Pelosi And Schumer Say No To Our Security, Then Turn Around And Pledge $5 Billion To Mexico

[OldLady]

If folks don't want to leave home, we won't need a wall. At least we won't have thousands waiting in line for asylum. We should have done this years ago; it will be money well spent if it is used reasonably down there. Mexico needs money to shore up their security on their southern border and because that helps us as well, it is also money well spent.

This is a bullshit argument made by dishonest people. We have been sending those countries money for decades , money specifically meant to improve those countries so that their citizens won't want to leave their own countries.

It's the very definition of insanity to say "hey let's just keep doing what hasnt worked for decades"

Between 2015-2018, four years by my count, the US gave Central America 2.6B. This year we will give them 5.8B.
My question still stands.
U.S. Strategy for Central America

Yep, more of the usual "let's just throw MORE money at the problem"

A) it wont work
B) we don't owe those people shit
C) a wall would be a more cost effective method of keeping illegal immigrants from getting into this country.

It isn't just border jumpers, though. The deluge right now, for the past year or two, of people seeking asylum has our system tied in knots. THAT is the biggest problem right now. If it weren't overloaded, we wouldn't have to send them into our country to wait for a hearing and we wouldn't be responsible for safely homing their children in the interim if they are detained instead of released.
That is costing us a lot of money, don't you agree?
So stopping the flow at the spigot would make sense. I have nothing against a physical wall where it is shown to be needed. Trump said during the campaign that he would build it a lot cheaper than people thought. What is all this 5B demand coming from? He sure wasn't running on us spending 5B on a Wall. I'm sure of it.

Again you made the stupid and or dishonest argument.

Our system is overloaded for one reason and one reason only. We stupidly run people who sneak into this country through the same process as those who come in illegally. Trump tried to stop this and a Judge decided he has more power than a President.

IF people were told "you can not get a hearing unless you come in legally, meaning if you come in illegally you are simply removed from the country, then the system would not be overloaded.

That is a fact.

In what way is my argument dishonest?

 

[mudwhistle]

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer don't give a damned about security for Americans. At the same time they said that they will not give Trump $5 billion to build the wall, they pledged to give $4.8 billion in aide to Mexico and another $5.8 billion to Central America.

WTF????

US pledges $10.6B aid for Central America, southern Mexico

If folks don't want to leave home, we won't need a wall. At least we won't have thousands waiting in line for asylum. We should have done this years ago; it will be money well spent if it is used reasonably down there. Mexico needs money to shore up their security on their southern border and because that helps us as well, it is also money well spent.

The point is they can't find the money to build a wall to protect us against drug traffickers, but they found the money to give to Mexican and Central America despots who have no intention of using it to improve their countries.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was Trump’s State Department that gave them the money, with his blessing. Congress had nothing to do with it. The dotard is keeping his famous campaign pledge, “we’re NOT going to build a wall, and I’m going to give Mexico $5 billion! MAGA!”

I'm sure that everyone in the State Department are Trump's people and not Obama holdovers.
But the State Department doesn't control the nation's money. Congress does.

"Instead of funding the wall, Congress will continue sending billions of dollars to countries all over the world, WHILE WE GET NOTHING IN RETURN, and spending 100s of billions on illegal immigration. Somehow it is immoral & wrong to fund a wall & put our own citizens first." Angelo Ray Gomez on Twitter

Who controls congress? OOPS! Retards

Sorry, but unless you have a super-majority nobody controls congress completely.
Ever hear of filibusters?
No?
The only thing a simple majority does is give control of committees to the majority.
It doesn't give them total control. You need 60 votes for that.
You know.......checks and balances.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is a bullshit argument made by dishonest people. We have been sending those countries money for decades , money specifically meant to improve those countries so that their citizens won't want to leave their own countries.

It's the very definition of insanity to say "hey let's just keep doing what hasnt worked for decades"

Between 2015-2018, four years by my count, the US gave Central America 2.6B. This year we will give them 5.8B.
My question still stands.
U.S. Strategy for Central America

Yep, more of the usual "let's just throw MORE money at the problem"

A) it wont work
B) we don't owe those people shit
C) a wall would be a more cost effective method of keeping illegal immigrants from getting into this country.

It isn't just border jumpers, though. The deluge right now, for the past year or two, of people seeking asylum has our system tied in knots. THAT is the biggest problem right now. If it weren't overloaded, we wouldn't have to send them into our country to wait for a hearing and we wouldn't be responsible for safely homing their children in the interim if they are detained instead of released.
That is costing us a lot of money, don't you agree?
So stopping the flow at the spigot would make sense. I have nothing against a physical wall where it is shown to be needed. Trump said during the campaign that he would build it a lot cheaper than people thought. What is all this 5B demand coming from? He sure wasn't running on us spending 5B on a Wall. I'm sure of it.

Again you made the stupid and or dishonest argument.

Our system is overloaded for one reason and one reason only. We stupidly run people who sneak into this country through the same process as those who come in illegally. Trump tried to stop this and a Judge decided he has more power than a President.

IF people were told "you can not get a hearing unless you come in legally, meaning if you come in illegally you are simply removed from the country, then the system would not be overloaded.

That is a fact.

In what way is my argument dishonest?

Who is working to give all of these people asylum?
Who opened up sanctuary cities all over the country where they give illegals a place to live, pay them benefits, and give them free health care while the homeless fills their streets?

Democrats.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer don't give a damned about security for Americans. At the same time they said that they will not give Trump $5 billion to build the wall, they pledged to give $4.8 billion in aide to Mexico and another $5.8 billion to Central America.

WTF????

US pledges $10.6B aid for Central America, southern Mexico

well then in that case its time for trump to arrest their asses.he has the power to do something about it.

 

[OldLady]

Between 2015-2018, four years by my count, the US gave Central America 2.6B. This year we will give them 5.8B.
My question still stands.
U.S. Strategy for Central America

Yep, more of the usual "let's just throw MORE money at the problem"

A) it wont work
B) we don't owe those people shit
C) a wall would be a more cost effective method of keeping illegal immigrants from getting into this country.

It isn't just border jumpers, though. The deluge right now, for the past year or two, of people seeking asylum has our system tied in knots. THAT is the biggest problem right now. If it weren't overloaded, we wouldn't have to send them into our country to wait for a hearing and we wouldn't be responsible for safely homing their children in the interim if they are detained instead of released.
That is costing us a lot of money, don't you agree?
So stopping the flow at the spigot would make sense. I have nothing against a physical wall where it is shown to be needed. Trump said during the campaign that he would build it a lot cheaper than people thought. What is all this 5B demand coming from? He sure wasn't running on us spending 5B on a Wall. I'm sure of it.

Again you made the stupid and or dishonest argument.

Our system is overloaded for one reason and one reason only. We stupidly run people who sneak into this country through the same process as those who come in illegally. Trump tried to stop this and a Judge decided he has more power than a President.

IF people were told "you can not get a hearing unless you come in legally, meaning if you come in illegally you are simply removed from the country, then the system would not be overloaded.

That is a fact.

In what way is my argument dishonest?

Who is working to give all of these people asylum?
Who opened up sanctuary cities all over the country where they give illegals a place to live, pay them benefits, and give them free health care while the homeless fills their streets?

Democrats.

My argument has nothing to do with political parties. Nothing I said is a lie.

 

[DandyDonovan]

This is a bullshit argument made by dishonest people. We have been sending those countries money for decades , money specifically meant to improve those countries so that their citizens won't want to leave their own countries.

It's the very definition of insanity to say "hey let's just keep doing what hasnt worked for decades"

Between 2015-2018, four years by my count, the US gave Central America 2.6B. This year we will give them 5.8B.
My question still stands.
U.S. Strategy for Central America

Yep, more of the usual "let's just throw MORE money at the problem"

A) it wont work
B) we don't owe those people shit
C) a wall would be a more cost effective method of keeping illegal immigrants from getting into this country.

It isn't just border jumpers, though. The deluge right now, for the past year or two, of people seeking asylum has our system tied in knots. THAT is the biggest problem right now. If it weren't overloaded, we wouldn't have to send them into our country to wait for a hearing and we wouldn't be responsible for safely homing their children in the interim if they are detained instead of released.
That is costing us a lot of money, don't you agree?
So stopping the flow at the spigot would make sense. I have nothing against a physical wall where it is shown to be needed. Trump said during the campaign that he would build it a lot cheaper than people thought. What is all this 5B demand coming from? He sure wasn't running on us spending 5B on a Wall. I'm sure of it.

Again you made the stupid and or dishonest argument.

Our system is overloaded for one reason and one reason only. We stupidly run people who sneak into this country through the same process as those who come in illegally. Trump tried to stop this and a Judge decided he has more power than a President.

IF people were told "you can not get a hearing unless you come in legally, meaning if you come in illegally you are simply removed from the country, then the system would not be overloaded.

That is a fact.

I'm perfectly alright with that. It needs to be changed by law, though. Write to your Congress critters.

Actually, that is false. This is what I'm talking about. You have bought into the propoganda. There is ZERO law that states that people who have sneaked into the country illegally are entitled to a hearing. Instead a President decided that they would be given that , and it has just been that way for so long now that when Trump came along and questioned it everyone threw a shit fit and a judge incorrectly ordered that he doesn't have the authority to change that. Well, that's funny a past President changed that, and no laws have changed so a present President can likewise change it.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Imagine how that $10B could benefit the homeless in THIS country, or God forbid we invested it improving our schools. Or anything else that actually helps Americans.

I absolutely can not believe how many dopes are thrilled that Congress continually does things that do not benefit Americans.

 

[OldLady]

Between 2015-2018, four years by my count, the US gave Central America 2.6B. This year we will give them 5.8B.
My question still stands.
U.S. Strategy for Central America

Yep, more of the usual "let's just throw MORE money at the problem"

A) it wont work
B) we don't owe those people shit
C) a wall would be a more cost effective method of keeping illegal immigrants from getting into this country.

It isn't just border jumpers, though. The deluge right now, for the past year or two, of people seeking asylum has our system tied in knots. THAT is the biggest problem right now. If it weren't overloaded, we wouldn't have to send them into our country to wait for a hearing and we wouldn't be responsible for safely homing their children in the interim if they are detained instead of released.
That is costing us a lot of money, don't you agree?
So stopping the flow at the spigot would make sense. I have nothing against a physical wall where it is shown to be needed. Trump said during the campaign that he would build it a lot cheaper than people thought. What is all this 5B demand coming from? He sure wasn't running on us spending 5B on a Wall. I'm sure of it.

Again you made the stupid and or dishonest argument.

Our system is overloaded for one reason and one reason only. We stupidly run people who sneak into this country through the same process as those who come in illegally. Trump tried to stop this and a Judge decided he has more power than a President.

IF people were told "you can not get a hearing unless you come in legally, meaning if you come in illegally you are simply removed from the country, then the system would not be overloaded.

That is a fact.

I'm perfectly alright with that. It needs to be changed by law, though. Write to your Congress critters.

Actually, that is false. This is what I'm talking about. You have bought into the propoganda. There is ZERO law that states that people who have sneaked into the country illegally are entitled to a hearing. Instead a President decided that they would be given that , and it has just been that way for so long now that when Trump came along and questioned it everyone threw a shit fit and a judge incorrectly ordered that he doesn't have the authority to change that. Well, that's funny a past President changed that, and no laws have changed so a present President can likewise change it.

I think this might be the "prior President's decision" you might be referring to--
8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum
If you've got something to back up your claim about this all being a Presidential decision, please share.
8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

 

[DandyDonovan]

Yep, more of the usual "let's just throw MORE money at the problem"

A) it wont work
B) we don't owe those people shit
C) a wall would be a more cost effective method of keeping illegal immigrants from getting into this country.

It isn't just border jumpers, though. The deluge right now, for the past year or two, of people seeking asylum has our system tied in knots. THAT is the biggest problem right now. If it weren't overloaded, we wouldn't have to send them into our country to wait for a hearing and we wouldn't be responsible for safely homing their children in the interim if they are detained instead of released.
That is costing us a lot of money, don't you agree?
So stopping the flow at the spigot would make sense. I have nothing against a physical wall where it is shown to be needed. Trump said during the campaign that he would build it a lot cheaper than people thought. What is all this 5B demand coming from? He sure wasn't running on us spending 5B on a Wall. I'm sure of it.

Again you made the stupid and or dishonest argument.

Our system is overloaded for one reason and one reason only. We stupidly run people who sneak into this country through the same process as those who come in illegally. Trump tried to stop this and a Judge decided he has more power than a President.

IF people were told "you can not get a hearing unless you come in legally, meaning if you come in illegally you are simply removed from the country, then the system would not be overloaded.

That is a fact.

I'm perfectly alright with that. It needs to be changed by law, though. Write to your Congress critters.

Actually, that is false. This is what I'm talking about. You have bought into the propoganda. There is ZERO law that states that people who have sneaked into the country illegally are entitled to a hearing. Instead a President decided that they would be given that , and it has just been that way for so long now that when Trump came along and questioned it everyone threw a shit fit and a judge incorrectly ordered that he doesn't have the authority to change that. Well, that's funny a past President changed that, and no laws have changed so a present President can likewise change it.

I think this might be the "prior President's decision" you might be referring to--
8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum
If you've got something to back up your claim about this all being a Presidential decision, please share.
8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

Reread that Code Old Lady, it says MAY apply. It doesn't say they are entitled to apply or that their application must be heard. They MAY apply.

A small thing of course, but in legal terms small differences in verbiage matter. I believe it was Bill Clinton who interpreted that as all who applied were to be granted a hearing. That doesn't mean the law says they MUST be granted a hearing.

Though I agree, it would be better if Congress just changed the US Code.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Maybe if those countries develop more ......not as many people will want to leave

If foreign aid accomplished that Africa would be a mecca of innovation and decadence that everyone would be flocking to.

 

[BlackFlag]

It was Trump’s State Department that gave them the money, with his blessing. Congress had nothing to do with it. The dotard is keeping his famous campaign pledge, “we’re NOT going to build a wall, and I’m going to give Mexico $5 billion! MAGA!”

I'm sure that everyone in the State Department are Trump's people and not Obama holdovers.
But the State Department doesn't control the nation's money. Congress does.

"Instead of funding the wall, Congress will continue sending billions of dollars to countries all over the world, WHILE WE GET NOTHING IN RETURN, and spending 100s of billions on illegal immigration. Somehow it is immoral & wrong to fund a wall & put our own citizens first." Angelo Ray Gomez on Twitter

Who controls congress? OOPS! Retards

Sorry, but unless you have a super-majority nobody controls congress completely.
Ever hear of filibusters?
No?
The only thing a simple majority does is give control of committees to the majority.
It doesn't give them total control. You need 60 votes for that.
You know.......checks and balances.

GOP could have voted away the filibuster any time they wanted. They didn’t. Instead, no wall and Trump is gifting Mexico $5 billion.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like somebody's gonna end up paying for it anyway.

Click here to support We The People Will Fund The Wall organized by Brian Kolfage

I like that

Let Conservatives fund the wall of hate

Leave the rest of us alone

Sounds good, now why don't liberals self fund abortions and leave the rest of us alone?

Liberals are such dumb shits.

Hate to inform you

But abortions have been self funded for decades

Conservatives are such dumb shits. They keep posting the same innacurate BS

Oh yes, the usual BS of "Hey Planned Parenthood keeps abortions separate from their other services so that $500M a year in taxpayer money doesn't fund abortions" The only problem is , no one can show that PP is actually providing any services other than abortions.

Liberals are so dishonest.

Let’s put it this way

If Planned Parenthood used any taxpayer money to support abortions, Republicans would use it as an excuse to shut them down in a minute

 

[candycorn]

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer don't give a damned about security for Americans. At the same time they said that they will not give Trump $5 billion to build the wall, they pledged to give $4.8 billion in aide to Mexico and another $5.8 billion to Central America.

WTF????

US pledges $10.6B aid for Central America, southern Mexico

From your source...

The plan was announced in a joint U.S.-Mexican statement released by the State Department and read aloud by Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard in the Mexican capital.

The State Department is the purview of the President; not Congress. As always, your post is a lie.

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe if those countries develop more ......not as many people will want to leave

If foreign aid accomplished that Africa would be a mecca of innovation and decadence that everyone would be flocking to.

Africa has its own problem of its abundant resources being monopolized by capitalists, foreign powers and internal corruption

 

[candycorn]

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer don't give a damned about security for Americans. At the same time they said that they will not give Trump $5 billion to build the wall, they pledged to give $4.8 billion in aide to Mexico and another $5.8 billion to Central America.

WTF????

US pledges $10.6B aid for Central America, southern Mexico

From your source...

The plan was announced in a joint U.S.-Mexican statement released by the State Department and read aloud by Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard in the Mexican capital.

The State Department is the purview of the President; not Congress. As always, your post is a lie.

PS: The Democrats haven’t taken control of the House yet or the Senate for that matter; they can pledge nothing to any nation.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Looks like somebody's gonna end up paying for it anyway.

Click here to support We The People Will Fund The Wall organized by Brian Kolfage

I like that

Let Conservatives fund the wall of hate

Leave the rest of us alone

Sounds good, now why don't liberals self fund abortions and leave the rest of us alone?

Liberals are such dumb shits.

Hate to inform you

But abortions have been self funded for decades

Conservatives are such dumb shits. They keep posting the same innacurate BS

Oh yes, the usual BS of "Hey Planned Parenthood keeps abortions separate from their other services so that $500M a year in taxpayer money doesn't fund abortions" The only problem is , no one can show that PP is actually providing any services other than abortions.

Liberals are so dishonest.

Let’s put it this way

If Planned Parenthood used any taxpayer money to support abortions, Republicans would use it as an excuse to shut them down in a minute

No they wouldn't , because Republicans in Congress are almost as dishonest as their Democratic counterparts. Not quite, but almost.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Maybe if those countries develop more ......not as many people will want to leave

If foreign aid accomplished that Africa would be a mecca of innovation and decadence that everyone would be flocking to.

Africa has its own problem of its abundant resources being monopolized by capitalists, foreign powers and internal corruption

You could give Honduras $50B US and it would make no difference to the state of that country. NONE

 

[mudwhistle]

Yep, more of the usual "let's just throw MORE money at the problem"

A) it wont work
B) we don't owe those people shit
C) a wall would be a more cost effective method of keeping illegal immigrants from getting into this country.

It isn't just border jumpers, though. The deluge right now, for the past year or two, of people seeking asylum has our system tied in knots. THAT is the biggest problem right now. If it weren't overloaded, we wouldn't have to send them into our country to wait for a hearing and we wouldn't be responsible for safely homing their children in the interim if they are detained instead of released.
That is costing us a lot of money, don't you agree?
So stopping the flow at the spigot would make sense. I have nothing against a physical wall where it is shown to be needed. Trump said during the campaign that he would build it a lot cheaper than people thought. What is all this 5B demand coming from? He sure wasn't running on us spending 5B on a Wall. I'm sure of it.

Again you made the stupid and or dishonest argument.

Our system is overloaded for one reason and one reason only. We stupidly run people who sneak into this country through the same process as those who come in illegally. Trump tried to stop this and a Judge decided he has more power than a President.

IF people were told "you can not get a hearing unless you come in legally, meaning if you come in illegally you are simply removed from the country, then the system would not be overloaded.

That is a fact.

In what way is my argument dishonest?

Who is working to give all of these people asylum?
Who opened up sanctuary cities all over the country where they give illegals a place to live, pay them benefits, and give them free health care while the homeless fills their streets?

Democrats.

My argument has nothing to do with political parties. Nothing I said is a lie.

None of this would be happening if it weren't for communists in the Democrat party.
Democrats are intentionally overloading the system so they can crash the economy.
It worked in Venezuela and they're trying to do it in France.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was Trump’s State Department that gave them the money, with his blessing. Congress had nothing to do with it. The dotard is keeping his famous campaign pledge, “we’re NOT going to build a wall, and I’m going to give Mexico $5 billion! MAGA!”

I'm sure that everyone in the State Department are Trump's people and not Obama holdovers.
But the State Department doesn't control the nation's money. Congress does.

"Instead of funding the wall, Congress will continue sending billions of dollars to countries all over the world, WHILE WE GET NOTHING IN RETURN, and spending 100s of billions on illegal immigration. Somehow it is immoral & wrong to fund a wall & put our own citizens first." Angelo Ray Gomez on Twitter

Who controls congress? OOPS! Retards

Sorry, but unless you have a super-majority nobody controls congress completely.
Ever hear of filibusters?
No?
The only thing a simple majority does is give control of committees to the majority.
It doesn't give them total control. You need 60 votes for that.
You know.......checks and balances.

GOP could have voted away the filibuster any time they wanted. They didn’t. Instead, no wall and Trump is gifting Mexico $5 billion.

Here's the problem, dumbass. If you vote away the filibuster, guess what happens when you lose the majority???
You totally lose any checks on a corrupt Democrat Party filled with communists ready to take away the 2nd Amendment in 24 hours.