the reasonable (as opposed to "it's immoral", etc.) cons can be segregated into "it won't work" or "it will be difficult and expensive".  If one believes "it won't work", then spending any money on it makes no sense.  If one believes "it will be difficult and expensive" then the 0.1% of the federal budget becomes pertinent.

There's also the whole "forcibly seizing land from US citizens to build a wall that most of the US doesn't want" thing.

[Kris]

MDM: "Other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?"

Also MDM: "Oh, I wasn't assuming anything."

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, MDM, at least own it.

[dividendman]

Oh, I wasn't assuming anything - just asking what [people think] is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

I guess I'm confused on how it helps border security. Are there examples of x, y, z things happening and if a wall was there they wouldn't happen?

And if there are such examples, why is the US only considering a wall on the Southern border? Why not the northern one? What about the ships that land on the shores? You can put a wall in the water too so boats can't come. Alaska's borders seem wide open, too.

Perhaps an Israeli style "iron dome" system should also be put on the southern and northern border and coasts so that drones and low-flying aircraft can't get in.

What about the fact that most illegal immigration is from immigrants who come legally initially? Why don't we implant chips in legal immigrants so we know if they overstay their visa and we can track them and get ICE to easily deport them if they overstay?

Why aren't all of these things on the table? Why this focus on just the one wall?

[MDM]

MDM: "Other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?"

Also MDM: "Oh, I wasn't assuming anything."

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, MDM, at least own it.

Own what?

I would hope the MMM community wouldn't be so lowbrow as to oppose something just because it is Trump's idea.  That would be no different from anyone who opposed something just because it was Obama's idea.

Appears you are assuming things about my assumptions that aren't true. ;)

[Kris]

MDM: "Other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?"

Also MDM: "Oh, I wasn't assuming anything."

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, MDM, at least own it.

Own what?

I would hope the MMM community wouldn't be so lowbrow as to oppose something just because it is Trump's idea.  That would be no different from anyone who opposed something just because it was Obama's idea.

Appears you are assuming things about my assumptions that aren't true. ;)

Uh-huh.

*eyeroll*

[MDM]

What about the fact that most illegal immigration is from immigrants who come legally initially?

Excellent point.  More attention to employer verification of status would be a reasonable thing.

[MDM]

MDM: "Other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?"

Also MDM: "Oh, I wasn't assuming anything."

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, MDM, at least own it.

Own what?

I would hope the MMM community wouldn't be so lowbrow as to oppose something just because it is Trump's idea.  That would be no different from anyone who opposed something just because it was Obama's idea.

Appears you are assuming things about my assumptions that aren't true. ;)

Uh-huh.

*eyeroll*

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, Kris, at least own it. :)

[Kris]

MDM: "Other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?"

Also MDM: "Oh, I wasn't assuming anything."

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, MDM, at least own it.

Own what?

I would hope the MMM community wouldn't be so lowbrow as to oppose something just because it is Trump's idea.  That would be no different from anyone who opposed something just because it was Obama's idea.

Appears you are assuming things about my assumptions that aren't true. ;)

Uh-huh.

*eyeroll*

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, Kris, at least own it. :)

Good lord.

You're really bad at this.

[MDM]

MDM: "Other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?"

Also MDM: "Oh, I wasn't assuming anything."

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, MDM, at least own it.

Own what?

I would hope the MMM community wouldn't be so lowbrow as to oppose something just because it is Trump's idea.  That would be no different from anyone who opposed something just because it was Obama's idea.

Appears you are assuming things about my assumptions that aren't true. ;)

Uh-huh.

*eyeroll*

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, Kris, at least own it. :)

Good lord.

You're really bad at this.

Never made it a mission in life to excel at internet snark.  I can live with not being good at that. ;)

[Kris]

MDM: "Other than "it was Trump's idea" what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?"

Also MDM: "Oh, I wasn't assuming anything."

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, MDM, at least own it.

Own what?

I would hope the MMM community wouldn't be so lowbrow as to oppose something just because it is Trump's idea.  That would be no different from anyone who opposed something just because it was Obama's idea.

Appears you are assuming things about my assumptions that aren't true. ;)

Uh-huh.

*eyeroll*

You can't make this stuff up. Seriously, Kris, at least own it. :)

Good lord.

You're really bad at this.

Never made it a mission in life to excel at internet snark.  I can live with not being good at that. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teIj7fak6eU

[nereo]

@MDM - regarding funding more border wall...  honestly whether we build a few dozen additional miles of barrier along the US/Mexico border isn't a big deal for me.  We already have some 700 miles (out of ~2100) with some kind of barrier so it isn't like its a novel concept. There's probably some sections where more physical infrastructure might make sense.  At the same time there's large stretches of our southern border where building a wall would be a large waste of money. Overall the idea of building a 2,000+ mile concrete/steel-slat wall would be an ecological disaster and a giant waste of funds - but that's not what we are discussing here with ~$5B in total funding.

What does really irritate me is this whole shutting down the government to get funding for some large expense.  Want $5B for more wall (or border security, or whatever)?  Fine.  Draft legislation for an appropriations bill and have it debated, amended and voted on in congress.  Or better yet, put it in the annual budget which, btw, we haven't passed since 2016.  Government shutdowns should NOT be the way to get funding for projects.  The same thing goes for all the previous stuff we've passed under past CRs. I also object to making a whole bunch of people deliberately suffer (my family included) to extract concessions from the other side. 

[MasterStache]

Well we could appropriate those funds to more pressing issues that likely would have a positive impact. Perhaps mental health. Investments in new technology and/or healthcare. Perhaps helping out veterans. I mean the list is endless.   

[sol]

Well we could appropriate those funds to more pressing issues that likely would have a positive impact. Perhaps mental health. Investments in new technology and/or healthcare. Perhaps helping out veterans. I mean the list is endless.   

Perfect.  Perhaps Nancy Pelosi should publicly vow to shut down the government unless she gets 5.7 billion dollars for veteran's mental health treatment programs?  Would that be the correct way to enact this particular policy change?

[GuitarStv]

What about the fact that most illegal immigration is from immigrants who come legally initially?

Excellent point.  More attention to employer verification of status would be a reasonable thing.

There's also the fact that the people in charge of border security would prefer to spend the border wall money on something else:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/border-patrol-wall-immigration-trump-senate-democrats.html

Or that it's most likely to increase human tragedies associated with illegal immigration to the US without significantly reducing numbers:
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/425514-border-wall-wont-stop-migrants-but-will-increase-use-of-smugglers

Or the fact that it wouldn't do anything to prevent terrorism:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/trump-border-wall-terrorists.html



But my comment earlier wasn't that the wall was a bad idea because it was Donald Trump's idea.  It was pointing out that Trump promised that Americans wouldn't have to pay for the wall.  He said it over and over again.  Trump just singlehandedly shut down the US government in an attempt to force America to pay for the border wall that he told everyone Mexico would be paying for.  That's bullshit.  Time to call it.

[ysette9]

This administration has completely broken my incredulity-o-meter. I demand a refund.

[sol]

Now that Trump has agreed to re-open the government for three weeks in exchange for nothing, and conservative media is tearing him apart for it, and both the House and the Senate have approved the bill...

I think there's still about a 20% chance Trump vetoes the agreement he just announced this afternoon.

[aspiringnomad]

Now that Trump has agreed to re-open the government for three weeks in exchange for nothing, and conservative media is tearing him apart for it, and both the House and the Senate have approved the bill...

I think there's still about a 20% chance Trump vetoes the agreement he just announced this afternoon.

Signed. And just like that, it's over...at least for a few weeks.

For all the criticism of the guy, he appears to know to eventually fold a losing hand. If I may keep with the poker analogy, I bet he couldn't believe he pulled an inside straight to win the presidency and is now hoping beyond hope that he draws an out on the river to win again in 2020 and remain immune from prosecution. Barring that, he's hoping for a gentleman's agreement to chop the pot by going away in exchange for his and his family's immunity, all while convincing his base that his presidency just drew a bad beat (or via tweet: "THE WERST LUCK IN US HISTORY!1!!!").

[dividendman]

Now that the government is open again, I hope Pelosi still forbids Trump from stepping foot in the House until legislation is passed funding the government until the 2020 campaign season is in full swing - just because I hope Trump shuts it down then.

[ysette9]

Is it too simplistic to think that Trump comes out of this weakened and Pelosi emboldened?

[sol]

Is it too simplistic to think that Trump comes out of this weakened and Pelosi emboldened?

Well, there's always a long game at play right?

Trump's people knew that he was pissing everyone off with the shutdown, and not getting any closer to an outcome he liked.  He couldn't get his wall funding when his own party controlled both chambers of Congress and he certainly wasn't going to get his wall funding after losing a landslide election, and I suspect he figured that out pretty quickly if he didn't already know it going into the shutdown in the first place.  So what's the play here?  Why fold now?

I think he's hoping to transfer blame to the new bipartisan commission.  He can just go to the republicans and say "you absolutely must get me my $5.7b for a border wall, and I won't sign any other deal" and that will effectively ensure the commission can't come to any agreement.  Otherwise, the bipartisan commission from Congress is just going to come up with something very like the bipartisan compromise those same people came up with back in December, which initially said he would sign and then threatened to veto.

So after he transfers blame to the bipartisan commission, and then ensures that the commission will fail, Trump can say "Look I tried to make Congress do it's job and they failed to keep government open, so now it has to shut down again."  That will give him the chance to blame Congress for shutdown round 2.

Either way he's not getting his $12b or even his $5b for a wall, so there has to be some other end game in mind.  Maybe he's hoping to make Pelosi and the democrats look bad if they can't get recreate the deal from the last month.  Maybe he's hoping to whip up some base support ahead of the next election, or at least convince democratic voters that congressional democrats are sort of equally corrupt and they should stay home on election day.  Ultimately, I suspect that Trump cares about the actual wall a whole lot less than he cares about winning reelection in 2020 so that he can die in office and never face prosecution.  If that's the case, then everything else is just prologue for the upcoming election. 

[GuitarStv]

For all the criticism of the guy, he appears to know to eventually fold a losing hand.

If there's anything that Trump has had enough experience to master, it's creating a losing situation through bad decision making and then folding.  Time and again through his history he has used the huge quantities of money he inherited from his father to do something, failed, and then declared bankruptcy.  He may well be one of the world's foremost masters of the failed deal.

[Dancin'Dog]

"Ultimately, I suspect that Trump cares about the actual wall a whole lot less than he cares about winning reelection in 2020 so that he can die in office and never face prosecution.  If that's the case, then everything else is just prologue for the upcoming election. "


I was hoping he would die in office the first year.  You'd think somebody would have helped him along by now!

[ysette9]

"Ultimately, I suspect that Trump cares about the actual wall a whole lot less than he cares about winning reelection in 2020 so that he can die in office and never face prosecution.  If that's the case, then everything else is just prologue for the upcoming election. "


I was hoping he would die in office the first year.  You'd think somebody would have helped him along by now!

President Pence is really not something I wish for.

[MDM]

Kris, whatever the YouTube video was: peace.  Out.  - MDM

[sol]

President Pence is really not something I wish for.

President Pence would be a policy disaster, but he would at least follow the law.  It would be a crushing defeat for progressive ideals and it might set us back to the 1950s, but at least the Union would endure. 

I'm merely supposing here, but I think Pence would not take bribes from foreign governments, or put children in cages, or fire the FBI director for doing his job, or use the US military to blockade the border, or destroy NATO so that Russia can invade its neighbors.  He would say a lot of horrible things about women and gays, but we could all have a good laugh at his ignorant backwardness and then go about the business of having a country.  Trump, by contrast, seems hell bent on tearing down everything America stands for.

So yea, I kind of wish for President Pence.  I'd also support Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or even a moderately competent mid-sized city mayor for President over Donald J. Trump.  Really, anybody who might actually care about the office in the way that Trump clearly does not, even if it was somebody with whom I have strong policy disagreements.

[MDM]

@MDM - regarding funding more border wall...  honestly whether we build a few dozen additional miles of barrier along the US/Mexico border isn't a big deal for me.  We already have some 700 miles (out of ~2100) with some kind of barrier so it isn't like its a novel concept. There's probably some sections where more physical infrastructure might make sense.  At the same time there's large stretches of our southern border where building a wall would be a large waste of money. Overall the idea of building a 2,000+ mile concrete/steel-slat wall would be an ecological disaster and a giant waste of funds - but that's not what we are discussing here with ~$5B in total funding.

What does really irritate me is this whole shutting down the government to get funding for some large expense.  Want $5B for more wall (or border security, or whatever)?  Fine.  Draft legislation for an appropriations bill and have it debated, amended and voted on in congress.  Or better yet, put it in the annual budget which, btw, we haven't passed since 2016.  Government shutdowns should NOT be the way to get funding for projects.  The same thing goes for all the previous stuff we've passed under past CRs. I also object to making a whole bunch of people deliberately suffer (my family included) to extract concessions from the other side.

Don't know if you ever harbor thoughts of running for congress, but if so don't bother: you're much too reasonable. :)

[Poundwise]

@MDM,   I think a good question to ask is whether illegal immigration from the south is such a problem anyway. Research shows that the numbers of unauthorized immigrants in the US had fallen from a peak of about 12.2 million in 2007 to only 10.7 million in 2016. This is due to a great drop in the number of immigrants from Mexico, possibly due to increases in average incomes there.  Also falling birthrates and rising incomes in the three Northern Triangle nations of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, currently large sources of unauthorized immigration, suggest future drops in migrations from there, too.
http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/immigration-trends/

Therefore, if the number of illegal immigrants currently in the US is bearable and not a crisis, then it's not an emergency. It's only going to be getting better not worse. 

I wonder what could be accomplished by $5 billion applied towards speeding up immigration processing, and doing things like opening up offices in countries of origin so that people could find out BEFORE they leave their countries whether their asylum application has a chance. If you have a reasonable way for people to enter legally, most people will use that way.

Anecdotally, I personally know Guatemalans who are longing to go home to care for terminally ill parents south of the border but afraid to because they would not be able to return to work here and rejoin family who are legal residents here.  It's a terrible situation.  Making it easier for "unskilled" workers to work here and exit/re-enter would probably mean more temporary workers who take advantage of higher wages here but keep their home bases in their home countries, rather than bring their families here.  The hard border means that people come here and stay, rather than come when jobs are available and leave when jobs are few.

[RetiredAt63]

@MDM,   I think a good question to ask is whether illegal immigration from the south is such a problem anyway. Research shows that the numbers of unauthorized immigrants in the US had fallen from a peak of about 12.2 million in 2007 to only 10.7 million in 2016. This is due to a great drop in the number of immigrants from Mexico, possibly due to increases in average incomes there.

Wasn't this one of the goals for NAFTA, to even things out a bit?  The rising tide lifts all boats idea?

[Poundwise]

@RetiredAt63  Indeed yes!

*********

On another subject, people have started to do their taxes.  A number of voters in high SALT and high property value regions are going to notice that their taxes are substantially, painfully higher this year.

[Johnez]

It's not about the percentage of the budget - it's for the specific appropriation of the funds.  An equal amount was offered for border security.

Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget. an idea with so little support that the Senate bill with no funding for it prior to the shutdown had overwhelming support (right up until Trump threw a fit).

And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

Nothing really. Except Trump turning it into a symbolic boondoggle. Seriously, a wall isn't what's opposed here. It's the rhetoric, the divisiveness, the hypocrisy, the antagoism. Surely the dealmaker in charge could have figured out how to get his wall without calling Mexicans a bunch of raping murderers. Trump himself is what's the probkem. Think a guy who's been hiring illegals for decades really gives a shit about American wages and jobs or terrorism?! Lol. More terrorists have come through Canada than the Mexican border. More drugs were confiscated through the Coast Guard than any other department, shutting down the govt really affected them, for a stupid border wall that isn't going to do squat. Trump's racism, abortion hating, LBGQT hating, and gun loving is a recent phenomena-he was actually a pragmatic kinda guy till the far right got a hold of him. Fighting the wall and neutering this spineless dumbass is the best thing any politician can do for the country.

[ysette9]

President Pence is really not something I wish for.

President Pence would be a policy disaster, but he would at least follow the law.  It would be a crushing defeat for progressive ideals and it might set us back to the 1950s, but at least the Union would endure. 

I'm merely supposing here, but I think Pence would not take bribes from foreign governments, or put children in cages, or fire the FBI director for doing his job, or use the US military to blockade the border, or destroy NATO so that Russia can invade its neighbors.  He would say a lot of horrible things about women and gays, but we could all have a good laugh at his ignorant backwardness and then go about the business of having a country.  Trump, by contrast, seems hell bent on tearing down everything America stands for.

So yea, I kind of wish for President Pence.  I'd also support Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or even a moderately competent mid-sized city mayor for President over Donald J. Trump.  Really, anybody who might actually care about the office in the way that Trump clearly does not, even if it was somebody with whom I have strong policy disagreements.

I hear what you are saying about the long-term good of our institutions, but I think it is easier for you to stomach the idea of a Pence assault on human rights from the security of your position as an educated, heterosexual white male. Over here on the female side of the aisle that possibility is rather scary.

[MDM]

@MDM,   I think a good question to ask is whether illegal immigration from the south is such a problem anyway.

Yes - always good to evaluate whether the cure might be worse than the disease.

Research shows that the numbers of unauthorized immigrants in the US had fallen from a peak of about 12.2 million in 2007 to only 10.7 million in 2016.
Therefore, if the number of illegal immigrants currently in the US is bearable and not a crisis, then it's not an emergency. It's only going to be getting better not worse.

Yes, if it is bearable and not a crisis.  And if it is not bearable and is a crisis, one reaches a different conclusion.  Plenty of anecdotal evidence to support either qualifying phrase.

I wonder what could be accomplished by $5 billion applied towards speeding up immigration processing, and doing things like opening up offices in countries of origin so that people could find out BEFORE they leave their countries whether their asylum application has a chance. If you have a reasonable way for people to enter legally, most people will use that way.

Anecdotally, I personally know Guatemalans who are longing to go home to care for terminally ill parents south of the border but afraid to because they would not be able to return to work here and rejoin family who are legal residents here.  It's a terrible situation.  Making it easier for "unskilled" workers to work here and exit/re-enter would probably mean more temporary workers who take advantage of higher wages here but keep their home bases in their home countries, rather than bring their families here.  The hard border means that people come here and stay, rather than come when jobs are available and leave when jobs are few.

As with most things, the best approach is probably somewhere between extremes.  E.g., some wall/fence/call-it-whatever, plus some of the things you, nereo, and others have mentioned.

[GuitarStv]

As with most things, the best approach is probably somewhere between extremes.  E.g., some wall/fence/call-it-whatever, plus some of the things you, nereo, and others have mentioned.

A wall/fence/call-it-whatever already exists on 635 of the 1933 miles of US/Mexico border.  (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/what-the-us-mexico-border-actually-looks-like/)

Where is makes sense to build, it has already been built.