By Steven Jonas
The history of "Trump's Wall" is well known. Big item on the campaign
trail. Big rouser of crowds. Big focus of back-and-forths from
History's
Greatest Con Man. And of course,
really big focus, big back-and-forth, with the punch line: "Who is going
to pay
for the Wall? Mexico" (which could have
been followed by a rhyming "ho, ho, ho," but the crowd might have really
believed
it and Trump-the-Con-or in this case might actually have believed it
too). Of course, when he was turned down
immediately by even the right-of-center Mexican President Pena Nieto, he
came
up with an idea that would have been criminal under international law,
that is
sequestering remittances of private persons to pay for a U.S. government
project.
But Trump stayed with The Wall as a prime crowd-booster
at his, some might say, fascist-style
rallies, after he became President.
But, in terms of the reality of a Wall-from-sea-to-shining-sea, as has
been pointed out by many observers, nothing happened during the two years that
the Repubs. controlled the Congress as well as the Presidency. Now one might say "filibuster rule" in the
Senate but wily ol' Mitch McConnell might have found a work-around for that
one, if he had really wanted to. But he
didn't and it's likely that he didn't even want to try.
For The Wall has been becoming less-and-less popular politically over time, outside of "Trump's base." It has also been becoming less popular for practical reasons, such as: many places on the border where a wall could not be built, physically; many places on the border, especially along the Rio Grande, where property owners, many of them usually staunch Repubs., would fight as hard as they could against giving up their property, and their views, for it; the cost, which could get up into the $70 billion range. And so on and so forth.
Click here for the full article.
Source: OpEdNews.com
No comments:
Post a Comment