When will Republicans like Mitch McConnell go for country over party, forget Trump's wall and reopen the government?

@SW-User Democrats do support border security, but not the wall.

@SW-User [image deleted]

@Waymore There is a difference between funding border security and trumps' wall. Democrats and Republicans both want to fund border security for more border patrolers and add in technology. The reason being because it works and reduces the attempt to cross the border illegally. And even before Trump's presidency, that amount of illegal border crossings had been declining for several years. Trump's wall is not for border security, it's to appease his fan base.

Even way before this mess, both Democrats and Republicans voted unanimously on a bill to fund more for border security, Trump agreed with the vote and was going to sign it, until people like Ann Coulter warned him that he would not get re elected if he supported border security rather than get his wall as his supporters wanted.

That's also wrong, Democrats support the barrier that is already built. Not that 2,000 miles long barrier that trump wants. The reason being, it won't do much of anything to stop illegal migrants from getting in. It's expensive, and if it were built it would cost 25 billion and and more by the time it was finished. So adding more to American's debt. And a whole list of other issues.

@SW-User Why didn't the GOP get this done earlier in the crisis when they held all three branches of government? I keep asking this question and not a SINGLE Trump supporter has been able to answer it.

It was never about border safety. Nice try though.

@SW-User

@daisymay it's not hard to figure out. Trump did not have the votes in the Senate. He had a razor thin R majority but it included some liberals who threatened to break ranks. In the recent election, as he hoped, his majority in the Senate increased to a safe margin, but he lost his majority in the House.

@SW-User Why didn't he just lead, then? He could have lead and got done. Why won't he just lead?

@SW-User You make some good points, but it's important to understand that the wall or physical barrier is an important and necessary part of a serious border security strategy (which is why Obama used to speak forcefully in favor of it). It is necessary but not sufficient. As this article carefully explains. It's from the WSJ, so I copied it here. If this doesn't work I've seen others use reddit to get around it.

The Silly Arguments Against a Border Wall
They’ll go around it? Exactly—that’s the point.

Dan CrenshawJan. 10, 2019 7:05 p.m. ET

This week saw the culmination of the great wall debate. President Trump made his case—one I generally agree with—and explained what an extra $5.7 billion (approximately 0.1% of the budget) would do for the security of our southern border. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi immediately dismissed it. It is honestly surprising how quickly and thoroughly Democrats adopted the notion that a wall of any kind is such an obviously stupid and immoral idea. Well, is it? Let’s lay out the claims one by one:

• They’ll just climb over it, dig under it or break through it. Just like that huh? I spent 10 years as a Navy SEAL, and people often say, “Dan, you know better than anyone how ineffective a wall is.” Actually, I know how effective walls are, even against skilled SEALs. Planning to scale a 30-foot steel slatted barrier is a daunting challenge. Do you bring an enormous ladder all the way there? How do you get down from the top? Jump? Rappel? This isn’t a Tough Mudder course. A few skilled and well-equipped people may figure it out, but the reality is that most will be deterred.

The same goes for “digging” or “breaking.” Tunneling would require special equipment and hundreds of hours to dig under the barrier, the base of which would penetrate many feet underground. To break through it, you’d need specialized circular saws, torches or explosives. Typical equipment for a special-ops team, but not exactly on the packing list for a migrant. And Border Patrol agents would easily detect such a ruckus.

This isn’t to argue that a wall is completely impenetrable given the right equipment, but to state the obvious: A barrier is far preferable to an open space, where migrants can simply walk across.

• They’ll just go around it. Exactly—that’s the point. A deterrent at the busiest sections of the border would allow more effective allocation of manpower. If a mile of the border is walled off, that’s one less mile the Border Patrol needs to worry about. Agents can still respond to the location if a special-ops caravan shows up with a blowtorch, but otherwise they can focus on open areas where it is simply not viable to build a barrier.

• You can’t put a wall on the Rio Grande. Fair enough—there are places where a physical barrier can’t work, such as private land along the river in Texas. You can’t build a wall everywhere—but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t build one anywhere.

This whole debate is a classic case of one side attacking the other’s worst arguments instead of seriously addressing the actual proposal. Democrats need to stop assuming we are talking about a contiguous 2,000-mile wall. Republicans know that’s not practical. The budget’s small allocation of $5.7 billion that President Trump has requested would build 234 miles of wall. It’s a start.

We know that border security is a multifaceted problem, that security at unwalled segments can be enhanced by drones, sensors and additional patrols, and that the Rio Grande requires a different approach. Let’s start looking for a multifaceted solution instead of automatically dismissing the critical role that physical barriers play.

Do Democrats agree that it’s a problem when hundreds of thousands of people illegally cross our border each year or not? If we all still agree on the sanctity of our country’s borders and rule of law—and I have faith that most of us do—then we should be looking for solutions. My fear is that Democrats have staked out a position so extreme that any common-sense compromise involving a physical barrier will constitute a serious political loss for them. It doesn’t have to. The president’s proposal—a mix of physical barriers, technology and more Border Patrol agents—is one that benefits everyone.

Mr. Crenshaw, a Republican, represents Texas’ Second Congressional District.

@daisymay what do you mean, not lead. No president tilts at windmills like that. Do you mean he should have tried to get a bill passed when he knew he could not and where the attempt would have split his party to no good end? Would you have praised him if he had?

@SW-User I'm merely recycling the main complaint from the GOP about why Obama couldn't just lead? Well, why can't Trump lead? He needs to lead.

And he is. On foreign policy, he reversed some bad mistakes of his predecessors of both parties (e.g., on Israel and its capital, on funding UNRWA which perpetuates the murderous and self-destructive terrorist movements and leaders, on the very hallmark of Obama's policy of weakening our allies and strengthening our enemies (like Iran), of trying to police the world to impose Western ideas of how other peoples should run their societies (like W on Iraq, HRC on Libya and Egypt, etc. He reoriented it to the US's actual interests. He did what Congress has for years demanded and successive candidates promised but did not deliver once in power, i.e., move our Israel embassy to that nation's capital, where all other embassies are in the capitals of those nations, as specified by the nations themselves; called out the ever more anti-democratic centralized imperial bureaucracy, called the EU, both as a prison house of nations and as an empire which acts against the interests of the US and its allies while relying on the US to provide its military defense and cover. And that's just foreign policy.

You may disagree with any or all of these shifts, but how can you say they are not examples of leadership, even against the non-stop hatred and derision of the MSM in the US and in Europe, not to mention the Muslim world...?

Why can't he lead on this domestic security issue? Why will he not lead?

@daisymay I already answered that. (See above, "What do you mean, not lead?) Repeating the question suggests you did not read or consider the answer or my question to you. That kind of makes reasonable discussion impossible.