Chuck Schumer, Who Voted For Southern Border Barrier: Americans Are “Not Going To Get The Wall In Any Form”
OK, like it or not, whether you voted for Donald Trump as president or not is really irrelevant here. For literally decades both Democrats and Republicans have called for a barrier of some sort on our southern border. However, Donald Trump was elected president with a few clear mandates, and one of those mandates was to build the southern wall. Now, after the WWE Royal Rumble last week between Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Schumer is coming out saying that Trump “is not going to get the wall in any form,” which means, the American people aren’t going to get the wall in any form.
Keep in mind we are being heavily censored, please follow us on our social media pages: Telegram USA.Life, Gab, Parler, Minds, Spreely, MeWe, Twitter, Facebook
As a pretext, in case you have not seen it, take a listen to the WWE Smackdown (And yes, this is what it is because these people get along quite well behind the scenes. It’s nothing but political theater.)
Then, Schumer goes on NBC’s Meet the Press and declares that Trump “is not going to get the wall in any form,” which is nothing more than saying Americans are not going to get the southern wall they have been promised, not just by Trump, but by the same hypocrites that sat in the Oval Office above.
Here’s Schumer on Meet the Press. The immigration and wall issue picks up around the 6:05 mark.
Schumer says that Trump doesn’t have the votes in the House or Senate, and I don’t doubt that. Schumer said that even RINO Paul Ryan didn’t want to go along with it, but who is surprised by that? Ryan has been a sellout on the Constitution and the American people since he has been in office and even more since he became House Speaker. His departure is most welcome.
However, what I find absolutely hypocritical is the fact that these very Democrats voted for a barrier at the southern border, along with then-Senator Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, aka Barry Soetoro, in 2006.
Let’s just take the left-leaning Politifact, who disputed Trump’s current Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s comment that “They voted for (a border wall) in 2006. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Sen. Schumer voted for it. Sen. Clinton voted for it.”
Politifact provided all this information to basically argue that Mulvaney’s quote was only half true because of semantics between fence and wall, even though these guys voted for a “double layer” of fencing only to turn right around and remove a layer. Take a look.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.
The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.
At the time the act was being considered, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were all members of the Senate. (Schumer of New York is now the Senate minority leader.)
Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.
Originally, the act called on the Department of Homeland Security to install at least two layers of reinforced fencing along some stretches of the border. That was amended later, however, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, which got rid of the double-layer requirement.
Currently, 702 miles of fencing separates the United States from Mexico, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
So how does that compare to Trump’s wall?
Trump plans for the wall are vague, but here’s what we know.
He said the wall doesn’t need to run the nearly 2,000 miles of the border, but about 1,000 miles because of natural barriers. He said it could cost between $8 billion and $12 billion, be made of precast concrete, and rise 35 to 40 feet, or 50 feet, or higher.
Experts have repeatedly told PolitiFact that the differences in semantics between a wall and a fence are not too significant because both block people.
Still, there are obvious differences between the fence and Trump’s wall proposal.
A 2016 Associated Press report from the border described “rust-colored thick bars” that form “teeth-like slats” 18 feet high. “There are miles of gaps between segments and openings in the fence itself,” the report said.
Trump criticized the 2006 fence as too modest during the 2016 campaign.
“Now we got lucky because it was such a little wall, it was such a nothing wall, no, they couldn’t get their environmental — probably a snake was in the way or a toad,” Trump said. (Actually, the project didn’t face environmental hurdles; we rated that part of the claim Mostly False.)
It’s also worth noting that the political context surrounding the 2006 vote was different, too.
Democrats normally in favor of looser immigration laws saw the Secure Fence Act of 2006 as the lesser of two evils, according to a Boston Globe report that detailed the legislative process. Around that same time, the House passed legislation that would make any undocumented immigrant a felon.
“It didn’t have anywhere near the gravity of harm,” Angela Kelley, who in 2006 was the legislative director for the National Immigration Forum, told the Boston Globe. “It was hard to vote against it because who is going to vote against a secure fence? And it was benign compared with what was out there.”
Democrats have described Trump’s wall proposal as overkill and too expensive. Recently, Democrats penned a letter to Senate GOP saying border funding should not be included in the latest budget agreement to keep the government open.
The claim is actually true. You can call it a fence or a wall, but the point is that everyone gets exactly what is going on here. A barrier was to be erected.
Schumer can say he isn’t for illegal immigration and claim that he is not for amnesty, but he is. He supported the Dream Act, which is amnesty with a path to citizenship. Many people are in the country legally, but not citizens. Schumer and those like him want those who have committed the crime of entering the US, using the services and even welfare of the US to receive a form of amnesty and then reward them with a path of citizenship.
Schumer doesn’t fully go along with deporting illegals, as his support of the DREAM Act indicates, but Obama’s Homeland Security revealed that it would be cheaper to round up illegal aliens and deport them than to let them stay.
Schumer is just a liar like the rest of them.
Many of the so-called “experts” that Schumer mentions are anti-American. For instance, Edward Alden, who works on immigration policy at the Council on Foreign Relations which we know seeks globalization and the annihilation of American sovereignty said that the comparison of a southern wall border and fending was “an apples-to-oranges comparison.”
“The Secure Fence Act was written in a way to get support from both sides,” Alden told factcheck.org. “The Democrats, by and large, supported the use of ‘tactical’ fencing in high-traffic areas, something that the Border Patrol had long favored. Trump’s wall proposal seems to call for fencing the entire border, which Democrats have never supported.”
Actually, it doesn’t, and Trump has said so, as mentioned above from Politifact regarding “natural borders.”
Again, Factcheck.org called Mulvaney’s statement regarding the Democrats’ vote “misleading,” but it really isn’t.
One of the problems I have is with Trump being all over the map about who is paying for the wall and how much it will cost. Take a look. Even Huffington Post points out the hypocrisy.
While I do think the wall would provide some security due to what we’ve seen from Hungary’s Viktor Orban and his incredible wall that stopped virtually 99% of illegal immigration, the fact is that we already know that those across the southern border are tunneling under the current areas the US has walls in place.
The fact of the matter is that we could eliminate welfare spending that entices many illegals to America, eliminate our current model of immigration enforcement and go back to a Constitutional method of enforcing immigration law. Let’s have Congress start funding and training the militia as they are required to do in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which reads:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
See that? Congress is to provide for the militia the necessary things they need in order to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
The current influx of illegal invaders has been called that by the president himself while members of Congress have demonized the militia as “domestic terrorists.” It’s time we eliminated the waste and tyranny of the federal government and put the efficient, lawful and constitutional into action. A wall would only help, but we can save a ton of money by reducing the number of illegals crossing our own border and avoid an invasion of our country by people who seem to not want to have any loyalty to the republic.
As far as the shutdown goes, I say, let it happen with no backpay for those unnecessary workers that get temporary suspension and let the feds sort out eliminating all the unconstitutional spending they are engaged in as well. I won’t hold my breath over any of it. After all, I’ve warned you, this is all WWE.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media