As the days wear on, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand exactly why U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer opposes the security wall proposed by President Trump.
Does he really think that walls don’t work? Such a notion is hardly credible. Schumer knows quite well that the wall constructed by the Israelis along their southern border has significantly reduced illegal immigration, and to my knowledge he has never rebuked Netanyahu for supporting this security measure. Additionally, there is the fact that Schumer himself had supported legislation in 2013 for border security which included $ 8 billion for the repair and new construction of fencing along our southern border. Liberals will argue that there is a significant difference between a fence and a wall. That’s true. Walls work better than fences! Besides Trump has signaled recently that he would accept fencing if it were substantial. Since both a wall and a fence have the same purpose of providing national security, it is inexplicable why a senator would support the one and oppose the other. So why does Schumer now oppose $ 5 billion for a wall that would really work? It can’t be because he thinks that the wall is too expensive. If $ 8 billion is not too expensive for a fence, are we to believe that $ 5 billion is too expensive for a wall?! Furthermore, the $ 5 billion is not a huge sum of money within the context of the federal budget. The recently passed Farm Bill is estimated at a cost of $ 956 billion over ten years; that amounts to about 95.6 billion per year.
The conclusion is inescapable. We know that walls are effective, and we know that the proposed wall is not too expensive. So what’s the problem? Why does Schumer oppose this wall so adamantly?
One obvious answer is that illegal immigration has provided the Democratic Party with an endless stream of new voters, and at the same time it has furnished the corporate backers of the Party with a cheap labor force. Beyond this, one suspects that the upcoming 2020 election is a primary reason for Schumer’s opposition to the funding of the wall. He knows that the wall will improve national security, thus making it very difficult to beat Trump in the next election.
In my opinion there is, however, a third reason for Schumer’s opposition, but at this point we can only speculate. It is noticeable that Schumer’s rhetoric has reached a new low for an educated senator. He now describes the wall as a “petty campaign pledge” of the President. Does the word “petty” really fit the situation? We are talking about national security! Or again, he refers to the wall as “Trump’s wall” and insists that the President is having a “temper tantrum” over the funding of the wall. Is this really the rhetoric of a senior senator in our Congress? Schumer’s personal attacks on the President have become increasingly bitter since the meeting in the Oval Office on Dec. 11, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Senator is still angry about that meeting. Schumer was taken off-guard in the meeting, and without his usual props that bestow upon him an air of intellectualism, he looked weak and ineffectual. His inability to look the President in the face and carry on serious dialogue with him was painfully apparent. Perhaps one can sympathize with Schumer’s embarrassment, but it is time for him to pull himself together and conduct himself like a statesman who is concerned about the security and welfare of his country. We now know that he doesn’t have to approve the entire $5.7 billion. Trump has already made a compromise offer. So why hasn’t the Senator from New York announced a reasonable counteroffer? Does he not understand the meaning of the word “negotiation”? What does he want? Is he willing to risk the security of the nation in order to win the next election? Or even worse: to soothe his offended ego? President Trump is by nature a negotiator, and he will negotiate with Schumer if the Senator will make an honest effort.
Jack E. Brush is a Villager and frequent contributor to Villages-News.com