Don’t forget they also aren’t being forced to work. They technically still have the right to quit.
Congress is the one who hasn’t sent a bill for the President to sign. They could pass a bill right this minute, wait for Trump’s veto, and then override the veto.
That’s not going to happen. Nor is there a way to bypass the lack of a law that authorizes that spending. Congress doesn’t spend any of the money in the first place, either, so they can’t move money around - unless, of course, they pass a law that the President signs. The Executive Branch spends money, but only under the direction of the laws Congress passes. So this is wholly and entirely upon Trump.
This is not as true as one might think. Following previous shutdowns, congress passed a bill paying workers for their time. But there’s no guarantee this will happen during the current or future shutdowns.
That IS, in fact, the law in the US.
However, if the government refuses to follow the law what are you gonna do?
In 1981, Reagan fired 11,300 air traffic controllers who went on strike.
Bolding mine. I find it laughable that liberals are screeching about Federal spending being wasteful.
“In Fiscal Year 2019, the federal budget will be $4.407 trillion. The U.S. government estimates it will receive $3.422 trillion in revenue. That creates a $985 billion deficit for October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019.”
26 Billion for the wall is small-potatoes. Why are you HONESTLY opposed?
1981 PATCO/Air Traffic Controllers strike under Reagan. He fired 11,000 people. The number of flights per day was halved for some months and it took a decade to fully staff the air traffic control system again.
While that has been the case in prior shutdowns there is no guarantee that that will happen. Congress has to authorize the back pay every time.
It’s probably 70 billion but sure, small potatoes. The main thing is the way this negotiation is done, in public, neither side can afford to compromise.
If Trump budges, he looks like he caves and in every future negotiation with him, the democrats won’t believe his threat to shut down the government until the election if necessary.
If the democrats budge, they look like they are giving in to Trump.
Another big flaw is stating in the open what the numbers are. Now it’s clear who won when the government reopens. He’s a shit negotiator for this deal.
The Uni-Party in Washington wants open borders. Citizens do not.
" Most voters (52%) think illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget, and 45% believe illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America.
Voters agree the migrant caravans approaching the U.S. southern border through Mexico are a danger to the country and should be stopped at least temporarily.
Fifty percent (50%) think the U.S. military should be used along the border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. "
Just sayin’
People object far more to spending for something they disapprove of than something they approve of.
They’d approve of $10 trillion being spent on healthcare but not $10 on Zyklon B for Jews (not comparing border wall to Holocaust but you get my point)
Which is, of course, completely off topic. People may want border security - though Rassmussen’s record on polling is terrible - but they don’t want a wall. A Marist poll- a much better outfit - showed the support for the wall to be at 28% as an immediate priority while 50% think it shouldn’t be a priority at all.
Even beyond the wall itself, it won’t actually answer the issue about illegal immigration. We’ve pointed this out before but the vast majority of illegal immigrants come through legal points of entry and overstay visas. The only way to control that is to refuse all entry visas of any kind. The moment you let foreign nationals into the USA, you take the risk that they’ll overstay their visas. The wall accomplishes nothing concerning that.
Honestly, learn your data sources, will you? Rassmussen’s lean is really strong. They only earn a C+ from data aggregators. Either their methodology or their counting is off by a lot on their outcomes.
I appreciate your input however, the main objection I hear repeatedly is the extravagant cost. LOL Perhaps you would explain why baby-steps should NOT be made Jonathan?
Out of a Federal Budget approaching 5 Trillion Dollars; why are some so opposed to 26 Billion spent on ‘Infrastructure’ ?
As I said earlier, it would be wasted money. We could easily spend it on something that would benefit people or actually promote border security.
Is you position honestly, “It won’t work, but the hell with it? Let’s spend the money anyway.”
Only one more Data point to share. Legal vs. Illegal Immigration; Visa over-stay NOT involved.
Officer Singh is unavailable for comment.
My position is; that is how Sausage is made in our Capitol. 26 Billion is a rounding error of our Federal Budget. Why would both Parties oppose a Jobs Bill unless they were paid to do so by those who enjoy the fruits of cheap labor?
Again, an irrelevant sidebar argument. Do bad things happen? Sure. But if your standard of measurement is ‘nothing bad must happen ever’ then all the money on earth won’t make that happen.
In addition, the very smart money is that Perez Arriaga arrived in the US through either overstaying a visa OR at a legitimate point of entry. The story does not indicate that he arrived through the desert or via coyote.
Would you rather spend the money stopping crime the 10% who arrive over the desert commit or stop crime the 90% who arrive through points-of-entry or overstaying visas commit? Where would the money be most efficiently spent?
Ok, I will concede I cannot prove a criminal shielded by “Sanctuary” laws in California was a visa-overstayer vs. border crosser illegally. I will tell you, here in Arizona, we have to deal with the gangs and criminals crossing the border daily and, $26 Billion to reduce ‘Anchor Babies’ is a drop in the Bucket. Our Public Schools suffer from a huge amount of illegal children attending for the ‘Free Breakfast’ and ‘Free Lunch’ provided by the Feds. If you won’t feed your darned kids, get back home. The REAL reason Kids have to eat at School? Illegal Parents use the Food Stamp EBT for their little anchor to feed themselves. My user name shows where I live and I see it regularly. This is my last response to this thread because I do not support open borders so, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Horseshit. The entire school ‘free lunch’ program (which is mainly used by US citizens) is not even half a billion dollars for the entire state. Or, to put it another way, care to give a citation demonstrating exactly what the supposed costs of illegal ‘anchor babies’ actually is so we can do a cost to benefits analysis? Looks to me as if the programs you suggest don’t cost the state even $1 billion a year, total…and the majority of those receiving them are US citizens. But even assuming that they are all illegals (:dubious:), it would be an ROI of 26 years for Arizona alone…and this assumes the freaking wall would actually accomplish a 100% reduction in programs that are actually used mainly by US citizens. Not a good cost to benefit there I’m thinking. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.