SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
U.S. Border Patrol Agents at Border Field State Park in Imperial Beach watch over personnel that are reinforcing the border wall with concertina wire. (Photo: Mani Albrecht/U.S. Border Patrol/Flickr)
Democrats Urged to Reject $1.375 Billion for Trump Border Wall in Compromise Spending Bill
"It's time to stand up for border communities."
Dec 15, 2019
Immigrant rights advocates on Monday denounced Democrats for reportedly agreeing to $1.375 billion in funding for President Donald Trump's border wall obsession and called on lawmakers to speak out against the agreement.
Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas) called for fellow members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to completely reject funding the wall.
"Otherwise, why even exist?" the congressman tweeted. "It's time to stand up for border communities!"
The spending bill was agreed to last week after negotiations between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, House Appropriations Chairwoman Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), and Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.).
According to Politico, the border wall funding represents a compromise of sorts:
Money for the U.S.-Mexico barrier will stay static during the current fiscal year, at about $1.4 billion, rather than the president's request for $8.6 billion. Budgets for the nation's two immigration enforcement agencies--Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement--are also largely flat-lined.
Journalist David Dayen, noting that Trump can easily find more funding for the wall by moving money around, was nonetheless confused by Democrats giving the president a win.
"What's the rationale to make things easier on Trump here?" wondered Dayen.
Though the border wall spending is far less than the $5 billion the president wanted, opponents of Trump's immigration policies took issue with funding the wall at all.
News of the spending bill's border wall provision provoked groans from progressives on social media.
"Hell of an opposition party Trump has to face," journalist James Fredrik said sarcastically.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Immigrant rights advocates on Monday denounced Democrats for reportedly agreeing to $1.375 billion in funding for President Donald Trump's border wall obsession and called on lawmakers to speak out against the agreement.
Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas) called for fellow members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to completely reject funding the wall.
"Otherwise, why even exist?" the congressman tweeted. "It's time to stand up for border communities!"
The spending bill was agreed to last week after negotiations between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, House Appropriations Chairwoman Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), and Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.).
According to Politico, the border wall funding represents a compromise of sorts:
Money for the U.S.-Mexico barrier will stay static during the current fiscal year, at about $1.4 billion, rather than the president's request for $8.6 billion. Budgets for the nation's two immigration enforcement agencies--Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement--are also largely flat-lined.
Journalist David Dayen, noting that Trump can easily find more funding for the wall by moving money around, was nonetheless confused by Democrats giving the president a win.
"What's the rationale to make things easier on Trump here?" wondered Dayen.
Though the border wall spending is far less than the $5 billion the president wanted, opponents of Trump's immigration policies took issue with funding the wall at all.
News of the spending bill's border wall provision provoked groans from progressives on social media.
"Hell of an opposition party Trump has to face," journalist James Fredrik said sarcastically.
Immigrant rights advocates on Monday denounced Democrats for reportedly agreeing to $1.375 billion in funding for President Donald Trump's border wall obsession and called on lawmakers to speak out against the agreement.
Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas) called for fellow members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to completely reject funding the wall.
"Otherwise, why even exist?" the congressman tweeted. "It's time to stand up for border communities!"
The spending bill was agreed to last week after negotiations between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, House Appropriations Chairwoman Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), and Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.).
According to Politico, the border wall funding represents a compromise of sorts:
Money for the U.S.-Mexico barrier will stay static during the current fiscal year, at about $1.4 billion, rather than the president's request for $8.6 billion. Budgets for the nation's two immigration enforcement agencies--Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement--are also largely flat-lined.
Journalist David Dayen, noting that Trump can easily find more funding for the wall by moving money around, was nonetheless confused by Democrats giving the president a win.
"What's the rationale to make things easier on Trump here?" wondered Dayen.
Though the border wall spending is far less than the $5 billion the president wanted, opponents of Trump's immigration policies took issue with funding the wall at all.
News of the spending bill's border wall provision provoked groans from progressives on social media.
"Hell of an opposition party Trump has to face," journalist James Fredrik said sarcastically.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.