Cal Thomas: Costs of Trump’s ‘cave’ on wall |
Featured Commentary

Cal Thomas: Costs of Trump’s ‘cave’ on wall

The first thing that needs to be said about President Trump’s decision to sign a measure reopening part of the federal government without getting money for the wall he demanded is that his experience as a New York businessman was no help. Perhaps he failed to recognize that Democrats are the party of government and no one guards the power, cost and perks of government better than they do.

As long as Democrats stuck together — and they did (Republicans should learn a lesson) — he was bound to lose. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were justified in their smirking reaction. Schumer bragged, “This agreement endorses our position.”

Of course a wall, or barrier or something, is needed to stem the tide of those who enter the country illegally, and some border patrol agents agree. “Absolutely” helpful, Brian Hastings, a U.S. Border Patrol chief of law enforcement operations, said back in November, as the immigrant caravan inched its way toward our border. Aren’t these agents on the front lines more knowledgeable than career politicians playing their annoying games in Washington?

Does anyone expect promised “negotiations” between Senate and House Republicans these next few weeks to produce anything that successfully contributes to real border security? Democrats, flushed with at least a short-term victory, are not about to anger their base by compromising, and some in the Republican base are upset by the president’s so-called “cave” to Democrat demands.

In a Rose Garden announcement of his decision to reopen government, the president held out the possibility of declaring a national emergency if Democrats continue to refuse funding for his barrier wall. We know where that will lead, don’t we? Democrats will likely go to a liberal federal judge, probably named by President Obama, and get a stay on the order. Any appeal process could take months, adding more fuel to the chaos stoking anger among many on the left and the right.

One way to get Democrats to focus might be to steer those entering illegally with criminal backgrounds to the states and districts where members of Congress who oppose the wall reside. Cynical, I know, but in Washington, since the 2016 election, cynicism reigns supreme. There are solutions to almost any problem, but it appears politicians prefer the immigration issue to run on as a means of raising money, garnering votes and harnessing power. It’s all about politicians and rarely about the rest of us, their claims about “the American people” notwithstanding.

Trump made building a wall (and getting Mexico to pay for it) the centerpiece of his 2016 campaign and the first half of his term. If it doesn’t happen, with or without the help of Congress, he must find another way to do it that the courts will allow and that his base will accept. If he doesn’t his re-election chances may be hurt, assuming Democrats don’t come up with a hard-left candidate.

Maybe the president will do all these things. I hope he does. The alternative is likely a socialist government offering high taxes and even more debt, which would end the economic boon that has benefited a record number of new U.S. workers.

Each time I travel internationally I must go through immigration and customs at the airport. If I attempted to re-enter this or another country illegally, I would be arrested. What’s the difference when Pelosi, Schumer and many other Democrats won’t stop non-citizens from sneaking into America?

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist.

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.