Tentative Border Deal Reached in Congress & GOP Totally Betrayed Us
Late on Tuesday night, it came out that the bipartisan group tasked with coming up with a solution to avert another government shutdown over the border impasse came up with a tentative deal.
And, if you think it’s something that you’re going to like, you clearly don’t know just how fond the GOP establishment is of betraying the voters.
“After hours of deliberations, Republican and Democratic appropriators said Monday night they reached ‘an agreement in principle’ on legislation to fund the government past the Friday deadline and avert another shutdown,” CBS News reported Monday night.
“The proposal, which would fund all seven remaining appropriations bills, includes $1.375 billion in funding for physical barriers — in the form of 55 miles of bollard fencing — and a reduction in overall Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention beds from the current 49,057 level to 40,520, according to a congressional aide.
However, that number isn’t really a win for the GOP, as Rep. Jim Jordan — a founder of the House Freedom Caucus — noted:
While the President was giving a great speech in El Paso, Congress was putting together a bad deal on immigration.#DoWhatWeSaid
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) February 12, 2019
There wasn’t any shortage of tweets under the #dowhatwesaid hashtag, either.
“55 miles of new fencing, with certain restrictions on location…” 🤦♂️ Doesn’t sound like #BuildTheWall to me. @realDonaldTrump should just use authority under 10 USC 284 to #BuildTheWall #dowhatwesaid https://t.co/F739feXtOF
— Rob Henneke (@robhenneke) February 12, 2019
@JohnCornyn and @SenTedCruz We are hearing rumors of a compromise of 1.3 billion for border security. As you listen to Pres Trump and the crowds in El Paso tonight, please hold firm back in DC and get the necessary border funding. #DoWhatWeSaid #BorderSecurity #TrumpElPaso
— deb4liberty (@deb4liberty) February 12, 2019
The reason why is simple. For a modicum of border fencing, the Democrats ended up with pretty much everything they wanted.
“The deal includes $1.375 billion for 55 miles of fences along the border, compared with $5.7 billion Trump had sought for more than 200 miles of walls,” The Washington Post reported.
“The deal omits a strict new cap Democrats had sought on immigrants detained within the United States — as opposed to at the border. At the same time, it limits overall levels of detention beds maintained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, although GOP aides said ICE would have enough money and flexibility to maintain its current detention levels and add more when needed.”
In other words, a little bit of money for a lot of concessions.
“This does not represent a fraction of what the president has promised the American people,” Rep. Mark Meadows, part of Freedom Caucus leadership, said. “I don’t speak for the president but I can’t imagine he will be applauding something so lacking.”
And Democrat Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, the leader of the bipartisan group tasked with finding a solution to the impasse, agreed — although she thought it was a good thing. She said conservative criticism “probably confirms for me that it’s a good deal.”
For Democrats, it is. For Republicans, there are just three words: Primary them all.
All Republicans had to do was to not sell out their supporters. No, nobody expected the moon, and everyone realized that concessions would have to be made. However, some concessions had to be made by the other side — and not just these ridiculously small ones.
Thankfully, this plan would have to be signed off on by the president, and he doesn’t seem to be particularly enamored with the plan.
“I can’t say I’m happy. I can’t say I’m thrilled,” the president told reporters Tuesday morning during a cabinet meeting, according to The Hill.
That speaks for all of us. It’s time to go back to the table and come up with a workable plan before time runs out and another shutdown begins.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
