51

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.

Be Brave Be Like Ukraine
  • 17,223
  • 11
  • 64
  • 117
Allure
  • 34,557
  • 16
  • 102
  • 190
  • 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. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jan 15 '19 at 12:47
  • 5
    I think it's super worth noting that the Senate Republicans never had the 60 votes required to pass the bill in the senate, so even though it was "GOP controlled", it would still have this passing issue – Brian Leishman Jan 15 '19 at 22:51
  • This question is a strange one. A "why did X not do Y?" question presupposes (1) that X wants to do Y, (2) that X is capable of doing Y, and (3) that there must be a reason that explains why X did not do Y even though Y was desired and X was capable. But those presuppositions have not been demonstrated to be true, they've just been assumed! Better logic would be "X did not do Y, therefore X does not want to do Y or X is incapable of doing Y". Can you give evidence that a majority of senators want a wall and are capable of funding it? – Eric Lippert Jan 17 '19 at 06:03
  • 1
    Because if you cannot give evidence that a majority of senators wanted a wall and were capable of getting a bill through the house and senate, then your question is basically "why did something that hardly anyone wanted and they couldn't get done even if they wanted it not get done?" The question answers itself when you phrase it like that. Stuff people do not want that they cannot do anyway is stuff that doesn't get done! – Eric Lippert Jan 17 '19 at 06:06
  • @EricLippert your objection is a strange one. If Republicans did not want a wall, why are they trying to push through funding for a wall now? Unless the newly-elected senators want a wall while the old ones did not (and is there any evidence for that?) the conclusion is that the majority of Republican senators want a wall. As for funding: that's easy, just sell more bonds and deficit spend. Can you give evidence that the Republicans did not fund the wall because they didn't have money? – Allure Jan 17 '19 at 07:22
  • 2
    @Allure: 100% of republican senators voted for a spending bill with no funding for the wall. Is that evidence for, or against, the proposition that republican senators want a wall? But regardless, I'm not the one asking a "why not?" question here. The onus is on the person asking the "why not?" question to explain why it is that a counterfactual should require an explanation. There are an infinite number of ways that the world is not; we can't provide a justification for all of them. – Eric Lippert Jan 17 '19 at 07:59
  • 1
    Another way to look at it is: evidence that republican senators want a wall would include their being willing to bargain for democratic senators' votes by agreeing to fund something equally important to democrats. The problem isn't coming up with the money. The problem is coming up with something to give democrats in exchange for their agreement. If you want me to give you a cookie, and you're willing to give me absolutely nothing that I want in exchange, then that sounds like evidence that you don't really want my cookie. – Eric Lippert Jan 17 '19 at 08:06
  • 1
    The only logical conclusion to reach is to deny the premise of your question. Republicans are not willing to give up anything to get a wall, and they were perfectly willing to pass a bill not including funding it. Therefore, they don't want it, and they're unwilling to do anything meaningful to get it. That's true today, and it's been true for two years, hence, no funding. – Eric Lippert Jan 17 '19 at 08:08
  • as a naive question: even assuming the wall is desirable, but the legislative votes aren't there to build it, isn't the system working as constitutionally designed? i.e. the wall can be built, when enough legislators are willing to fund it. It is unclear how trying to force something through that the separation of powers says can't happen without a sufficiently large majority is following the intent of the constitution which is specifically intended to avoid power grabs. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jan 24 '19 at 20:37

5 Answers5

28

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?

guest271314
  • 2,558
  • 1
  • 6
  • 21
  • 16
    That doesn't really answer the question. These small bills are nowhere near what Trump proposed. – JJJ Jan 15 '19 at 16:48
  • 56
    @JJJ: Trump proposed that the wall would require no funding from Congress whatsoever because "Mexico will pay for it". – Eric Lippert Jan 15 '19 at 17:00
  • 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 Jan 15 '19 at 17:30
  • 23
    @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. Jan 15 '19 at 18:25
  • 4
    @EricLippert Even if Mexico cut a check for it, wouldn't he still need an appropriations bill to actually use the funds? – eyeballfrog Jan 15 '19 at 20:57
  • 3
    @EricLippert that's actually not true, when asked, he confirmed that Mexico would pay the US back. See here. – JJJ Jan 15 '19 at 21:19
  • 19
    @JJJ It is true. Trump has said many times that he would make Mexico pay for the wall. Exactly how he would make them pay for it has changed somewhat erratically over the past few years, though. – Abion47 Jan 15 '19 at 23:21
  • 2
    @Abion47 you're right I shouldn't have phrased it like that. Of course mister Trump has had many stances on the matter. – JJJ Jan 15 '19 at 23:31
  • @JJJ "That doesn't really answer the question. These small bills are nowhere near what Trump proposed." The first part of your comment does not make sense given the facts of the matter. What official "proposal" are you referring to? The OP of the question apparently was not aware that funding for a border barrier or "wall" had received funding, or more precisely, the relevant administrative agencies had received funding from Congress in both FY 2017 and FY 2018 and used some of that funding to contract to construct several miles of walls. – guest271314 Jan 15 '19 at 23:38
  • 2
    @guest271314 his campaign promise to build a wall along all of the US Mexico border. The less than $2B you mention isn't nearly enough for that. – JJJ Jan 15 '19 at 23:41
  • @JJJ There are several walls along the U.S.-Mexico border, several of which have been constructed since Donald J. Trump was sworn in as President of the United States. Was your assumption that a border wall would be the full length (2000 miles) of the U.S.-Mexico border? If yes, kindly cite the primary source which states that explicitly. Even the current U.S. Gov. shutdown is only over 215 miles of proposed border wall construction, at 23 million/1 mile. – guest271314 Jan 15 '19 at 23:43
  • 2
    @guest271314 Executive Order 13767 – JJJ Jan 15 '19 at 23:45
  • @JJJ First of all, an Executive Order is not a proposal. Secondly, where is the entire border (3,145 kilometers (1,954 mi).) referenced in that Executive Order? Specifically, where does the Office of the President state that their "proposal" is to construct a wall for the entire length of the U.S.-Mexico border? Congress (the Legislative Branch) holds the purse in the U.S., not the Executive Branch. – guest271314 Jan 15 '19 at 23:48
  • @JJJ Were you really under the impression that the $5 billion that the current U.S. President mentions as reason for the U.S. Gov. shutdown and border security was intended to pay for a 2,000 mile wall? And not the 215 mile border wall that the $5 billion is proposed to be allocated, in part, for? At $23 million per 1 mile adjusted for 2019 currency, that would conservatively be at least $44,942,000,000 or $44+ billion U.S. dollars. – guest271314 Jan 16 '19 at 00:02
  • 2
    I don't think you are getting my point. Trump has made the wall an issue for years. Not a small wall covering part of the border, but a wall along the US Mexican border. As you say, building that requires more money, well over ten billion. As the question asks, why didn't they allocate the money and build it? You don't answer that, you point out that they spend a meager amount for a few hundred miles. – JJJ Jan 16 '19 at 00:18
  • @JJJ Which part of the answer do you not understand? Congress has provided funding for border walls along the U.S.-Mexico border in FY 2017 and FY 2018 - during the presidency of Donald J. Trump and Republican control of the U.S. Congress. You have thus far failed to cite any primary source where the current U.S. President explicitly stated that their policy objective was to construct a border wall along the entire 2000 mile U.S.-Mexico border. Was that simply an assumption on your behalf: That $5 billion funding approved by the U.S. Congress would fund a 2000 mile border wall? – guest271314 Jan 16 '19 at 00:21
  • 2
    Thanks for the answer. I think JJJ's (and my) next natural question is: why didn't Republicans just fund the entire wall? Adding up FY2017 and FY2018's budget still comes to only $1.6 billion. Why didn't they get funding for $10 billion in these two budgets? – Allure Jan 16 '19 at 02:32
  • @Allure What do you mean by "entire wall"? $1.6 billion U.S. dollars is not "only". Do you know what portion of that amount is derived from issuing debt which is held by the holder of the instrument? – guest271314 Jan 16 '19 at 02:35
  • 1
    @guest271314 whatever they need to build until they can say "we don't need to build any more". Like, the 2017 budget presumably built one section of the envisaged wall, the 2018 budget built another section, and this one's going to build yet another section, etc. – Allure Jan 16 '19 at 02:36
  • @Allure "whatever" is not tangible. Where would the $44 billion, the FY 2019 estimate of $23 million/1 for 2000 miles of border wall come from? Increased issuance of debt or raising of taxes? You are aware that the U.S. is a debtor nation, correct? Not sure where the idea that Donald J. Trump "promised" a 2000 mile border wall is derived from? Do you know the source of that idea? – guest271314 Jan 16 '19 at 02:39
  • 1
    @guest271314 presumably debt financing, like what the budget has looked like for a long time already? – Allure Jan 16 '19 at 02:41
  • @Allure "presumably" is not tangible either. Precisely where will the U.S. funds to pay for such a project be generated from? "As of October 28, 2018, debt held by the public was $15.8 trillion and intragovernmental holdings were $5.8 trillion, for a total or "National Debt" of $21.6 trillion", "As of September 2014, foreigners owned $6.06 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 47 percent of the debt held by the public of $12.8 trillion and 34 percent of the total debt of $17.8 trillion. As of 2018, the largest holders were China, Japan, Ireland, and Brazil." Taxes were recently cut. – guest271314 Jan 16 '19 at 02:43
  • 1
    @guest271314 so? The deficit in FY2018 was 833 billion, and the government still managed to fund it. Just sell more bonds to the Fed or something. – Allure Jan 16 '19 at 02:45
  • @Allure The U.S. does not sell bonds to the Fed. The U.S. purchases U.S. currency that the Fed prints, at a markup. The Federal Reserve System is a private banking consortium. The Fed is not beholden or accountable to the U.S. Government whatsoever. The U.S. needs the Fed. The Fed does not need the U.S. The bonds and other instruments would likely be sold to China, one of the predominant purchasers of U.S. debt. – guest271314 Jan 16 '19 at 02:48
  • 1
    @guest271314 how is that relevant to the idea that the US (and the Republicans) can deficit fund the wall if they wished to? – Allure Jan 16 '19 at 02:49
  • @Allure Congress has funded "the wall", for FY 2017 and FY 2018. Apparently some individuals and groups had the idea that "the wall" would span 2000 miles, the full length of the U.S.-Mexico border. And that the $5 billion at issue in the U.S. would achieve a 2000 mile border wall. Though, not a single individual at Politics SE has yet been able to cite the precise origin of that idea, by way of referencing a primary source. What is the origin of the idea that if elected President of the U.S., Donald J. Trump would order or otherwise make possible construction of a 2000 mile border wall? – guest271314 Jan 16 '19 at 02:51
  • 11
    @guest271314 Well, the 2016 RNC Platform seems to state that pretty clearly: "we support building a wall along our southern border and protecting all ports of entry. The border wall must cover the entirety of the southern border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic." source: https://www.scribd.com/document/318660213/RNC-Platform#from_embed – probably_someone Jan 16 '19 at 03:20
  • @probably_someone That is a primary source. – guest271314 Jan 16 '19 at 03:29
  • 1
    @EricLippert Can you provide a source stating explicitly that Trump believed he would not need Congress to appropriate funds? Saying "Mexico will pay for it" only indicates to me that the Mexico would be the source of money, not that the money would not be appropriated via the usual means. You might be right (particularly given Trump's tendency toward boisterous claims), but I don't recall any statements about not needing Congress. – jpmc26 Jan 16 '19 at 03:37
24

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.

PilotGal
  • 402
  • 2
  • 4
  • 5
    I wonder what happens if you do not have the 60 votes ever. Complete breakdown? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jan 15 '19 at 21:27
  • @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 Jan 15 '19 at 21:32
  • 8
    @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 Jan 15 '19 at 21:34
  • @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. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jan 15 '19 at 21:37
  • @Trilarion There was definitely not enough support to employ the nuclear option to build the wall prior to this month. Corker, Flake, Collins, Murkowski, and others would have never gone along with it and the GOP only had 51 votes. I doubt they'd have managed 40 on a vote to employ the nuclear option. Possibly much less. The Democrats are already majorly regretting their decision to employ it with respect to court nominees. Once that door is open, there's no closing it when your party loses power. Even now, the GOP only has 53 votes in the Senate, including several moderates. – reirab Jan 15 '19 at 21:42
  • Also, it's quite unclear that the GOP would have their present 53 Senate seats had they made the decision to employ the nuclear option for the wall. Some of the Senate elections were close and could have gone the other way had they done that. For a while, it was unclear that the GOP would maintain a Senate majority at all until Democrats majorly overplayed their hand with the Kavanaugh confirmation. – reirab Jan 15 '19 at 21:45
  • @Trilarion - Obama used his "phone and pen" with Executive Orders to get around the Senate. But, it causes so many problems. Trump wants to do it the right way (Congress) so there's no question. He can appropriate funds from other sections of government. He's just waiting until all other options are exhausted to show that he tried to get approval from Congress (i.e., the right way). Declaring an Emergency will work but it will unquestionably be challenged and have to go to the Supreme Court (which will acknowledge his right as President to build a wall). Just my analysis of the situation. – PilotGal Jan 15 '19 at 21:59
  • @reirab - You're exactly right. – PilotGal Jan 15 '19 at 22:00
  • 10
    @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. Jan 15 '19 at 22:28
  • 3
    @MichaelW. - By "the right way", I meant as defined in the US Constitution. But, I understand your point. – PilotGal Jan 16 '19 at 12:13
  • @Trilarion - The nuclear option to force your majority onwards doesn't sound too bad now. But the scary part is that it's a broadcast of "we don't care at all what the other side thinks, and will tear down rules to force our way through". Which makes it an option for if-and-when the majority falls. You're bringing out the nukes, which invites the "other team" to bring nukes of their own once they get them. – Delioth Jan 16 '19 at 20:10
  • I don't know that this answers the question. Has it been Trump's administration explanation that they didn't "build the wall" for lack of a supermajority in the Senate ? – Evargalo Sep 29 '20 at 11:39
14

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.

Community
  • 1
Machavity
  • 48,310
  • 11
  • 131
  • 209
8

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.

Jeff
  • 205
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
    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 Jan 15 '19 at 21:28
  • The salient point is that the Trump administration hasn't explained why "the wall" wasn't built prior to the shut down even though the GOP had total control of the federal government since Trump's inauguration. More than likely the reasons are two: a) we already have about 700 miles of border fence/wall and (b) there really is no crisis now, January, 2019, including from those undocumented aliens living here now. – Jeff Jan 17 '19 at 00:28
  • 1
    There is exactly one reason: they didn't have the votes in the Senate. The House did pass a bill including funding for "the wall," which then immediately died in the Senate, due to Republicans having only 51 votes. 60 are required to invoke cloture and vote on the bill. While Reid did (stupidly) employ the so-called "nuclear option" to remove the filibuster rule for nominee confirmations (a move Democrats have since deeply regretted,) the rule remains in place for normal votes on bills. – reirab Jan 17 '19 at 03:04
  • True, but they never explained that, which would have required them to explain why they, the GOP and Trump, didn't work with the Democrats to actually solve the immigration problem, which would have included providing a path to citizenship for the Dreamers and the use of drones and sensors instead of a physical barrier. IMO, they calculated that they had more to gain politically with their base from concealing their refusal to work with the Democrats, a la Newt Gingrich. – Jeff Jan 17 '19 at 17:06
  • @Jeff So in Jan 2019 during the shutdown, when Schumer and Pelosi specifically stated that they were not willing to negotiate with Trump on funding for the wall (raising funding from 1.3B to 5.7B and also refusing a 2.5B compromise from Pence), would you say that it was the Republicans or the Democrats that refused to work on the issue. – Shorlan Nov 06 '20 at 00:27
  • I would say that the border wall is a distraction and a big waste of money and better that it doesn't get built. First, we need a better strategy for the region to help improve both the economic and political conditions in the region that would reduce the pressure for people to leave their homes. Second, target building wall sections where they are actually needed. – Jeff Nov 07 '20 at 15:26
  • @Jeff - obviously rather late to this ;) -- if you look at any of the CBP strategy documents over the years, they are clear that physical barriers are necessary to slow down border crossers long enough for people to get there and do something about it.

    The "border wall" is a border wall SYSTEM. It includes: physical barriers; lighting; sensors (FODS); roadway; and lots and lots of electronics.

    What's truly crazy: for decades we've been slowly improving our border barriers. Suddenly the politics switched and we needed to make Orange Man Bad. LOL

     – MrPete Apr 19 '23 at 15:47
1

Here's a few facts about WHY these things take a long long time...

  1. It's NOT a quick process. I'll explain a bit more about why down below. Here's the accelerated schedule for just a few RGV sectors.
  • Even when the real estate is available, it takes a long time. Construction is not particularly slower for a 55 mile section than a 3 mile section!
  • Just the planning and materials acquisition is half a year;
  • Custom design is almost half a year
  • Real Estate acquisition is half a year to over a year... and that's quite optimistic

RGV timeline, p5 RGV-010-Brief-20170426-Pptx.pdf (This is from "Levee Wall Overview, Border Infrastructure PMO", Bob Hardbarger 28 April 2017 US Army Corps of Engineers

  1. Politicians talk about "The Wall". Actual CBP border people, and those responsible for construction and use, talk about the Border Wall System. It's not just a chunk of concrete with metal on top!

a) In the area MOST impacted, the LRGV (Lower Rio Grande Valley), there's an existing levee that goes back at LEAST to 1915. Bringing everything up to modern standards requires at the least improving the levee to match FEMA certification requirements. Here's another diagram (same source as the above, page 6 this time:

Basic Levee Wall

b) Here's a diagram describing the overall Wall System. I've seen the RFC's (Requests for Contract) ... the fancy FODS (Fiber Optic Detection System) had to be installed... yet actually lighting up the detectors is a whole separate process taking still more time. Just consider what's involved in spec'ing and building this much (particularly w/ careful environmental etc assessments along the way. They were allowed to overrule many complaints but they still had to do everything possible to make it as good as possible!). Same source (because it's handy ;) )

CBP RGV Wall System Enforcement Zone

NOTE: I just did an intensive search for these documents online. I have a whole collection. Amazingly, they have been removed everywhere that I can find. That includes the place I absolutely would expect to find the one referenced in this post: the USACE Digital Library, which includes responsive FOIA documents, of which this is one! There are lots of older documents, but NOTHING on this subject at all. Isn't that interesting!

MrPete
  • 140
  • 5
  • I can see why actually building the wall takes a long time, but what about pushing through funding to build the war? – Allure Apr 20 '23 at 09:34
  • As others have noted, it takes a supermajority in the Senate to pass anything. So, the R's couldn't do it... not that way at least.

    President Trump redirected funds as a national security issue, so money wasn't really the issue.

    The massive misinformation campaign in the media/D party certainly slowed things down. In south Tx (an area I'm somewhat familiar with), it was crazy how much misinformation and fear was generated.

    The original question was why it couldn't be done before the mid-terms. That gave two years from the day T got in office. Look at the timeline above. IMPOSSIBLE.

     – MrPete Apr 24 '23 at 20:12