Here Comes the Wall!

From FoxNews:

President Trump signed executive orders Wednesday authorizing the construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall and targeting sanctuary cities, following through on campaign promises that energized his base – and outraged his critics – during the 2016 campaign.

The orders cover a range of immigration enforcement measures. The marquee item is a directive to pursue a southern border wall.

“We’ve been talking about this from the beginning,” Trump said, as he signed the border measure during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security.

While it’s not yet clear exactly how such a wall might be funded or how much it would cost, Trump reiterated his vow that Mexico “absolutely” will pay for the project eventually, something the Mexican government has denied.

“Ultimately it will come out of what’s happening with Mexico,” Trump told ABC News in a separate interview, adding construction could begin in a matter of months.

Mexico’s contribution aside, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said existing Homeland Security funding could be used for now to get started, and congressional appropriations eventually would be needed.

The same executive order also included provisions to provide DHS with more resources to combat illegal immigration, end what the Trump team calls “catch-and-release” policies, and prioritize the deportation of illegal immigrants who violate other laws.

Another order is aimed at helping federal immigration agents crack down on illegal immigration, by restoring the so-called Secure Communities program, directing the State Department to use its leverage to ensure illegal immigrant criminals are taken back by their country of origin – and moving to strip federal grant money to sanctuary states and cities that “harbor” illegal immigrants.

The latter move is sure to trigger a backlash from the hundreds of jurisdictions that have such policies in place. But critics have blasted those policies in the wake of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants who were effectively protected from deportation by local jurisdictions.

The immigration measures fall in the middle of a very busy first week for President Trump. He started with a measure withdrawing the U.S. from a controversial trade pact and others aimed at reviving massive pipeline projects that were stalled under the Obama administration.

Democrats Opposed To Rule Of Law?
New White House Press Secretary Tries To Spin His B.S.
  • Retired military

    From what I have heard a few weeks back several million dollars were already allocated back when Obama was president and never went towards the wall. Where that money is or how accurate my statement is I don’t know. Normally the govt goes year to year on projects like that and some big projects are multiyear contracts but have no clue the “color of the money” for this one

    I also saw something about cutting aid to countries who refuse to take their citizens back who are here illegally. May we live in interesting times.

    • Brett Buck

      Had to accumulate the $1.7B in ransom money, er. deferred payments, we sent to Iran from somewhere.

  • Retired military

    Don’t mean to go off topic but I also saw that Trump is preparing to dramatically reduce US funding of UN.
    I say the sooner the better.

  • Vagabond661

    Fund it with the savings of shipping illegals back.

  • yetanotherjohn

    The more I see, the more I am glad I voted for Trump.

  • pennywit

    I don’t consider a literal wall a very good use of taxpayer money, but, hey, people elected this president to build a wall, so he’s going to build it, by gum.

    I am more concerned that efforts to extract the funds from Mexico will prove fruitless or else trigger retaliatory economic action from Mexico.

    • Jwb10001

      What sort of retaliatory economic action might Mexico inflict on the US? I can’t thing of any but you probably can.

      • LiberalNightmare

        Any economic sanctions that Mexico can inflict on the US, will be negated by the sudden drop in the amount of welfare funds spent to support illegal aliens.

      • pennywit

        Retaliatory tariffs, maybe restrictions on the American factories in Mexico. And probably a case taken to the WTO.

        • Retired military

          WOW. Mexico will put restrictions on American factories in Mexico which will result in loss of Mexican jobs and increase in jobs in the US. And what is the WTO going to do since Trump is planning on defunding a lot of the UN? Retalitory tariffs will simply make it easier to move factories back to the US.

          Maybe Mexico can limit the number of Trump pinantas exported to the US to really get the dems to scream about the lack of trade with Mexico.

        • Brett Buck

          Those are mostly win-wins. If Mexico tossed out US factories (or makes them unprofitable), they come back.

          I am amused at the notion of dragging us before the WTO. I sure hope someone videotapes Trumps reaction to that one.

          • Retired military

            WTO: America is bad
            Trump: And BTW here is the EO to cut off all US funding for the WTO
            WTO: WHAT??? THAT’s UNFAIR, THAT’S RACIST. Oh wait. We aren’t getting paid anymore. Screw this we don’t work for free.

          • Brett Buck

            I expect the UN will work in a similar fashion, when the time comes. A bunch of loudmouth nobodies will gas on interminably about how big a threat this is to peace, etc. They will try to wait it out, hoping for President Fake Indian to bail them out,.

            Then, when no one is sending UN peacekeepers to, say, Africa, and there’s no more way to use UN immunity agreements to,say, rape 12-year-old without consequences, they will wander off.

          • pennywit

            There’s also a possibility that factories’ inexpensive output could be redirected to other consumer nations. The WTO step starts to get a little dicey. The problem there is that if the United States doesn’t accede to the WTO in a dispute with Mexico, then other nations might not accede to WTO rulings in cases where the United States wins a ruling.

            I think efforts to “make Mexico pay for it” could hurt us in the long term.

          • Licensing and patents, not to mention ownership of factory machinery.

          • Brett Buck

            I think efforts to “make Mexico pay for it” could hurt us in the long term.

            Now that I know how they are planning to go about it, I have some concerns as well. I am all for sticking it to the Mexicans, but Mexicans aren’t going to have to pay for it.

        • Jwb10001

          So nothing.

    • jim_m

      Just tax remittances to Mexico. Problem solved.Mexico isn’t going to reciprocate, because what are they going to do? Tax companies doing business in Mexico? Cross border industry will evaporate.

    • Retired military

      Mexico doesnt have a dick big enough to get into a pissing contest with us. They would lose and poorly. It is to their distinct advantage to stay on our good side. If Trump really clamps down on the drug trade as I hope he will then the corrupt Mexican beaurocrats will be crying and screaming to do anything to get trade going back in the US so they can smuggle more drugs in.

      • Steven Modica

        The US doesn’t need Mexico, Mexico needs the US

  • Hank_M

    Gotta admit, so far I’m thrilled with everything Trump has done, from his cabinet picks to the various EO’s during his first week.

    Having voted Republican for many years now, I’m simply not used to seeing someone follow through on their campaign promises, continue to fight back against the media, and not bend over trying to please the dimmicrats.

    As for the wall? Hell yes!

  • pennywit

    Hmph. I would have preferred a metaphorical wall. Perhaps hire more Border Patrol agents, add more sensors, deploy UAVs and similar technology — stuff that would allow CBP to do its job more effectively. A literal wall just seems like it would use a lot of money that could be spent in better ways. And I don’t think that any scheme to get Mexico to pay for such a wall, metaphorical or literal, is going to work out.

    • Scalia

      Disagree with that. Such a “metaphorical wall” could easily be “dismantled” by the next Democratic (or Republican) administration. The GOPe and their Democratic cohorts could always grandstand about “securing our borders” without ever having to do anything about it. It’s a lot harder to get around a real wall.

      • pennywit

        Hm. How about if we build a literal wall … but we finance it by putting a Trump Hotel and Casino on top of it?