Recently, I reposted on
Facebook a synopsis of the votes in Congress relating to the government shutdown
and funding. A co-worker/friend posted a response (which I have included below
in its entirety to be fair and to make sure I addressed all points. Here is what I posted:
Here is his response in black:
(I did omit a link he also posted to an article/story from CNBC going into the
certainty of a government shutdown, otherwise this is all of it) My response is
in RED following each of his comments.
First, Trump said, on national
television, that he would own the shutdown.
Trump is owning
the shutdown as much as he can. He has said what he wants in the budget and has
professed to not accept or sign a budget without it. It is the Constitutional
responsibility of Congress (specifically the House of Representatives, with oversite
participation of the Senate and the Executive branch) to draw up and pass a
spending bill. Then the President has the responsibility to sign it or veto it.
Congress has been very lax in doing their job since the budget process was
changed by Congress in 1974. In fact, since 1977 (the first year the new budget
process went into effect) they have only met the mandated deadline for a budget
three times! (imho, a Constitutional violation that they gave themselves a
loophole to go through with the new bill) This is true of Congress led by both Democrats
and Republicans alike and with Presidents of both parties. The new
budgeting/spending bill came about because Congress was “upset” due to the President
not spending all the Congressionally allocated monies (Nixon was concerned
about inflation and was not spending all the funds allocated for certain
programs), so they changed the process to where Congress has more control over
actual spending than the Executive branch. (But that is a different subject.)
FYI a spending resolution is not a law or bill, so it does not even require the
President’s signature. Congress could agree on that and then see if the
President would sign it if it became a spending bill. I do not consider it a waste
of money at all, especially compared with some of the immense waste that Washington
is party to!
Second, Democrats weren't against funding the government, they're against wasting $5 billion on a wall that won't accomplish the intended objective because the majority of undocumented immigrants arrive legally and overstay their visas. Meanwhile, it will threaten endangered species and waste valuable resources. I'm a bit surprised that you would support such wasteful spending and would argue that it would be more effective to remove the incentives that draw them in (such as by punishing employers that hire people that aren't authorized to work in the USA). It's also worth noting that long term undocumented immigrants have increased in number since we've tightened border security.
Now to the wall. First,
I will have to say I do not understand anyone that opposes a wall. Throughout
history (and currently – Hey, the Obamas are in a court battle over a wall
around their home they built) humans have built walls to keep people and
creatures both in and out of areas where they are unwanted. Famous examples
are: The Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall, the Berlin Wall, and more currently
the Gaza Wall. I understand the spending argument to some degree. However, the US
government spends over 12 BILLION dollars a day, every day of the year. I find
it hard to be upset about taking less than half a days spending to protect our most
insecure border.
As to the “majority
of undocumented immigrants (I will admit it pains me to refer to them that way –
they are illegals, period) arrive legally and overstay their visas.” That is
not true from any facts and figures I can find – even on sites that support
illegals! It does appear that in recent history more visa violations have occurred
than just illegal entry, that is highly likely due to increased border
security. The figures I did find state that from a low of just under 40% to a
high of 48% if illegals are in the USA on expired visas. So, let’s use 50%. If
there are just under 11 million illegals in the USA (let’s use 10 million, one
to be even more forgiving and two to keep the numbers round), half of 10 million
is 5 million illegals here that are not on expired visas. For the most part, we
know nothing about them or their history. The folks here on expired visas, thought
wrong, do not bother me nearly as much. At least they went through some sort of
vetting process to get the visas. Some identity was validated and at least some
minimal background checks were done. (a side note – when I applied for my visa
to go to China in 2015, I had to get a letter from our Chinese supplier stating
that we had a relationship. It also held them responsible for me if I did not
leave the country per the terms of the visa -also another story).
Illegal entries
are estimated. Obviously, there is no exact way to know the number of people that
enter the country illegally. We do know how many are caught and stopped trying
to do so. This number has dropped dramatically in the past few years as border
security has tightened. However, the number is still averaging just shy of 40,000
a month on the southern border! This is from a low of @25,000 in 2015 to a high
of 44,000 in 2016) Now, from research I have found the estimated effectiveness
of the CBP in border security. It is from a low of 40% to a high of 60%. (again,
no one knows for sure – so lets use the 60% number) That would mean that 26,666 people are entering the US through the southern border illegally each month. (40,000 = 60% of N, solve for N) A
wall may not stop this totally (never underestimate the ingenuity or will of a
dedicated criminal!) but it would have to help! If nothing else it would allow
the CBP to patrol specific areas with confidence that others were secure.
As for the animal
population: I consider that so much fluff and noise. Animals are more adaptive
than humans in most situations. I think the large majority would adapt and move
on with their lives. (This reminds me of the spotted owl issue decades ago in
the NW USA. The I will say however, if we can prevent illegals of the type that
killed the policeman in California this past week or killed the girl on the pier
with her family a while back – I am all for it! Even if it means some animals
die.
The one point we
do agree on is working on punishing and tightening controls on companies that hire
illegals. There are laws in place, and maybe we need more. The biggest thing that
would help here is enforcement. Sanctuary cities and governments that warn
illegals of raids by ICE are a large barrier to these laws. I am for severe punishment
of anyone that aids and abets an illegal to avoid ICE or any other law of the
USA.
"Speaking after the Senate advanced the House legislation, Schumer said he offered the White House three proposals to keep the government running. One was the bill the Senate passed Wednesday, to fund the government through Feb. 8 without wall money. Trump previously threatened to veto the measure, which caused House Republicans to abandon it Thursday and instead pass a bill with funds for the barrier included."
I obviously can’t dispute
or argue these points. I can refer you back to my original statement about how
the budgeting process works. It is the Congress’s job to come up with the
spending bill. Then the President has the decision to make on signing or not
signing it.
Comments