The funds for 20 miles of border wall were approved in 2019 before Biden took office. He urged Congress to reassign these funds for more intelligent and efficient enforcement purposes, but Republicans did not comply. Now, Biden has to fulfill his lawful obligations.
He waived environmental protections with executive powers to expedite the process. He isnt just passively letting this happen because his hands are tied.
Would those environmental protections have allowed the wall to simply not be built, or would they have just delayed it, costing even more money for environmental reviews, changed plans, etc., when a government shutdown is imminent?
That’s a real question, to be clear, and not one the article answered one way or the other.
Even if it were the case, as they said the budget is already allocated. Why not make them waste as much of it as possible paying for stuff that isn’t building the wall that everyone knows is useless? Making it look like even more of an expensive boondoggle seems like a better strategy than paving the way through federally protected lands.
And that’s setting aside the costs of maintaining what gets built or what it would cost to remove the wall at some point.
He has to do it at the end of the year to comply with the order.
The end of the year is in 3 months.
Genuinely curious why he couldn't go ahead and fund the wall, allow existing environmental law to block it, take that back to congress and say this project is illegal and now it is up to congress to repurpose funds.
He has to utilize executive fiat to circumvent normal environmental regulation procedures? What exactly do you think would happen if he didn’t?
Yep, let's not forget who controls the purse. You just know this is going to get spun 🙄
And the GOP House 100% would have voted to start an impeachment trial if he didn't follow through on it. They would draw a false equivalence between the extortion scheme against Ukraine that lead to Trump's first impeachment trial, where one aspect of it was Trump unlawfully withholding congressionally mandated funds, and claim that this is the same thing. Actually, they'll say this is worse because they're completely shameless and untethered to reality.
That's an excellent point. If he doesn't comply in good faith, it would 100% be in conservative media that he's sabotaging the borders, misappropriating funds, and haul him off to a real impeachment trial. It'd be the excuse for political theater that they want, and likely exactly why Congress wouldn't reallocate the funds to something else.
They're so salty Trump got impeached (twice) that they're pretty much calling for impeachment for any little thing they don't like. It's actually humiliating and I don't understand how anyone can proudly say they vote for that party. It's like middle school logic.
He should spend it on a cute little picket fence with lots of pretty flowers.
I feel like a more creative person would have built an 10 foot long section of wall (or better yet a really fancy gate) valued at whatever amount of money congress had allocated.
That would be like USPS getting $30million to replace a fleet of delivery trucks and instead buying a handful of monster trucks that can't enter residential areas. No one's gonna look at that and go, "whoops! You got me! We said buy 120 USPS trucks with the approved budget but instead you bought 5 monster trucks and a sweet set of ramps and said you followed the 'spirit of the ask' because they're all trucks. Well, I see no reason to investigate this for misusing funds! As you were!"
This sounds like it could be the premise of an episode of Veep
That does sound reasonable when discussing buying monster trucks.
It needs to pass an audit. The wall is stupid, but building a monument instead of a wall should fail audits and is a type of corruption worthy of impeachment.
Presidents have to choose what they are going to stand for.
Right, and it seems like Biden has chosen to stand for the rule of law and due process.
I hope they stand for the rule of law. Mind you they should tell us when the law is wrong and fight to get that fixed. However they don't get to ignore a bad law. There is often disagreement on what makes a good law, and sometimes you will lose that fight (or at least a battle in the fight).
You immediately answered the one question I had, thanks.
He tried to put it off as long as he could by getting Congress to reappropriate the funds. They refuses. He was ordered to build the wall.
So he's using the funds to ensure the most dangerous parts are blocked to funnel the people into the designated channels so they can be processed humanely and securely.
What's the problem.
The problem is that I can't read so good and it's so easy to let social media influence my opinions.
It's security theater, just like the TSA you see at the airport do nothing. The real protection is hidden both at the airport and at the border.
Ain't nothing hidden at the airport. It's as secure as the bus
In general that's not true.
Reinforced cockpit doors.
Isolation of runways/terminals (yes incursions happen)
Habit tracing, and Id scanning upon entry. Gait analysis and license plate reading.
Air Marshalls (yes not on every flight)
Lots of shit that comes together to do a ton behind the scenes.
On the upside because these things get built by the lowest bidder the wall probably represents a significant transfer of monies to the Mexican-American community, which is no bad thing.
The idea of migrants making bank building a wall to keep migrants out is wonderful.
As someone who lives in a border city, this is exactly what has happened and is still happening. Also, the wall wont work, the Republicans just wont admit it. just yesterday 300 migrants mass crossed through the canal in Tijuana 🫠
He should had the money spent to redesign them as a welcome wall or something to help nesting birds and wild animals thrive. Instead of these shitty useless monstrosities.
He is using the funds to make portable walls instead, which could be reused elsewhere I guess once their "purpose" has been fulfilled on the border. I'm not sure what the law requires of them, but they maybe will just be placed there and immediately moved.
Say what you will about whats legally required but if Biden didn't want to catch criticism from his fellow democratic lawmakers, he shouldn't have made a campaign promise saying he wouldn't build 'another foot' of border wall. Its not like he's unaware how these things work, he kind of brought this on his self.
You can delve into the definition of "another" in that context. It could mean "no more than what is currently built" or it could mean " no more than what's already been determined/legally required will be built".
Though even with that, I will grant that using that wording could be considered deceptive. As much as people like to say "technically correct is the best correct", I would disagree when it comes to politics. It's Aes Sedai lying vs outright lying.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Thursday defended his administration’s decision to waive 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow for construction of roughly 20 miles of additional border wall, saying he had no choice but to use the Trump-era funding for the barrier to stop illegal migration from Mexico.
Still, the waiving of federal laws for the construction — something also done when Republican Donald Trump was president — raised questions, particularly because Biden condemned border wall spending when he was running for the White House.
Administration officials on Thursday announced they’d resume deporting migrants back to Venezuela, as part of their effort to to slow arrivals.
The decision was met with immediate criticism from immigrant advocates and Mexico President Andres Manuel López Obrador, who called it a “setback.”
The Department of Homeland Security posted the announcement of the latest wall action in the Federal Registry with few details about the construction in Starr County, Texas, part of a busy Border Patrol sector seeing “high illegal entry.” According to government data, about 245,000 illegal crossings have been recorded so far this budget year in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
Homeland Security has also worked on roughly 13 miles in the Rio Grande Valley, and another small-scale project to fill “small gaps that remain open from prior construction activities” in the border wall.
The original article contains 809 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
While I do not support wall construction, I actually don't mind that he allowed the project to move forward. It shows respect for the office and for the voters of the previous administration. While he won't get much credit for it, being the only adult in a room is just a pretty tough gig, I personally respect it.
That said, I do not agree with waiving federal regulations to make it happen. It's not like this is some magic fix that is sure to work or something, its not worth cutting through red tape.
Trump signed into law in 2019. Allowing the White House to waive the environmental rules. Do I wish he would have tied up in red tape yes. But this money and the waiver were from the previous Administration. Biden has been in office for three years. Seems to me that makes him look less than enthusiastic about the wall.
Then he could have un-waived them, assuming it was done via executive order. Simply allowing the regulations to protect the things they are supposed to protect, like the environment.
Have you considered the fact that your simple solution likely is based on a simple reality that only exists in your head?
Executive orders actually are that simple. If it was done with one, it can be undone with one.
The funds appropriated for it are not a simple waive away from the magic "executive" order. You aren't allowed to screw with congress approved stuff that easily.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News