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

Comments (86)
No. 1-34
Zardoz
Zardoz

Everify is down because of the shutdown.

Tengen
Tengen

Going after employers of illegals was always the easy, obvious primary solution to this problem. The fact that it never happened speaks volumes about our priorities.

I've been shrugging at these wall stories the last few years. If we were serious about this, the time for action would have been after Reagan's amnesty in 1986. It's been spilled milk for decades. Besides, our insane central bank-driven financial system (globally, not just for us) is a problem orders of magnitude greater. It's like worrying about changing a light bulb in the garage while the rest of the house is on fire.

2banana
2banana

If you are illegal in Mexico you will be arrested, thrown in jail and deported asap.

They also give zero benefits to illegals and require government issued ID to vote.

How come the left doesn't call them racist?

wootendw
wootendw

Best speech I ever heard from a president - only 13 minutes!

wootendw
wootendw

It's not worth building a wall but it's not worth arguing about, either. Build it and move on.

FelixMish
FelixMish

Is no one else uncomfortable with e-verify? I still remember a couple, three decades ago when I first had to show a passport or birth cert or whatnot to be an employee at a new job. It gave me the creeps. Like I'd stepped in to a bad WWII movie. "Show me your papers, mein Herr." Or "Wait, wait. I need the US government's OK to work for someone?!?" That just didn't seem right. Stuff like this seems why we no longer hear or say the off-hand expression, "It's a free country" to mean, "Sure. Go ahead."

gregggg
gregggg

All this drama sure works well to cover up what is going on in the Middle East and with Rubio pushing the anti-BDS legislation. Not a word in the news.

pi314
pi314

You show your bias in your title "Ron Paul Says We Don't Need It". Paul never said that! He conditioned it on ending benefits which you admitted would never happen - "Passing legislation to end benefits like Paul suggests is a non-starter. It will not happen." So stop misleading your readers and the endless anti-Trump posts.

gregggg
gregggg

You only have to watch about 12 minutes to see the history of this mess. This is still live so you will have to start at the begining.

abend237-04
abend237-04

There are no votes nor campaign contributions to be had by perp-walking CEOs in prime-time for hiring illegals without using E-verify. Neither party will ever touch this third rail of their political power and funding. The beltway gang's ongoing blatant, disgraceful hypocrisy on immigration policy is appalling. Six times now since Reagan , they've done deals to "fix" immigration. They think we're idiots; they're right. We deserve these Keystone cop charades.

Mike Mish Shedlock
Mike Mish Shedlock

Editor

"You show your bias in your title "Ron Paul Says We Don't Need It". Paul never said that! He conditioned it on ending benefits which you admitted would never happen"

I only get 80 characters in a title and I fully explained Paul's position did I not?

And I offered a remedy did I not?

Who is the biased, other than you?

Mike Mish Shedlock
Mike Mish Shedlock

Editor

"Going after employers of illegals was always the easy, obvious primary solution to this problem. The fact that it never happened speaks volumes about our priorities."

Bingo!

But that obvious fact means you are as "biased" as I am.

The reporting problem here is obvious: Bias - Trump lovers believe he can do no wrong, haters believe he can do no right!

Stimpson
Stimpson
(deleted message)

I don't think that holds. It's people breaking a law that violates property rights, not lack of protection. It's like leaving your house unlocked: anybody walking in knowing they're not welcome would still be violating property rights despite protection being low. Instead, open borders offer freedom, but freedom always comes at a price. In this case a perceived threat to the existing system of entitlements (in terms of government programs, but also relatively highly paying jobs that are threatened by cheap labour). I believe that good points have been made why that wall shouldn't be built:

  1. it would mean actual violation of property rights of those people owning land where the wall would be buiilt

  2. it wouldn't help alleviate the problem, since most illegal immigration is by people overstaying visas and no wall will stop that

  3. it costs a lot of money that an overly indebted state could surely find a better use for

I suspect Trump does not care one bit about the above but only about the symbolism of a wall and that he is more than willing to violate other people's property rights just so he will look like the strong man that built the wall. I have no respect for people that are so keen on making a profit (in any form) while transferring the costs to others.

AWC
AWC

Any barrier than can be used to keep others out, can also be used to keep us in. I can't imagine a Libertarian disagreeing with that. At least not a Voluntaryist believing in freedom of movement, and freedom of association. And as for violation of property rights, we have a rule of law and a judicial system to handle that. After the fact, not based on some notion that erecting barriers preempts the activity of would be trespassers.

Again, target incentives, not the result of their creation.

Stuki
Stuki

We're some ways beyond immigrants coming solely for "welfare" "benefits" by now. Immigrants flock in even greater numbers to Gulf state countries where they don't get anything of that sort at all. Ditto immigrants to California during the gold rush.

There will always be gradient pressures moving people from places of low wealth, to places of higher wealth. Per capita. The West built up a nice stash of "gold," and are now dying off. Leaving a vacuum for others to fill. Japan did as well, but getting there is much more of a pain. Eventually, they will cave as well. Long before the last Japanese dies off, leaving the Islands entirely unpopulated.

The US is just really easy to get to for Latin Americans. Stuff like walls, will inevitably make it slightly harder, hence slow things down a bit. But like trying to dam a river indefinitely, pressure will just build even higher, until any such fortification fails.

You'll never arrive at the progressive "Utopia" of a few gray haired, self proclaimed "Gentlewomen" being granted exclusive "rights" to large swathes of land and productive resources by The Great Fed and Government, while the rest toil in petting zoos behind walls for a pittance, wagging their tails and smiling gratefully at Ms Barren for "letting them" pay all they have in rent for the shack she has assigned them. That drivel may work for a while if propagandized heavily enough, but eventually, someone will wise up, shoot the bitch, and move in to take her stuff. Like Europeans once did to Native Americans' land and buffalo herds.

FelixMish
FelixMish

The stable, long term solution to the US's current illegal immigration problem is for Mexico to become a rich country. What can be done to help that process along?

bowwow
bowwow

I don't believe that a physical barrier along the southern border and e-verify accomplish the same thing.

One either sees the sense of having, following and enforcing immigration law or one doesn't. The problem seems to be political.

Sechel
Sechel

There can be no deal. The two sides are too far apart. Trump does not simply want to stop illegal immigration. He wants to curtail legal immigration as well. Maggie Haberman from the NY Times Trump did not want to give the speech. Obvious why. It's not Trump's venue and the speech fell flat. Sounds like both Republicans and Democrats are resigned to Trump eventually declaring his national emergency so they can reopen the government and simply move this fight to the courts.

Snow_Dog
Snow_Dog

“We have a system, why not force employers to use it?”

Force employers? LOL, force them to do what exactly? They want illegal sources of labor brought to their doorstep all the while they keep their stockpiles of capital safely stashed offshore beyond the taxman’s grasp.

In exchange for that cozy setup, they agree to fund the political campaigns of candidates who can deliver that scenario to their specifications. All in all, only one politician (Ron Paul) I the entire Swamp speaks out against this.

thimk
thimk

there exists many viable solutions to the issue. It is disheartening that our elected officials cannot offer a modicum of remedy. Lets enter the wayback machine to the Eisenhower term and see how this administration dealt with
immigration problems. Such a difference in contrast to today.

Webej
Webej

Agree completely with the E-Verify angle and the political interest in paying lip service to migration security but in fact enabling cheap labour. Two things not yet mentioned here:

[1] Wealthy people love cheap domestics (and usually have walls around their houses or communities);
[2] It is a tactic to permanently dispossess the lower part of the labor force: breaking unions, shipping jobs to cheap third world countries and keeping pressure on wages with desparate illegals

... this can only end in social revolution. The yellow vests portend what is to come. That protest is not about the diesel tax, that is just the spark. It is by the working classes and rural people, against the elite telling them there is no other way for 35 years now, and about stagnant wages, rising cost of living, and immigration. Their main demand is for Macron to resign.

BornInZion
BornInZion

Drudge headline from "above the fold"; TRUMP DEMANDS WALL, DEMS DIG IN!, SHUTDOWN BEGINS TO BITE- This is perfect political positioning by President Trump. He has the optics and he is harming the democratics brand in this political theater. I may not like many of his policies, but there is no denying that Trump is outmaneuvering his opponents on this one!

conscript
conscript

If Trump can't get a wall, what do you think will happen when trying to eliminate incentives? Get serious! I love Ron Paul, but straightforwardness does not work in this county. No will; no country.

frozeninthenorth
frozeninthenorth

First Trump problem, if it was a "National Emergency" why did he wait two years, to finally decide it was an emergency? Could it be that his friends in Congress think its a waste of money? Why is it a national emergency when the dems take over the house? I'm sure that if Trump had asked Paul Ryan nicely...NOT!

The sad truth is that Trump did have an opporuntiy early on ($50 billion if memory serves -- in exchange for the Dreamers...that didn't fly with congress)

BillSanDiego
BillSanDiego

That was not Pelosi and Schumer. That was a Pelosi doll and a Schumer doll and a couple of recordings made by computer synthesitation. The voices were monotone and the faces did not show any expression.

TheGreatMiginty
TheGreatMiginty

encourage states rights Sates that have safe cities to host illegal immigration can also give "implied consent as citizens" by giving drivers licenses and free education, healthcare and homes. Those states that do not want to host may discourage and prevent them.

TheGreatMiginty
TheGreatMiginty

LIBACRITES turn face as usual

douglascarey
douglascarey

E verify? The problems isn't with Mexicans who work for a living. I want them to work. The problem is those who come over, get on the dole, and/or become gangbangers. You think they are working? Hah! Mish, get a clue.

Zardoz
Zardoz

There will be no wall, and in a few months, no president trump.

JonSellers
JonSellers

E-Verify vs. The Wall: the first sends a message to average Americans that the problem is with corporate America. The second sends a message that the problem is with Democrats and Mexicans. The MSM and Republicans know where their bread is buttered.

Flyoverstate
Flyoverstate

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.

Carl_R
Carl_R

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.

Nathan8C
Nathan8C

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.