Trump Makes Case for Wall, Pelosi Says No, Ron Paul Says We Don't Need It

The day ends where it started. Pelosi will not authorize a wall and Trump did not declare an emergency.

To end the government shutdown, Trump Makes His Case for a Border Wall.

President Trump in a prime-time address Tuesday said a wall along the southern border is key to national security, as he called for lawmakers to fund it and end a partial government shutdown that is days away from becoming the longest in U.S. history.

In the televised address from the Oval Office, Mr. Trump’s first in his nearly two years as president, he said a barrier is necessary to prevent the movement of illegal drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border, and he shared stories of human trafficking.

“This is a humanitarian crisis—a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul,” said Mr. Trump, sitting at the Resolute Desk. “This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic congressional leaders, issued an immediate televised response to the president, rejecting the idea of a wall as unnecessary.

“President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

Mr. Schumer said Democrats are united with the president on the need for stronger border security, but said: “We sharply disagree with the president about the most effective way to do it.”

Earlier Tuesday evening, Senate Democrats prevented the chamber from moving to consider a package of bills aimed at boosting security assistance for Israel and other Middle Eastern policy provisions. Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, where most bills need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles.

Ron Paul on the Wall

Via ZeroHedge: 'We Don't Need A Border Wall If Trump Removes Incentives For Illegal Immigrants'

Former Congressman and libertarian icon Ron Paul has some advice for President Trump.

Instead of building a wall along the southern border to keep out illegal immigrants, maybe he should instead try removing the incentives that attract them to the US in the first place - incentives like a relatively easy path to citizenship and easy access to welfare benefits.

After Paul said the shutdown "isn't significant in the scheme of things," Paul's interviewer, Squawk Box's Andrew Ross Sorkin, asked if he supported Trump's border wall, Paul responded that he "doesn't like walls" (though he didn't say outright that he opposes Trump's plans).

"I don't like walls. I'm a libertarian I don't want to wall people in and wall people out."

"I don’t want free, open borders either," he continued.

"I think you have to remove the incentives for people to come. They come because there's a welfare system here, there's easy access to citizenship its politicized one group wants them here because they think they can get the votes."

Easy Way

Passing legislation to end benefits like Paul suggests is a non-starter. It will not happen.

But there is an easy way: The E-verify system If employers were forced to use it, with big penalties for not doing so, the problem would vanish immediately. It is the only effective way to halt illegal immigration. We have a system, why not force employers to use it?

Trump might want to try it himself given that he hires illegals.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

No. 1-25

Mish, you need to live in CA or TX to see how the system gets cheated. Only Ron Paul is on the right track.

These illegal immigrants come in because there are free money!! First, they get all kinds of government aids or social welfare from religious institutes legally or illegally. Since a huge percentage of the government workers at all ranks were illegal immigrants at one point, they help out their own countrymen by faking documents, or telling them how to fake IDs, etc. to obtain the government aids. Then, you think they are hard workers and pay taxes?? No, they only work for CASH by doing handyman/cleaning work, etc. That way, their reported income can stay at zero for maximum government aids. Their way of living surely boost consumption, but other legal residents here who have lower income would never be able to live like how these illegal immigrants live.

They obviously don't pay into healthcare system, nor auto-insurances, nor social security systems. The only thing that they pay into is the sales taxes.

If we abolish all income taxes, and move to all sale taxes, it will make illegal immigrants to pay a fair share. That way, whether the job was paid in cash or other methods, it doesn't matter. Government will not have the incentive to hunt and track all the cash movement. They simply need to enforce sales tax at the business levels, which is so much easier than tracking down every individual. If you learn from Taiwanese government, what they do for this enforcement is by making every sale receipt as a government-sponsored lottery ticket. People are incentivized to ask for receipts and indirectly enforcing every sale tax, big or small. Tracking down the big sales/transactions at business is a lot easier than tracking down millions of small transactions.

In any case, once you remove the financial incentives to come into USA, the flow of illegal immigrant will stop automatically, without ANY walls, which historically will never work 100%. Sure, they can still come. BUT they must knowingly come in with their own financial resources and prepare to work hard to survive.

If they come in, getting all the foodstamps, and welfare dollars illegally, and work only for cash, they actually enjoy a higher standard of living than the welfare system is designed to do. What must happen is an extremely high penalty for cheating the welfare system, either from inside workers, or out. Or maybe simply abolish all social welfare entirely.


I have no problem with requiring e-verify, but surely no one thinks that will solve the problem? Most businesses do not hire illegal help, anyway, as they already face serious penalties if caught. The only disincentive that would discourage illegal immigration would be to take away social services. If an illegal immigrant can't get medical care, and can't get education for their children, and can't get other assistance, that would be a strong disincentive to coming, but I don't see anyone who wants to take that approach.

That leaves three possible approaches:

  1. Open the border - Simply let anyone who wants to come in, come in, and allow the standard of living to equalize across the Americas. Once the standard of living is no higher in the US than in Central America, immigration to the US would cease on it's own.
  2. Control the border with a wall, and additional security measures, and allow controlled immigration.
  3. Control the wall with high tech approaches like drones and chemical weapons such as tear gas and pepper spray, and allow controlled immigration.

To number 2 and 3, you can add one of the following options: A. If you find some in the country illegally, you deport them. B. You actively search for people in the country illegally so that you can deport them. C. You deport people only if they commit serious crimes D. If they manage to get in, you grant them amnesty, and allow them to stay.

The Republican position at the current time seems to be 2C. The Democrat position seems to be 1D or 3D.


Whilst E-Verify is a noble start, it's far from effective or reliable. I work in an industry where all contractors are "required" to use E-Verify. They have all told me that the system is easily corrupted. They run their employees thru the E-Verify system and then find out thru the DMV that the drivers license as well as their identity are fake. It's pervasive and not a 1 time deal.


Anti-Trumpers and Democrats are in good company: Pablo Escobar’s brother launched $50M GoFundMe to impeach Donald Trump and it's on the front pages of the news. Trump Derangement Syndrome is reaching levels I didn't think were possible.