"The wall is going to go right about here."
Feb 8 // Jan 25 2017
The only notion more ridiculous than this wall is expecting taxpayers to foot the bill.
It's Security Day!
Imagine a restaurant, with the United States and Mexico sitting at the table after the meal. Except the meal was a wall, not two entrees. According to our President, here’s how that goes:
U.S., reviewing the check, does several minutes worth of detailed calculation and looks up: “Ummmm...Mexico? I figured this out as carefully as I could. Your end comes to…all of it.”
Mexico, doing it's best to not laugh: "'Fraid not."
Turns out, Mexico has no intention of paying for a border wall between its land mass and the United States. So there’s that. Despite that news, our President signed an Executive Order to begin “building a wall” between these two countries. Well, sort of. First, the following things need to happen:
We need to find the money because we have to pay for construction up front. Mexico is going to “reimburse” us. Uh-huh. In this scenario, we're going to find out that Mexico feels like the friend who never has his wallet when it’s time to settle up the bill. The difference is that Mexico made it clear they had no intention of chipping in from the very start. We shouldn't be surprised when we don't collect so much as a peso.
And by the way, Mexico is also not going to buy President Trump’s “This is good for you, too” speech. That’s exactly the same speech our parents gave us when they were about to do something we didn’t like, want or need. Besides, if the only people our country gets from Mexico are criminals and thugs, why would the Mexican government want to keep them?
There’s a lot to consider here and plenty of us were outraged – outraged! – at the very prospect of a wall. But Two Weeks Ago News has no doubt we’ll NEVER build that wall, for many reasons, not least of which is we’ll never get the money up front from Congress. Never.
But we will say this. The small and mighty staff at Two Weeks Ago News doesn’t live in El Paso or San Diego, or any of the very tiny towns along the border that may have daily interaction with all kinds of immigration challenges. We’re not entirely sure we can speak to the overall rules and regulations about who comes in, who needs to go, and how they got here in the first place. (For one illegal immigrant’s perspective, we can highly recommend “The Distance Between Us” by Reyna Grande. The reality of that experience may surprise you.)
Which brings us to part two of security: "Sanctuary Cities." Don't they sound like somewhere you go for a spa vacation? Once again, we are not legal scholars at Two Weeks Ago News, but as we understand it, sanctuary cities are those locations where the municipality in question does not comply with federal authorities when they are asked to release illegal immigrants for deportation. That may be true but it turns out, following the federal law in cases like this is “voluntary.”
President Trump’s order basically says, “Fine. Keep them. And we’ll keep the federal funds you need until you change your mind.... And by the way, we aren’t looking only for convicted criminals anymore. We’re going to go after people who even look like they’re going to be trouble."
Not so fast. The Washington Post had this to say about that idea: “Trump’s Jan. 25 executive order asked the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withhold “federal funds, except as mandated by law” from sanctuary cities. This unclear wording puzzled elected officials and municipal attorneys. Homeland Security funds could include money allocated to cities for counterterrorism.”
So we’re trying to follow this at Two Weeks Ago News. We think the new order is saying something like this: If you don’t end your “sanctuary city" status and hand over the illegal immigrants for federal prosecution and possible deportation, illegal immigrants who could in fact be plotting acts of terrorism, we’re going to withhold federal money from you, including money that could be coming from Homeland Security to fight against terrorism.”
Got it.
Wait. What?
Up next, a break from the play by play, the relentless slog through the directive, memoranda and resulting outrage. Tomorrow: some random thoughts from Two Weeks Ago News. See you then.
The only notion more ridiculous than this wall is expecting taxpayers to foot the bill.
It's Security Day!
Imagine a restaurant, with the United States and Mexico sitting at the table after the meal. Except the meal was a wall, not two entrees. According to our President, here’s how that goes:
U.S., reviewing the check, does several minutes worth of detailed calculation and looks up: “Ummmm...Mexico? I figured this out as carefully as I could. Your end comes to…all of it.”
Mexico, doing it's best to not laugh: "'Fraid not."
Turns out, Mexico has no intention of paying for a border wall between its land mass and the United States. So there’s that. Despite that news, our President signed an Executive Order to begin “building a wall” between these two countries. Well, sort of. First, the following things need to happen:
We need to find the money because we have to pay for construction up front. Mexico is going to “reimburse” us. Uh-huh. In this scenario, we're going to find out that Mexico feels like the friend who never has his wallet when it’s time to settle up the bill. The difference is that Mexico made it clear they had no intention of chipping in from the very start. We shouldn't be surprised when we don't collect so much as a peso.
And by the way, Mexico is also not going to buy President Trump’s “This is good for you, too” speech. That’s exactly the same speech our parents gave us when they were about to do something we didn’t like, want or need. Besides, if the only people our country gets from Mexico are criminals and thugs, why would the Mexican government want to keep them?
There’s a lot to consider here and plenty of us were outraged – outraged! – at the very prospect of a wall. But Two Weeks Ago News has no doubt we’ll NEVER build that wall, for many reasons, not least of which is we’ll never get the money up front from Congress. Never.
But we will say this. The small and mighty staff at Two Weeks Ago News doesn’t live in El Paso or San Diego, or any of the very tiny towns along the border that may have daily interaction with all kinds of immigration challenges. We’re not entirely sure we can speak to the overall rules and regulations about who comes in, who needs to go, and how they got here in the first place. (For one illegal immigrant’s perspective, we can highly recommend “The Distance Between Us” by Reyna Grande. The reality of that experience may surprise you.)
Which brings us to part two of security: "Sanctuary Cities." Don't they sound like somewhere you go for a spa vacation? Once again, we are not legal scholars at Two Weeks Ago News, but as we understand it, sanctuary cities are those locations where the municipality in question does not comply with federal authorities when they are asked to release illegal immigrants for deportation. That may be true but it turns out, following the federal law in cases like this is “voluntary.”
President Trump’s order basically says, “Fine. Keep them. And we’ll keep the federal funds you need until you change your mind.... And by the way, we aren’t looking only for convicted criminals anymore. We’re going to go after people who even look like they’re going to be trouble."
Not so fast. The Washington Post had this to say about that idea: “Trump’s Jan. 25 executive order asked the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withhold “federal funds, except as mandated by law” from sanctuary cities. This unclear wording puzzled elected officials and municipal attorneys. Homeland Security funds could include money allocated to cities for counterterrorism.”
So we’re trying to follow this at Two Weeks Ago News. We think the new order is saying something like this: If you don’t end your “sanctuary city" status and hand over the illegal immigrants for federal prosecution and possible deportation, illegal immigrants who could in fact be plotting acts of terrorism, we’re going to withhold federal money from you, including money that could be coming from Homeland Security to fight against terrorism.”
Got it.
Wait. What?
Up next, a break from the play by play, the relentless slog through the directive, memoranda and resulting outrage. Tomorrow: some random thoughts from Two Weeks Ago News. See you then.