Has Trump's administration ever explained why they didn't “build the wall” before the midterms?












28















Title pretty much says it all. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate before the midterms, so why didn't they push through funding for the wall then? The Republicans had two years to do this, and the Democrats would've had a harder time opposing the bill. Why now?



Did Trump, his administration's officials, or any prominent Republican ever explain why haven't they allocated the financing of "the wall" in the Federal Budget 2018?



The only explanation I can think of is that Republicans were very confident they'd win the midterms, but that doesn't seem to match the media coverage I saw.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    Questions about internal motivation are offtopic here, because they can only result in speculation. In fact, we simply don't know why. You could ask instead, if maybe Trump and Republican lawmakers in Congress said something about why they didn't allocate that much money for border security in 2017. Maybe they commented on it then.

    – Trilarion
    13 hours ago











  • Congress passed the funding but there was not enough votes in the senate to pass it

    – Frank Cedeno
    12 hours ago











  • Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017 and FY 2018. "In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a steel bollard wall", "In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction" The proposed funding for additional border barrier construction currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019, which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37903/21216, dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work

    – guest271314
    10 hours ago








  • 2





    @guest271314 The question was edited after it was closed. The original question was asked in a way implying it was searching for the actual, internal motivation of the administration, which is not available to anyone outside the administration. The edit has cleared that up and it is now asking if they have actually stated what their motivation was, so I voted to re-open.

    – Jeff Lambert
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    @guest271314 Sure, their public statements are available, but their internal motivations are known only to them the same as mine to me regardless what I may say in public. This close reason prevents answering with what people really mean or really want because that just devolves into speculation.

    – Jeff Lambert
    10 hours ago


















28















Title pretty much says it all. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate before the midterms, so why didn't they push through funding for the wall then? The Republicans had two years to do this, and the Democrats would've had a harder time opposing the bill. Why now?



Did Trump, his administration's officials, or any prominent Republican ever explain why haven't they allocated the financing of "the wall" in the Federal Budget 2018?



The only explanation I can think of is that Republicans were very confident they'd win the midterms, but that doesn't seem to match the media coverage I saw.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    Questions about internal motivation are offtopic here, because they can only result in speculation. In fact, we simply don't know why. You could ask instead, if maybe Trump and Republican lawmakers in Congress said something about why they didn't allocate that much money for border security in 2017. Maybe they commented on it then.

    – Trilarion
    13 hours ago











  • Congress passed the funding but there was not enough votes in the senate to pass it

    – Frank Cedeno
    12 hours ago











  • Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017 and FY 2018. "In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a steel bollard wall", "In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction" The proposed funding for additional border barrier construction currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019, which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37903/21216, dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work

    – guest271314
    10 hours ago








  • 2





    @guest271314 The question was edited after it was closed. The original question was asked in a way implying it was searching for the actual, internal motivation of the administration, which is not available to anyone outside the administration. The edit has cleared that up and it is now asking if they have actually stated what their motivation was, so I voted to re-open.

    – Jeff Lambert
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    @guest271314 Sure, their public statements are available, but their internal motivations are known only to them the same as mine to me regardless what I may say in public. This close reason prevents answering with what people really mean or really want because that just devolves into speculation.

    – Jeff Lambert
    10 hours ago
















28












28








28








Title pretty much says it all. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate before the midterms, so why didn't they push through funding for the wall then? The Republicans had two years to do this, and the Democrats would've had a harder time opposing the bill. Why now?



Did Trump, his administration's officials, or any prominent Republican ever explain why haven't they allocated the financing of "the wall" in the Federal Budget 2018?



The only explanation I can think of is that Republicans were very confident they'd win the midterms, but that doesn't seem to match the media coverage I saw.










share|improve this question
















Title pretty much says it all. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate before the midterms, so why didn't they push through funding for the wall then? The Republicans had two years to do this, and the Democrats would've had a harder time opposing the bill. Why now?



Did Trump, his administration's officials, or any prominent Republican ever explain why haven't they allocated the financing of "the wall" in the Federal Budget 2018?



The only explanation I can think of is that Republicans were very confident they'd win the midterms, but that doesn't seem to match the media coverage I saw.







united-states trump-wall






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 11 hours ago









bytebuster

6,88552363




6,88552363










asked 15 hours ago









AllureAllure

6871513




6871513








  • 3





    Questions about internal motivation are offtopic here, because they can only result in speculation. In fact, we simply don't know why. You could ask instead, if maybe Trump and Republican lawmakers in Congress said something about why they didn't allocate that much money for border security in 2017. Maybe they commented on it then.

    – Trilarion
    13 hours ago











  • Congress passed the funding but there was not enough votes in the senate to pass it

    – Frank Cedeno
    12 hours ago











  • Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017 and FY 2018. "In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a steel bollard wall", "In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction" The proposed funding for additional border barrier construction currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019, which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37903/21216, dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work

    – guest271314
    10 hours ago








  • 2





    @guest271314 The question was edited after it was closed. The original question was asked in a way implying it was searching for the actual, internal motivation of the administration, which is not available to anyone outside the administration. The edit has cleared that up and it is now asking if they have actually stated what their motivation was, so I voted to re-open.

    – Jeff Lambert
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    @guest271314 Sure, their public statements are available, but their internal motivations are known only to them the same as mine to me regardless what I may say in public. This close reason prevents answering with what people really mean or really want because that just devolves into speculation.

    – Jeff Lambert
    10 hours ago
















  • 3





    Questions about internal motivation are offtopic here, because they can only result in speculation. In fact, we simply don't know why. You could ask instead, if maybe Trump and Republican lawmakers in Congress said something about why they didn't allocate that much money for border security in 2017. Maybe they commented on it then.

    – Trilarion
    13 hours ago











  • Congress passed the funding but there was not enough votes in the senate to pass it

    – Frank Cedeno
    12 hours ago











  • Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017 and FY 2018. "In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a steel bollard wall", "In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction" The proposed funding for additional border barrier construction currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019, which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37903/21216, dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work

    – guest271314
    10 hours ago








  • 2





    @guest271314 The question was edited after it was closed. The original question was asked in a way implying it was searching for the actual, internal motivation of the administration, which is not available to anyone outside the administration. The edit has cleared that up and it is now asking if they have actually stated what their motivation was, so I voted to re-open.

    – Jeff Lambert
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    @guest271314 Sure, their public statements are available, but their internal motivations are known only to them the same as mine to me regardless what I may say in public. This close reason prevents answering with what people really mean or really want because that just devolves into speculation.

    – Jeff Lambert
    10 hours ago










3




3





Questions about internal motivation are offtopic here, because they can only result in speculation. In fact, we simply don't know why. You could ask instead, if maybe Trump and Republican lawmakers in Congress said something about why they didn't allocate that much money for border security in 2017. Maybe they commented on it then.

– Trilarion
13 hours ago





Questions about internal motivation are offtopic here, because they can only result in speculation. In fact, we simply don't know why. You could ask instead, if maybe Trump and Republican lawmakers in Congress said something about why they didn't allocate that much money for border security in 2017. Maybe they commented on it then.

– Trilarion
13 hours ago













Congress passed the funding but there was not enough votes in the senate to pass it

– Frank Cedeno
12 hours ago





Congress passed the funding but there was not enough votes in the senate to pass it

– Frank Cedeno
12 hours ago













Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017 and FY 2018. "In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a steel bollard wall", "In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction" The proposed funding for additional border barrier construction currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019, which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37903/21216, dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work

– guest271314
10 hours ago







Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017 and FY 2018. "In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a steel bollard wall", "In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction" The proposed funding for additional border barrier construction currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019, which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019. See politics.stackexchange.com/a/37903/21216, dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work

– guest271314
10 hours ago






2




2





@guest271314 The question was edited after it was closed. The original question was asked in a way implying it was searching for the actual, internal motivation of the administration, which is not available to anyone outside the administration. The edit has cleared that up and it is now asking if they have actually stated what their motivation was, so I voted to re-open.

– Jeff Lambert
10 hours ago





@guest271314 The question was edited after it was closed. The original question was asked in a way implying it was searching for the actual, internal motivation of the administration, which is not available to anyone outside the administration. The edit has cleared that up and it is now asking if they have actually stated what their motivation was, so I voted to re-open.

– Jeff Lambert
10 hours ago




2




2





@guest271314 Sure, their public statements are available, but their internal motivations are known only to them the same as mine to me regardless what I may say in public. This close reason prevents answering with what people really mean or really want because that just devolves into speculation.

– Jeff Lambert
10 hours ago







@guest271314 Sure, their public statements are available, but their internal motivations are known only to them the same as mine to me regardless what I may say in public. This close reason prevents answering with what people really mean or really want because that just devolves into speculation.

– Jeff Lambert
10 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















13














Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017




In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a
steel bollard wall




and FY 2018




In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction which
equates to approximately 84 miles of border wall in multiple locations
across the Southwest border




Currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019




if funded at $5B in FY 2019 ... DHS is positioned to construct 215 miles of Border Patrol’s highest priority border wall miles




which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019.



Primary source: Walls Work



See also Is there any better estimate of the cost of a completed US-Mexico border wall?






share|improve this answer



















  • 8





    That doesn't really answer the question. These small bills are nowhere near what Trump proposed.

    – JJJ
    9 hours ago






  • 26





    @JJJ: Trump proposed that the wall would require no funding from Congress whatsoever because "Mexico will pay for it".

    – Eric Lippert
    9 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert well he's the one blocking a spending bill unless the American Congress appropriates funds. Even if he believed that Mexico would pay, why didn't he go to Mexico to seek funding as soon as he took office? Knowing real-estate and this being such an important thing for him, surely he would know funding is important.

    – JJJ
    8 hours ago






  • 9





    @JJJ Mexico came out and said they weren't paying for it rather quickly and have not deviated from that stance at any point.

    – Michael W.
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert Even if Mexico cut a check for it, wouldn't he still need an appropriations bill to actually use the funds?

    – eyeballfrog
    5 hours ago



















8














Mostly because the Republicans hammered out a pretty hefty budget deal in early 2018




On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: The deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128 billion and hikes defense budgets by $160 billion.




Remember that the last shutdown was caused by Democrats stonewalling over DACA




The bill does not address the fate of young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children and have been shielded from deportation by an Obama-era program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, that Mr. Trump moved last year to end.




Republicans likely did not want to reopen the DACA issue in an election year, nor did they want to irk more Conservative members of their own party by spending even more on top of the massive deficit the budget created




That additional spending comes at the expense of adding even further to the national debt, which has topped $21 trillion. The growing debt has seemed of minimal concern on Capitol Hill in recent months, where Republicans passed a sweeping tax overhaul late last year that will also result in piling up more debt.



To some frustrated lawmakers, the heft of the spending bill was the very problem.







share|improve this answer



















  • 3





    There is a lot of speculation about Republicans intentions in this answer. Please note that the question now asks for official statements.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago



















5














For funding bills, it takes 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Before the mid-terms, Republicans only had 51 votes (with some defectors, like Flake and Corker). They have 53 votes now but still need 7 votes from Democrats.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




PilotGal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    I wonder what happens if you do not have the 60 votes ever. Complete breakdown?

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago











  • @Trilarion Then your bill doesn't get passed. If at least 41 Senators are unwilling to pass something even as part of a compromise for something else, then that thing doesn't get passed. This is why Democrats it was so hard for Democrats to pass ARRA and PPACA bacn in Obama's first couple of years, even with a Senate majority much larger than that held by the GOP in Trump's first two years.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @Trilarion If 41 Senators were completely stonewalling everything and preventing anything from passing for an extended period, then the so-called "Nuclear option" might be employed to abolish the filibuster. But, as Harry Reid found out the hard way, that's a decision that you can come to regret very soon once the other party gains a majority.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago











  • @reirab Nuclear option doesn't sound too bad to me. They even increased their Senate majority in the last elections. I think they could have used it to build the complete wall in 2017 and 2018.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    @PilotGal I'm not so sure that "the right way" is creating the longest shutdown in US history, but your mileage may vary.

    – Michael W.
    3 hours ago



















3














The short answer is no.



First, there is already about 700 miles of border wall. Trump's "wall" is a political tool to rally his base and nothing more, as proven by the fact that the GOP controlled congress, since Obama was in office, has chosen to do nothing to reform our immigration system, including punishing employers who hire undocumented workers. There is also the fact that no crisis exists, thus making dealing with immigration reform less urgent. Read Key findings about U.S. immigrants for some information about our immigration situation to see why "the wall" is unnecessary.



Trump is theater and the wall is part of that theater.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Jeff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    Links tend to go dead over time and it's also not clear how you're reaching your conclusion from the source you cite, so it would be best to quote the relevant parts and describe why it supports your position. The linked article is discussing immigration as a whole, not just unlawful immigration, but does mention that there are were more than 300,000 unlawful immigrants captured at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2017 (and, of course, that's not counting the ones who actually make it through without being caught.)

    – reirab
    4 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37987%2fhas-trumps-administration-ever-explained-why-they-didnt-build-the-wall-befor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









13














Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017




In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a
steel bollard wall




and FY 2018




In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction which
equates to approximately 84 miles of border wall in multiple locations
across the Southwest border




Currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019




if funded at $5B in FY 2019 ... DHS is positioned to construct 215 miles of Border Patrol’s highest priority border wall miles




which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019.



Primary source: Walls Work



See also Is there any better estimate of the cost of a completed US-Mexico border wall?






share|improve this answer



















  • 8





    That doesn't really answer the question. These small bills are nowhere near what Trump proposed.

    – JJJ
    9 hours ago






  • 26





    @JJJ: Trump proposed that the wall would require no funding from Congress whatsoever because "Mexico will pay for it".

    – Eric Lippert
    9 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert well he's the one blocking a spending bill unless the American Congress appropriates funds. Even if he believed that Mexico would pay, why didn't he go to Mexico to seek funding as soon as he took office? Knowing real-estate and this being such an important thing for him, surely he would know funding is important.

    – JJJ
    8 hours ago






  • 9





    @JJJ Mexico came out and said they weren't paying for it rather quickly and have not deviated from that stance at any point.

    – Michael W.
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert Even if Mexico cut a check for it, wouldn't he still need an appropriations bill to actually use the funds?

    – eyeballfrog
    5 hours ago
















13














Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017




In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a
steel bollard wall




and FY 2018




In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction which
equates to approximately 84 miles of border wall in multiple locations
across the Southwest border




Currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019




if funded at $5B in FY 2019 ... DHS is positioned to construct 215 miles of Border Patrol’s highest priority border wall miles




which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019.



Primary source: Walls Work



See also Is there any better estimate of the cost of a completed US-Mexico border wall?






share|improve this answer



















  • 8





    That doesn't really answer the question. These small bills are nowhere near what Trump proposed.

    – JJJ
    9 hours ago






  • 26





    @JJJ: Trump proposed that the wall would require no funding from Congress whatsoever because "Mexico will pay for it".

    – Eric Lippert
    9 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert well he's the one blocking a spending bill unless the American Congress appropriates funds. Even if he believed that Mexico would pay, why didn't he go to Mexico to seek funding as soon as he took office? Knowing real-estate and this being such an important thing for him, surely he would know funding is important.

    – JJJ
    8 hours ago






  • 9





    @JJJ Mexico came out and said they weren't paying for it rather quickly and have not deviated from that stance at any point.

    – Michael W.
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert Even if Mexico cut a check for it, wouldn't he still need an appropriations bill to actually use the funds?

    – eyeballfrog
    5 hours ago














13












13








13







Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017




In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a
steel bollard wall




and FY 2018




In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction which
equates to approximately 84 miles of border wall in multiple locations
across the Southwest border




Currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019




if funded at $5B in FY 2019 ... DHS is positioned to construct 215 miles of Border Patrol’s highest priority border wall miles




which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019.



Primary source: Walls Work



See also Is there any better estimate of the cost of a completed US-Mexico border wall?






share|improve this answer













Congress did provide funding for border barriers in each of FY 2017




In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a
steel bollard wall




and FY 2018




In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction which
equates to approximately 84 miles of border wall in multiple locations
across the Southwest border




Currently at issue is $5B funding for FY 2019




if funded at $5B in FY 2019 ... DHS is positioned to construct 215 miles of Border Patrol’s highest priority border wall miles




which would be for 215 miles of additional border barrier, for a total of 330 miles of border barrier - including FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019.



Primary source: Walls Work



See also Is there any better estimate of the cost of a completed US-Mexico border wall?







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 10 hours ago









guest271314guest271314

1,87819




1,87819








  • 8





    That doesn't really answer the question. These small bills are nowhere near what Trump proposed.

    – JJJ
    9 hours ago






  • 26





    @JJJ: Trump proposed that the wall would require no funding from Congress whatsoever because "Mexico will pay for it".

    – Eric Lippert
    9 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert well he's the one blocking a spending bill unless the American Congress appropriates funds. Even if he believed that Mexico would pay, why didn't he go to Mexico to seek funding as soon as he took office? Knowing real-estate and this being such an important thing for him, surely he would know funding is important.

    – JJJ
    8 hours ago






  • 9





    @JJJ Mexico came out and said they weren't paying for it rather quickly and have not deviated from that stance at any point.

    – Michael W.
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert Even if Mexico cut a check for it, wouldn't he still need an appropriations bill to actually use the funds?

    – eyeballfrog
    5 hours ago














  • 8





    That doesn't really answer the question. These small bills are nowhere near what Trump proposed.

    – JJJ
    9 hours ago






  • 26





    @JJJ: Trump proposed that the wall would require no funding from Congress whatsoever because "Mexico will pay for it".

    – Eric Lippert
    9 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert well he's the one blocking a spending bill unless the American Congress appropriates funds. Even if he believed that Mexico would pay, why didn't he go to Mexico to seek funding as soon as he took office? Knowing real-estate and this being such an important thing for him, surely he would know funding is important.

    – JJJ
    8 hours ago






  • 9





    @JJJ Mexico came out and said they weren't paying for it rather quickly and have not deviated from that stance at any point.

    – Michael W.
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @EricLippert Even if Mexico cut a check for it, wouldn't he still need an appropriations bill to actually use the funds?

    – eyeballfrog
    5 hours ago








8




8





That doesn't really answer the question. These small bills are nowhere near what Trump proposed.

– JJJ
9 hours ago





That doesn't really answer the question. These small bills are nowhere near what Trump proposed.

– JJJ
9 hours ago




26




26





@JJJ: Trump proposed that the wall would require no funding from Congress whatsoever because "Mexico will pay for it".

– Eric Lippert
9 hours ago





@JJJ: Trump proposed that the wall would require no funding from Congress whatsoever because "Mexico will pay for it".

– Eric Lippert
9 hours ago




2




2





@EricLippert well he's the one blocking a spending bill unless the American Congress appropriates funds. Even if he believed that Mexico would pay, why didn't he go to Mexico to seek funding as soon as he took office? Knowing real-estate and this being such an important thing for him, surely he would know funding is important.

– JJJ
8 hours ago





@EricLippert well he's the one blocking a spending bill unless the American Congress appropriates funds. Even if he believed that Mexico would pay, why didn't he go to Mexico to seek funding as soon as he took office? Knowing real-estate and this being such an important thing for him, surely he would know funding is important.

– JJJ
8 hours ago




9




9





@JJJ Mexico came out and said they weren't paying for it rather quickly and have not deviated from that stance at any point.

– Michael W.
7 hours ago





@JJJ Mexico came out and said they weren't paying for it rather quickly and have not deviated from that stance at any point.

– Michael W.
7 hours ago




2




2





@EricLippert Even if Mexico cut a check for it, wouldn't he still need an appropriations bill to actually use the funds?

– eyeballfrog
5 hours ago





@EricLippert Even if Mexico cut a check for it, wouldn't he still need an appropriations bill to actually use the funds?

– eyeballfrog
5 hours ago











8














Mostly because the Republicans hammered out a pretty hefty budget deal in early 2018




On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: The deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128 billion and hikes defense budgets by $160 billion.




Remember that the last shutdown was caused by Democrats stonewalling over DACA




The bill does not address the fate of young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children and have been shielded from deportation by an Obama-era program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, that Mr. Trump moved last year to end.




Republicans likely did not want to reopen the DACA issue in an election year, nor did they want to irk more Conservative members of their own party by spending even more on top of the massive deficit the budget created




That additional spending comes at the expense of adding even further to the national debt, which has topped $21 trillion. The growing debt has seemed of minimal concern on Capitol Hill in recent months, where Republicans passed a sweeping tax overhaul late last year that will also result in piling up more debt.



To some frustrated lawmakers, the heft of the spending bill was the very problem.







share|improve this answer



















  • 3





    There is a lot of speculation about Republicans intentions in this answer. Please note that the question now asks for official statements.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago
















8














Mostly because the Republicans hammered out a pretty hefty budget deal in early 2018




On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: The deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128 billion and hikes defense budgets by $160 billion.




Remember that the last shutdown was caused by Democrats stonewalling over DACA




The bill does not address the fate of young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children and have been shielded from deportation by an Obama-era program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, that Mr. Trump moved last year to end.




Republicans likely did not want to reopen the DACA issue in an election year, nor did they want to irk more Conservative members of their own party by spending even more on top of the massive deficit the budget created




That additional spending comes at the expense of adding even further to the national debt, which has topped $21 trillion. The growing debt has seemed of minimal concern on Capitol Hill in recent months, where Republicans passed a sweeping tax overhaul late last year that will also result in piling up more debt.



To some frustrated lawmakers, the heft of the spending bill was the very problem.







share|improve this answer



















  • 3





    There is a lot of speculation about Republicans intentions in this answer. Please note that the question now asks for official statements.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago














8












8








8







Mostly because the Republicans hammered out a pretty hefty budget deal in early 2018




On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: The deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128 billion and hikes defense budgets by $160 billion.




Remember that the last shutdown was caused by Democrats stonewalling over DACA




The bill does not address the fate of young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children and have been shielded from deportation by an Obama-era program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, that Mr. Trump moved last year to end.




Republicans likely did not want to reopen the DACA issue in an election year, nor did they want to irk more Conservative members of their own party by spending even more on top of the massive deficit the budget created




That additional spending comes at the expense of adding even further to the national debt, which has topped $21 trillion. The growing debt has seemed of minimal concern on Capitol Hill in recent months, where Republicans passed a sweeping tax overhaul late last year that will also result in piling up more debt.



To some frustrated lawmakers, the heft of the spending bill was the very problem.







share|improve this answer













Mostly because the Republicans hammered out a pretty hefty budget deal in early 2018




On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: The deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128 billion and hikes defense budgets by $160 billion.




Remember that the last shutdown was caused by Democrats stonewalling over DACA




The bill does not address the fate of young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children and have been shielded from deportation by an Obama-era program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, that Mr. Trump moved last year to end.




Republicans likely did not want to reopen the DACA issue in an election year, nor did they want to irk more Conservative members of their own party by spending even more on top of the massive deficit the budget created




That additional spending comes at the expense of adding even further to the national debt, which has topped $21 trillion. The growing debt has seemed of minimal concern on Capitol Hill in recent months, where Republicans passed a sweeping tax overhaul late last year that will also result in piling up more debt.



To some frustrated lawmakers, the heft of the spending bill was the very problem.








share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 8 hours ago









MachavityMachavity

15.6k44577




15.6k44577








  • 3





    There is a lot of speculation about Republicans intentions in this answer. Please note that the question now asks for official statements.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago














  • 3





    There is a lot of speculation about Republicans intentions in this answer. Please note that the question now asks for official statements.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago








3




3





There is a lot of speculation about Republicans intentions in this answer. Please note that the question now asks for official statements.

– Trilarion
4 hours ago





There is a lot of speculation about Republicans intentions in this answer. Please note that the question now asks for official statements.

– Trilarion
4 hours ago











5














For funding bills, it takes 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Before the mid-terms, Republicans only had 51 votes (with some defectors, like Flake and Corker). They have 53 votes now but still need 7 votes from Democrats.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




PilotGal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    I wonder what happens if you do not have the 60 votes ever. Complete breakdown?

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago











  • @Trilarion Then your bill doesn't get passed. If at least 41 Senators are unwilling to pass something even as part of a compromise for something else, then that thing doesn't get passed. This is why Democrats it was so hard for Democrats to pass ARRA and PPACA bacn in Obama's first couple of years, even with a Senate majority much larger than that held by the GOP in Trump's first two years.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @Trilarion If 41 Senators were completely stonewalling everything and preventing anything from passing for an extended period, then the so-called "Nuclear option" might be employed to abolish the filibuster. But, as Harry Reid found out the hard way, that's a decision that you can come to regret very soon once the other party gains a majority.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago











  • @reirab Nuclear option doesn't sound too bad to me. They even increased their Senate majority in the last elections. I think they could have used it to build the complete wall in 2017 and 2018.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    @PilotGal I'm not so sure that "the right way" is creating the longest shutdown in US history, but your mileage may vary.

    – Michael W.
    3 hours ago
















5














For funding bills, it takes 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Before the mid-terms, Republicans only had 51 votes (with some defectors, like Flake and Corker). They have 53 votes now but still need 7 votes from Democrats.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




PilotGal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    I wonder what happens if you do not have the 60 votes ever. Complete breakdown?

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago











  • @Trilarion Then your bill doesn't get passed. If at least 41 Senators are unwilling to pass something even as part of a compromise for something else, then that thing doesn't get passed. This is why Democrats it was so hard for Democrats to pass ARRA and PPACA bacn in Obama's first couple of years, even with a Senate majority much larger than that held by the GOP in Trump's first two years.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @Trilarion If 41 Senators were completely stonewalling everything and preventing anything from passing for an extended period, then the so-called "Nuclear option" might be employed to abolish the filibuster. But, as Harry Reid found out the hard way, that's a decision that you can come to regret very soon once the other party gains a majority.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago











  • @reirab Nuclear option doesn't sound too bad to me. They even increased their Senate majority in the last elections. I think they could have used it to build the complete wall in 2017 and 2018.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    @PilotGal I'm not so sure that "the right way" is creating the longest shutdown in US history, but your mileage may vary.

    – Michael W.
    3 hours ago














5












5








5







For funding bills, it takes 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Before the mid-terms, Republicans only had 51 votes (with some defectors, like Flake and Corker). They have 53 votes now but still need 7 votes from Democrats.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




PilotGal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










For funding bills, it takes 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Before the mid-terms, Republicans only had 51 votes (with some defectors, like Flake and Corker). They have 53 votes now but still need 7 votes from Democrats.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




PilotGal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




PilotGal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 5 hours ago









PilotGalPilotGal

471




471




New contributor




PilotGal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





PilotGal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






PilotGal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    I wonder what happens if you do not have the 60 votes ever. Complete breakdown?

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago











  • @Trilarion Then your bill doesn't get passed. If at least 41 Senators are unwilling to pass something even as part of a compromise for something else, then that thing doesn't get passed. This is why Democrats it was so hard for Democrats to pass ARRA and PPACA bacn in Obama's first couple of years, even with a Senate majority much larger than that held by the GOP in Trump's first two years.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @Trilarion If 41 Senators were completely stonewalling everything and preventing anything from passing for an extended period, then the so-called "Nuclear option" might be employed to abolish the filibuster. But, as Harry Reid found out the hard way, that's a decision that you can come to regret very soon once the other party gains a majority.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago











  • @reirab Nuclear option doesn't sound too bad to me. They even increased their Senate majority in the last elections. I think they could have used it to build the complete wall in 2017 and 2018.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    @PilotGal I'm not so sure that "the right way" is creating the longest shutdown in US history, but your mileage may vary.

    – Michael W.
    3 hours ago














  • 1





    I wonder what happens if you do not have the 60 votes ever. Complete breakdown?

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago











  • @Trilarion Then your bill doesn't get passed. If at least 41 Senators are unwilling to pass something even as part of a compromise for something else, then that thing doesn't get passed. This is why Democrats it was so hard for Democrats to pass ARRA and PPACA bacn in Obama's first couple of years, even with a Senate majority much larger than that held by the GOP in Trump's first two years.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @Trilarion If 41 Senators were completely stonewalling everything and preventing anything from passing for an extended period, then the so-called "Nuclear option" might be employed to abolish the filibuster. But, as Harry Reid found out the hard way, that's a decision that you can come to regret very soon once the other party gains a majority.

    – reirab
    4 hours ago











  • @reirab Nuclear option doesn't sound too bad to me. They even increased their Senate majority in the last elections. I think they could have used it to build the complete wall in 2017 and 2018.

    – Trilarion
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    @PilotGal I'm not so sure that "the right way" is creating the longest shutdown in US history, but your mileage may vary.

    – Michael W.
    3 hours ago








1




1





I wonder what happens if you do not have the 60 votes ever. Complete breakdown?

– Trilarion
4 hours ago





I wonder what happens if you do not have the 60 votes ever. Complete breakdown?

– Trilarion
4 hours ago













@Trilarion Then your bill doesn't get passed. If at least 41 Senators are unwilling to pass something even as part of a compromise for something else, then that thing doesn't get passed. This is why Democrats it was so hard for Democrats to pass ARRA and PPACA bacn in Obama's first couple of years, even with a Senate majority much larger than that held by the GOP in Trump's first two years.

– reirab
4 hours ago





@Trilarion Then your bill doesn't get passed. If at least 41 Senators are unwilling to pass something even as part of a compromise for something else, then that thing doesn't get passed. This is why Democrats it was so hard for Democrats to pass ARRA and PPACA bacn in Obama's first couple of years, even with a Senate majority much larger than that held by the GOP in Trump's first two years.

– reirab
4 hours ago




1




1





@Trilarion If 41 Senators were completely stonewalling everything and preventing anything from passing for an extended period, then the so-called "Nuclear option" might be employed to abolish the filibuster. But, as Harry Reid found out the hard way, that's a decision that you can come to regret very soon once the other party gains a majority.

– reirab
4 hours ago





@Trilarion If 41 Senators were completely stonewalling everything and preventing anything from passing for an extended period, then the so-called "Nuclear option" might be employed to abolish the filibuster. But, as Harry Reid found out the hard way, that's a decision that you can come to regret very soon once the other party gains a majority.

– reirab
4 hours ago













@reirab Nuclear option doesn't sound too bad to me. They even increased their Senate majority in the last elections. I think they could have used it to build the complete wall in 2017 and 2018.

– Trilarion
4 hours ago





@reirab Nuclear option doesn't sound too bad to me. They even increased their Senate majority in the last elections. I think they could have used it to build the complete wall in 2017 and 2018.

– Trilarion
4 hours ago




2




2





@PilotGal I'm not so sure that "the right way" is creating the longest shutdown in US history, but your mileage may vary.

– Michael W.
3 hours ago





@PilotGal I'm not so sure that "the right way" is creating the longest shutdown in US history, but your mileage may vary.

– Michael W.
3 hours ago











3














The short answer is no.



First, there is already about 700 miles of border wall. Trump's "wall" is a political tool to rally his base and nothing more, as proven by the fact that the GOP controlled congress, since Obama was in office, has chosen to do nothing to reform our immigration system, including punishing employers who hire undocumented workers. There is also the fact that no crisis exists, thus making dealing with immigration reform less urgent. Read Key findings about U.S. immigrants for some information about our immigration situation to see why "the wall" is unnecessary.



Trump is theater and the wall is part of that theater.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Jeff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    Links tend to go dead over time and it's also not clear how you're reaching your conclusion from the source you cite, so it would be best to quote the relevant parts and describe why it supports your position. The linked article is discussing immigration as a whole, not just unlawful immigration, but does mention that there are were more than 300,000 unlawful immigrants captured at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2017 (and, of course, that's not counting the ones who actually make it through without being caught.)

    – reirab
    4 hours ago
















3














The short answer is no.



First, there is already about 700 miles of border wall. Trump's "wall" is a political tool to rally his base and nothing more, as proven by the fact that the GOP controlled congress, since Obama was in office, has chosen to do nothing to reform our immigration system, including punishing employers who hire undocumented workers. There is also the fact that no crisis exists, thus making dealing with immigration reform less urgent. Read Key findings about U.S. immigrants for some information about our immigration situation to see why "the wall" is unnecessary.



Trump is theater and the wall is part of that theater.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Jeff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    Links tend to go dead over time and it's also not clear how you're reaching your conclusion from the source you cite, so it would be best to quote the relevant parts and describe why it supports your position. The linked article is discussing immigration as a whole, not just unlawful immigration, but does mention that there are were more than 300,000 unlawful immigrants captured at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2017 (and, of course, that's not counting the ones who actually make it through without being caught.)

    – reirab
    4 hours ago














3












3








3







The short answer is no.



First, there is already about 700 miles of border wall. Trump's "wall" is a political tool to rally his base and nothing more, as proven by the fact that the GOP controlled congress, since Obama was in office, has chosen to do nothing to reform our immigration system, including punishing employers who hire undocumented workers. There is also the fact that no crisis exists, thus making dealing with immigration reform less urgent. Read Key findings about U.S. immigrants for some information about our immigration situation to see why "the wall" is unnecessary.



Trump is theater and the wall is part of that theater.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Jeff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










The short answer is no.



First, there is already about 700 miles of border wall. Trump's "wall" is a political tool to rally his base and nothing more, as proven by the fact that the GOP controlled congress, since Obama was in office, has chosen to do nothing to reform our immigration system, including punishing employers who hire undocumented workers. There is also the fact that no crisis exists, thus making dealing with immigration reform less urgent. Read Key findings about U.S. immigrants for some information about our immigration situation to see why "the wall" is unnecessary.



Trump is theater and the wall is part of that theater.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Jeff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Jeff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 5 hours ago









JeffJeff

311




311




New contributor




Jeff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Jeff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Jeff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    Links tend to go dead over time and it's also not clear how you're reaching your conclusion from the source you cite, so it would be best to quote the relevant parts and describe why it supports your position. The linked article is discussing immigration as a whole, not just unlawful immigration, but does mention that there are were more than 300,000 unlawful immigrants captured at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2017 (and, of course, that's not counting the ones who actually make it through without being caught.)

    – reirab
    4 hours ago














  • 1





    Links tend to go dead over time and it's also not clear how you're reaching your conclusion from the source you cite, so it would be best to quote the relevant parts and describe why it supports your position. The linked article is discussing immigration as a whole, not just unlawful immigration, but does mention that there are were more than 300,000 unlawful immigrants captured at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2017 (and, of course, that's not counting the ones who actually make it through without being caught.)

    – reirab
    4 hours ago








1




1





Links tend to go dead over time and it's also not clear how you're reaching your conclusion from the source you cite, so it would be best to quote the relevant parts and describe why it supports your position. The linked article is discussing immigration as a whole, not just unlawful immigration, but does mention that there are were more than 300,000 unlawful immigrants captured at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2017 (and, of course, that's not counting the ones who actually make it through without being caught.)

– reirab
4 hours ago





Links tend to go dead over time and it's also not clear how you're reaching your conclusion from the source you cite, so it would be best to quote the relevant parts and describe why it supports your position. The linked article is discussing immigration as a whole, not just unlawful immigration, but does mention that there are were more than 300,000 unlawful immigrants captured at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2017 (and, of course, that's not counting the ones who actually make it through without being caught.)

– reirab
4 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37987%2fhas-trumps-administration-ever-explained-why-they-didnt-build-the-wall-befor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

GameSpot

connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused

Getting a Wifi WPA2 wifi connection