The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush, authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico. Senators Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.
Originally, the act called on the Department of Homeland Security to install at least two layers of reinforced fencing along some stretches of the border. That was amended later, however, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, which got rid of the double-layer requirement. The act also authorized the use of motor vehicle barriers, checkpoints, lighting, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites to curb illegal immigration. Congress put aside $1.4 billion for the fence, but the whole cost, including maintenance, was pegged at $50 billion over 25 years, according to analyses at the time.
Move ahead 10 years. One of then candidate Donald Trump’s promises was to "… build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall."
"It's not a negotiation," now Senate Minority leader Schumer said. "No wall." Chicago Tribune April 25, 2017.
It is true that the original bill did not call for erecting a wall across all of our 2000 mile southern border or that it stand as tall as Trump promised. Then what is different now about building a wall at our southern border to curtail the flow of illegal aliens, illicit drugs and gangs than in 2006? The political environment! The reason for the apparent ‘change of heart’ by Obama, Clinton and Schumer is political. If newly elected President Trump wants it, then the opposition doesn’t.
A Pew research poll reported that about three-quarters (74%) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents support a border wall. While an even greater share of Democrats expressed opposition to building a wall across the entire U.S.-Mexico border (89%). It’s not that the Democrats are more beneficent, although they often claim to be. It’s that Hispanics traditionally vote Democratic 70% of the time.
On February 9th, Senator Elizabeth Warren put the Democratic position in perspective in an interview on MSNBC when she said, “Democrats have the minority in the House, the minority in the Senate. But that does not make us the minority party….We are the party of opposition, and that is our job.”
Is Senator Warren openly admiting that THE Democratic platform is opposition to our newly elected President, regardless of whether that opposition is in the best interest of the country? Looking at the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, it appears Senator Warren is true to her word. The Democrats in Congress, and even some Republicans, have stonewalled or delayed virtually every appointment and legislative effort Trump has put forward. It could be long four years ahead for Trump. But the electorate has spoken, and once the President gets all his appointments in place, the long four years may be what the Democrats may have to look forward to, if they don’t make attempts to reach across the aisle.
There is a growing divide in this country. Not since President Bill Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich were able to pass the Contract with America in 1994 did the two major political Parties work together. Except for a brief hiatus after 9/11, it seems that divide grows wider with each subsequent administration. In discussing how to improve the Affordable Care Act, a college put it this way, “Failure of the opposite party is more important than improving the ACA, which could be done in a bi-partisan fashion if each party weren’t so afraid that the other would get credit.”* This assertion could apply to virtually every concern that is being debated in Washington.
Our country deserves better from BOTH political Parties!
* David Haymes, M.D.
