10.132.115.101

Subscribe to our mailing list

What Topic Matters Most To You?
View Privacy Policy

Chuck Schumer’s Plan to Block the Border Wall He Supported in 2006

Aside from voting against Trump’s proposed border wall, Democrats have no plan to combat funding the initiative

Chuck Schumer Border Wall

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants to deprive President Trump of his border wall. In a post titled “Schumer’s plan to stop the wall,” Axios lays out the plan in four bullet points, which can easily be boiled down to one notion: Democrats block the wall bill – no matter what else is attached to it – and make the PR battle about the wall.

Despite numerous attempts to block a series of Trump Cabinet appointees, Schumer is betting that the wall will be his best bet to stop a significant Trump victory. The problem? Trump doesn’t need Congress to get started:

“We have enough money to get a decent amount of the wall done in first year,” the source said. “We can reprioritize some funding within [the Department of Homeland Security]. … It’s not like work would come to a complete halt.”

Schumer is hoping few Democrats will cross party lines to back funding for the wall, and he’s likely right about that. He’s also hoping Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will not invoke “the nuclear option” and bypass the filibuster for this particular issue, which also seems like a safe bet, given McConnell’s respect for Senate rules and procedures.

The irony of all this is that in 2006, Democrats including Schumer, then-Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden all backed a bill “authorizing a barrier along the southern border.” In total, the bill, which Obama said would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country,” was backed by 26 Democrats.

In 2015, presidential candidate Clinton even bragged about voting to fund a “barrier” along the southern border at an event in New Hampshire.

Today, Democrats’ reluctance to support Trump’s bill would demonstrate just how hypocritical they are willing to be on the issue of national security just 11 years after supporting a similar provision.