In our opinion: A solution to end the shutdown and give both Republicans and Democrats a win

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RRB SLC, UT
    Jan. 19, 2019 7:33 p.m.

    Slars,
    "At 11,000 dollars per student, we are paying 11 million dollars for every one million children of those here illegally for schooling. A wall would pay for itself"

    We are paying 11 billion dollars for every one million children here illegally for schooling.
    *
    I don't think DACA is legal, and it should be allowed to make it through the courts. If ruled illegal, then both houses of Congress will need to pass it.

    Democrats have broken to many promises in the past over immigration, to stop the shutdown before a deal would be stupid.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Jan. 19, 2019 5:08 p.m.

    This editorial is spot on. But, the problem is Pelosi will not do a deal until she believes it is politically advantageous to do so.

    The only one making offers to negotiate right is Trump.

    Pelosi wants shutdown ended before negotiating. But if Trump does this, his leverage is gone.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 19, 2019 4:41 p.m.

    2 bits,
    I am perfectly fine with Trump keeping his campaign promise. I am sure you remember the promise, Mexico would pay for the wall. As soon as Mexico sends the check and it clears the bank, build that wall.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2019 4:20 p.m.

    @ Kolob 1 Most of Trump's executive orders were to replace regulations established by executive orders. That was one reason our economy boomed. The border wall is only part, but an important part of a comprehensive plan to deal with illegal immigration. Other countries, notably Israel have found walls to be very useful. Not much of a chance for Democrats to compromise; they paid no attention to the presentation by homeland Security on the border; they are unwilling to budge. They believe the pain of the shutdown will force their opponents to cave.

  • Akman Santaquin, UT
    Jan. 18, 2019 5:10 p.m.

    Go trump build the wall. Stop the flood of illegal imagrants. We owe $22,000,000,000,000 that we spent that we don’t have.

    The people in Washington spent it. Pretending the fight is over the money is ludicrous. Pretending that the DNC thought it was too much money laughable.

  • Cougalum St. George, UT
    Jan. 18, 2019 1:10 p.m.

    I don’t see anything in the article that states that the House Speaker also needs to show leadership equal to that of McConnell and get a house bill mirroring the senate bill passed. The DNews proposal is disguised call for Republicans to compromise without any funding for the border barrier because there is no House funding.

  • Jayson Meline Chubbuck, ID
    Jan. 18, 2019 12:31 p.m.

    Leaders from both parties are off base and engaged as emotional toddlers over the wrong aspect of immigration as opposed to true root cause problem solvers as adults.

    A border wall is a tactic with short-term results and long-term costs; not an actual strategy that leads to a long-term solution with sustainable costs.

    1) Homeland Security needs resources to enforce the conditions of affidavits of support by entities and individuals who "sponsor" immigrants that abscond from the conditions (overstay) of their visas.
    2) E-Verify/I-9 process with mandatory verification for all employers. Resources for enforcement that includes seizure of employer assets for non-compliance and mandatory jail time for company officers and owners.
    3) Resources for an H1A-H1B visa program that is responsive to real time labor markets based economic cycles.
    4) Resources to process relative petitions quickly, efficiently to cut wait times from years to 6 months.
    5) Foreign policy, with priority on our own hemisphere as opposed to the black hole of the Middle East where we have more realistic prospects of influence to better conditions that would lead to less migration to Canada and the US.

  • clayusmcret Surf City, NC
    Jan. 18, 2019 12:08 p.m.

    Trump already offered the proposed Deseret News compromise. Pelosi said they would not consider it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 18, 2019 10:39 a.m.

    FlyAntelope
    RE: "Honestly, if Mitch McConnell won't allow a reasonable compromise like this to come to the floor, he should be removed as majority leader"...
    ---
    I agree. McConnell should be removed if this shutdown continues, and he continues to not allow a vote on things that passed in the HOR.

    But I said the same thing when Harry Reid was playing the same game in the Senate during the 2013 shutdown when Obama was President.

    He wouldn't allow anything passed by the HOR to make it to the Senate floor.

    Republicans backed down and gave the President what he wanted ($111 Billion in mandatory ACA spending) to end the government shutdown.

    People act like this is the first time in history this has happened... it's not.

    We had 4 Gov shutdowns when Reagan was President and Congress wouldn't send him a budget.

    They kept passing short term budgets to get people back to work for a week or 2, but then it would shut down again when that funding ran out.

    This isn't new. But it may be the worst. And all over Border Security (well and Dems not being able to tolerate Trump doing what he promised he would do if elected).

    Google "Government shutdowns in the United States"

  • Flipphone , 00
    Jan. 18, 2019 10:32 a.m.

    Ever country has borders and those borders need to be defensed,Funding the border wall will end the shutdown.

  • FlyAntelope Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 18, 2019 9:37 a.m.

    This is the solution! Honestly, if Mitch McConnell won't allow a reasonable compromise like this to come to the floor, he should be removed as majority leader.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 18, 2019 9:24 a.m.

    UtahBlueDevil
    RE: "Conservatives want term limits? I don't think so"...
    ---
    I do. I'm Conservative.

    ===

    RE: "Which of the current delegation do you think has over stayed their welcome?"...
    ---
    Open your eyes.
    Google "List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service"...

    All 10 of the Top-10 are... Democrats.

    Now tell me again how it's just Conservative's...

    Hatch was #35. 28 Democrats ahead of him.

    Still think it's just Conservatives who stay in Congress forever when they get in?

    And it's not just because they don't want to stay. We vote ours out. Hatch was an anomaly. Democrats regularly stay 40+, even 50+ years. 7 Democrats were in Congress over 50 years, Zero Republicans over 50 years.

    Of the 55 in Congress 40+ years, 47 were Democrats. Only 8 Rs.

    Still think it's just a Conservative problem? Or a Utah problem? I don't. Not once you put it into context using the actual numbers.

    John Dingle was in Congress over 59 years. And then he retired. Dems would have kept electing him if he ran again.

    Term limits would be a very good thing for the country, not for the political parties. That's why it will never happen.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    Jan. 18, 2019 7:41 a.m.

    Not a bad proposal, but if DACA is on the table then the full 5.7 Billion must be as well. If you want less than the 5.7 then DACA must only allow for a path to legal residency with no option of Citizenship unless they self deport for a year.

    I'm not opposed to negotiation, but you don't surrender another battlefield you've won to win the newest battle.

    I do agree with the Senate or Trump making an offer in negotiation. We need some movement on this. But if DACA is on the table in any way then the 5.7 needs also to be there as a start. Start with a limited DACA and the 5.7 and see if anyone other than Pelosi is willing to negotiate. Get enough Democrats on board and the Republicans in the House can pass it around her opposition. That's how LBJ got the Civil rights act passed, he knew the GOP supported it, and just needed to get enough of his own party to support it to go around the Speaker and House majority leaders (democrats) to pass that landmark legislation that his own party opposed.

  • JohnMill Australia, 00
    Jan. 17, 2019 11:54 p.m.

    Frozen Fractals said:
    "Because most illegally in the United States came legally and overstayed. Many come through airports. "
    Yes, but people entering through airports have been recorded, identities known, and had basic vetting,
    "A wall does nothing about those already here. "
    If you want to fix a puddle you stop the leak first.
    "drugs come through means a wall doesn't stop. "
    Border Patrol could redirect resources used to monitor 'open' stretches.
    "A wall does nothing about caravan refugees seeking asylum. "
    It redirects them to established entry points for orderly processing.
    "A wall does nothing about undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S"
    See comment above.
    "Illegal immigration is at its lowest levels in decades. "
    12 years actually, over 10 million total, apprehensions of 400,000 a year shows the problem is huge.
    Ecological and eminent domain issues are concerns. Yes.
    "a monument to anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic sentiment"
    Sections of wall exist. Are they also monuments? Did you have a problem with them? Do you have a fence around your house?
    There are legitimate issues - but no-one is getting worked up about migratory paths or land acquisition. I wonder why?

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 9:13 p.m.

    ""Replace them all after two terms," has become another siren song from the left, like "tolerance". It tends to be a very one way road, benefiting liberals at the expense of conservatives."

    Kind of like how many terms did Hatch serve again? "Conservatives" want term limits? I don't think so. They just like them when the opposition has been there too long. Which of the current delegation do you think has over stayed their welcome?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 7:48 p.m.

    @mike richards

    You blamed Obama for the shutdowns. What has changed?

  • Mark Terran Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 6:33 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals

    Constitutional mandates aren't a matter of negotiation. There aren't supposed to be two sides to this. In the present situation, one side is endeavoring to comply with a Constitutional mandate. The other side -- a rogue element, in fact -- is flagrantly defying that Constitutional mandate. That is what is going on here. Everyone is supposed to be on the same side on this -- that is, on the side of the Constitution and its mandate of real border security. Those pushing the idea of "give each side something the other wants," really are trying to sneak DACA into this, by sophistry. Trump owes Pelosi and Schumer NOTHING.

  • kolob1 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 4:42 p.m.

    @ 1hemlock - Tooele, Utah wrote:
    "Obama signed 75 executive orders in his first two years . . . look it up"
    Whats your point. Trump, as I wrote , had 92 in his first two years.
    As far as looking it I called the Russian Embassy and they said to standby, there are a lot more to come. They are working on the translation for Trump.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 4:44 p.m.

    @2bits
    This is entirely a Republican shutdown because they are refusing to sign a continuing resolution. That's what causes shutdowns, refusal by one side to pass a CR while negotiations continue. That's how it was Democrats that caused the shutdown a year ago when they were demanding DACA be reinstated (even though they controlled nothing other than enough Senate seats to filibuster).

    I find that nobody else in all of these articles has proposed an alternative non-partisan means by which to attribute blame for a shutdown.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 4:26 p.m.

    @2 bits: "Congress needs to be wiped clean. A clean slate. Get them all out. Anybody who's been there more than 2 terms."

    I fully agree with this.

    But when the Utah GOP delegates did that to Bob Bennett after three (not two, but three) terms, sending two different candidates to the primary voters, the Utah media, Utah establishment, and the Utah liberals/democrats all threw a veritable fit. "How dare those delegates hold a member of the Utah elite/royalty to his campaign promise to serve no more than 3 terms? How dare they replace a solid moderate with someone who might be slightly more conservative?"

    When Utah general election voters replaced Jim Matheson after 8 (not 2, but 8) terms, all we heard was howls of "gerrymandering" and demands to violate the State constitution by having an unelected, unaccountable commission draw district boundaries.

    "Replace them all after two terms," has become another siren song from the left, like "tolerance". It tends to be a very one way road, benefiting liberals at the expense of conservatives.

  • jeclar2006 Oceanside, CA
    Jan. 17, 2019 4:13 p.m.

    Jayson Meline - Chubbuck, ID
    ---
    A 3rd party movement is needed to either serve as a force to purge the radicals on both sides; or replace one of the two parties.
    ---

    The way US elections go to the 'winner', there will always be only 2 parties.

    In the Senate there was a long standing way that minority 'parties' or at least minority factions of the dominant 2 parties could have a voice, and in the in the form of filibuster, and the required vote to end a filibuster.

    The 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster on the topic of confirmation hearings, has passed away. Reid got his momentary victory, when the Democrats had a Senate Majority, and McConnell got his momentary victory removing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

    In any case, minority factions have used that attribute for these budget questions, and so the so called Freedom Caucus has used it to prevent passage of budgets they object to, and here we have the Democrats engaging in the same for issues they object to.

    Why is it that the conservatives whine only when it is issues the object to, but praise the system when their 'side' does the same?

  • 1hemlock Tooele, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2019 4:04 p.m.

    @ kolob
    @bored
    Obama signed 75 executive orders in his first two years . . . look it up

    Trump is finally stopping the "can" from getting kicked down the road on immigration. The Dems had all three branches of government for two years and did nothing (see the interview with Jorge Ramos and Unavision and how he tongue lashed Obama about it). The republicans have not been able to do anything.
    If nothing is decided and the Dems do not go for the Daca deal in exchange for the wall, the Supreme Court may decide that Obama exceeded his authority and they (the dreamers) would then get kicked out.
    Is it posturing on both sides? Yes. Will it get all of this (or most of it decided) so it's not an issue,? hopefully.

  • mattman1 Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 3:32 p.m.

    If McConnell allowed a vote, the government would be open.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 17, 2019 3:26 p.m.

    This is now 100% political.

    Trump needs this or he is weakened.
    Pelosi wants to weaken Trump.

    Trump is getting the majority of the blame based on polling. The Dems have the upper hand because of this.

    Couple of things.

    We should get a reasonable assessment of what THE WALL will ultimately cost. Obviously $5.7B is a small down payment. Lets at least talk about the full cost.

    And once we have that number, lets figure out if the best spend of that money is THE WALL.

    I would bet that border and security experts would probably have THE WALL in some places and other solutions in other places.

    Wouldnt it be smarter to step back and think this through rather than to just allocate billions to satisfy the campaign promise of Donald Trump? Unless of course you think that Donald Trump is an expert in the area.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2019 1:56 p.m.

    2 bits your last comment I can agree with 100%. It was truly bi-partisan and did not attempt to paint one side any more the cause of the problem than the other, which is a correct assessment.

    The comment before that however shows a complete partisan take. The same could be said for the President and his wall. He doesn't want border security he wants a wall because that is a wedge issue for his base. That gives him two plays with his base. Play one the Democrats fold and he gets his wall, then he is the hero for showing those unpatriotic Democrats where it is at. He holds strong and doesn't give in and his base loves him. At the end of the day, he wants the wedge of issue of a wall more than he wants a wall.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 12:59 p.m.

    Both parties would look like heros if they ended the shutdown now. And that's the problem...

    Neither side can let the other side look like a hero, so they both keep sabotaging anything that can fix it, out of fear the other side is going to look like a hero. And they can't have that.

    We have a dysfunctional Government. We have for a long time (back to Bush era at least).

    They can't let anything that may look good for the other side happen... so they won't let Anything happen (just to be safe).

    It happened when Obama was President. It happened with Bush was President.

    It's part of the reason why Congress get's a 14% job approval rating. 14% Make's Trump's abysmal 48% job approval rating look downright awesome by comparison.

    Congress needs to be wiped clean. A clean slate. Get them all out. Anybody who's been there more than 2 terms. Because they are obviously failing to do what we want them to do... anything!

    All they can do is fight against each other.

    They don't fight for us. They only fight each other. And pose for the cameras. And feather their nest for re-election, or building a nest to land in should they get thrown out.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 12:44 p.m.

    Democrats say they want DACA. But in reality they don't want DACA codified. They want it unresolved, so they can use it for a campaign wedge to vilify Rs again in 2020.

    Democrats need this unresolved in 2020 so bad... they won't fix it now. They will sabotage any bill that codifys it (and set it up to look like it was the Rs fault).

    They want it. They need it, in 2020

    They will talk about it a lot. But Democrats won't actually do anything to resolve it while Rs could possibly get credit for it. D's won't propose anything Rs can live with or possibly vote for (ruining their game with DACA). Not while Trump is President. They can't let anything good happen while he is President.

    They won't propose anything he may possibly sign, and ruin their game before the election.
    Deep inside they don't want to lose what they see as one of their main campaigning slogans in 2020.

    DACA needs to be resolved. But I guarantee Democrats won't let it be resolved as long as Trump is President. They can't let him have a win on his record. And they need it un-resolved for the 2020 election. To use it as a wedge. Just one more time.

  • jeclar2006 Oceanside, CA
    Jan. 17, 2019 12:24 p.m.

    What a hopeless 'suggestion'. Trump rejected a Senate bill with $25B for a 'wall', provided there was provision for DACA.

    Why should one expect Trump and Co. to accept anything different. As a Democrat I have been waiting for the Democrats to go toe to toe with the Trump and Co., and point out that Trump in early December gave an indication of signing a bill that would avoid shutdown.

    He reneged on that negotiation, and who would anyone expect that given his countless reversals, he would not renege on any other deal.

    The Republicans have proved themselves unable to have Trump adhere to a 'deal', but instead have supported his capricious style.

    This may have worked for his business deals, where one can arbitrarily pull the plug on negotiations. It does not work in government.

  • Jayson Meline Chubbuck, ID
    Jan. 17, 2019 12:08 p.m.

    The shutdown is the result of both political parties' conscience efforts to undermine checks and balances to erode the Constitution.

    Democrats and Republicans, by purposeful action over at least 3 decades, have purged or marginalized the independent voices of reason among their ranks to achieve legislative gridlock.

    They share the objective of dysfunction which has led to Congress ceding greater power to the executive; and absolving themselves of the responsibility for lawmaking in exchange for litigation in the judiciary to shape laws as opposed to interpreting them.

    While immigration is the flash point for this shutdown, and a topic I have much work experience and real world knowledge to offer comment that would "offend" and poke holes in both progressive and conservative worldviews and positions; the fact of the matter is there is a myriad of issues that will likewise shutdown government in the future.

    We The People have allowed Democrats and Republicans to give greater voice to the radical left and right to our own peril and demise.

    A 3rd party movement is needed to either serve as a force to purge the radicals on both sides; or replace one of the two parties.

  • rickbreneman Paducah, KY
    Jan. 17, 2019 12:04 p.m.

    Apparently, you have not kept up with the Speaker's pronouncements regarding funding for a wall (barrier). She, unequivocally, has said there will not be any money appropriated for a wall on the southern border.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 11:50 a.m.

    At present both parties are losing. It's difficult to imagine how either side can emerge looking like they are responsible legislators.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 11:13 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    "Unless I can hear a good reason why the wall would be useless, I will conclude that the anti-wall party have no good reason."

    Because most who are illegally in the United States came here legally and then overstayed visas.
    Many of them come in through airports.
    A wall does nothing about those who are already here.
    The vast majority of drugs come in through means that a wall doesn't stop.
    A wall does nothing about caravan refugees looking to reach the US and declare themselves for asylum.
    A wall does nothing about the undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.
    Illegal immigration into the US is already at its lowest levels in decades.
    A wall is an ecological hazard, disrupting the ecosystem and enhancing flood concerns for some border towns.
    A wall is an eminent domain nightmare along the border, with pieces of the proposed wall from a dozen years ago still tied up in legal messes.
    The wall would be a monument to anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic sentiment.

  • Seronac Orem, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 11:12 a.m.

    "president, Republicans and Democrats need a self-serving reason to do what’s right for the American people"

    That's all they do anymore is serve themselves. It's time for some drastic change.

  • flyerg Tempe, AZ
    Jan. 17, 2019 10:57 a.m.

    Trump will never sign a bill that includes DACA because he'll lose his base. Coulter, Hannity, and Rush will skewer him over it.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 10:55 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi

    "Unless I can hear a good reason why the wall would be useless, I will conclude that the anti-wall party have no good reason."

    First, the justification for building a wall should land squarely on those demanding it be built. So far, all that group has done is cite statistics completely unrelated to the effectiveness of THIS wall.

    Second, the problems with the proposed wall are myriad.

    The wall will force seizure of private property from hundreds of US landowners via eminient domain.
    The wall will cause hundreds of lawsuits relating to land and water rights surrounding those seizures.
    The wall will create construction, watershed, and environmental issues that have never been assessed.
    The wall is not needed to stop a 'flood of illegals' because the count of illegals in the country has remained stagnant for more than a decade (per border patrol and ICE estimates)
    The wall will do nothing to eliminate the cost of illegals already here, only deportation will stop those costs.
    The wall will do nothing about the largest source of illegals currently entering the country (overstayed visas)

    Even if Mexico actually paid for it, the wall is not justified.

  • Invisible Hand Provo, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 10:49 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi: Lots of people have explained why the wall is ineffective. To summarize, over half of the undocumented in this country entered legally and overstayed their visas. A wall will not fix that. Illegal border crossings have already slowed to a trickle and it's not cost effective to spend billions more on a problem that only exists in the minds of Donald Trump and his base. This is the law of diminishing returns. Finally, the trackless desert wastes are already an effective barrier and adding a wall is an expensive boondoggle. If you want to improve border security out there spend the money on modern technologies like drones and surveillance cameras. We already have walls in cities and populated areas.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 10:36 a.m.

    @slars
    "At 11,000 dollars per student, we are paying 11 million dollars for every one million children of those here illegally for schooling. A wall would pay for itself."

    A wall will not pay for itself because the costs you are citing come from illegals who are ALREADY in the country. Building a wall behind them won't save a penny.

    "The Schumer-Pelosi-Bush wall act of 2006 gave us short (3 feet) vehicle barriers in many places"

    100% false. The border wall act from 2006 gave us more than 650 miles of reinforced fencing, double-layer fencing, and in some areas, fencing 20-25 feet tall. This is easily researched in a quick internet search.

    The other important note that you fail to mention is that illegal counts in the US grew year over year from the 1970s to 2007. Then that number dropped in 2008, and it has been level since then. We have not had net growth in the number of illegals in the US for more than a decade, per estimates from numerous sources like Pew, FAIR, Border Patrol and ICE.

    The need for 'more' wall does not exist any more.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 10:32 a.m.

    @kolob1
    "4) 4 year moratorium on ALL new citizens rights to vote."

    That'd likely be unconstitutional. We have other statuses that already exist that can be used for a span of time for undocumented immigrants.

    @Mike Richards
    "It is needed for the same reasons that Schumer, Pelosi, Clinton and Obama have walls around their homes."

    I'm just curious, how many of those walls only point one direction (or three if we want to count the oceans)?

    "The Left has lost this argument. "

    Have we now? Polling suggests the reverse to be the case, or at absolute minimum there's a substantial portion of people in the middle who are not happy with the shutdown being a vehicle for Trump's demand, and yes, Trump is getting the blame. You get blame for a shutdown when you refuse a continuing resolution.

  • DonO Draper, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 10:28 a.m.

    This is a decent compromise but one which Trump's ego would never allow him to accept. In the meantime the Democrats are winning the shutdown message war; they continue to capture the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans while Trump sits in the White House basking in the glow of the far-right media, proudly owning the shutdown.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 10:16 a.m.

    @herbert gravy

    "Don't think President Trump ever said that Mexico would write a check for the wall."

    False. Trump absolutely stated that Mexico would directly pay for the wall. Trump even called Mexican President Nieto in early 2017, begging him to admit that Mexico would pay for the wall.

    "He said Mexico would 'pay' for the wall. That can be done in more than one way."

    There is only ONE way for Mexico to pay for the wall, and that is for Mexico to write a check for the wall. Any other attempt to fund the wall through trade agreements, or tariffs simply offloads those costs from Mexico to the US taxpayer.

    Trump absolutely did not say he was going to build a wall and raise taxes/debt to do so. He never would have been elected if he framed it that way, yet that's how he's trying to justify the cost now.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Jan. 17, 2019 10:18 a.m.

    @Marxist

    "Trump works for Putin".

    No, he does NOT work for Putin.

    He works for me and the American people as he has so ably demonstrated.

    God bless President Trump and God bless America.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 10:00 a.m.

    No compromise is needed!

    This problem is all on Trump. The great deal maker promised (with a solemn oath!) that "Mexico will pay for this wall"!

    So the problem is between Trump and Mexico. Congress has nothing to do with it. As soon as Mexico sends us a check for the wall, we will build it!

    Make a deal, Donald! Show us how awesome you are!

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 9:51 a.m.

    This shutdown is Donald Trump's. 100 percent. Let's just let him own it. Trump's wall wasn't so urgent when he had majorities in both houses. As one columnist put it, presiding over a government shutdown when you control both houses of Congress is similar to wearing both a belt and suspenders and still having your pants fall down. If we let the president hold America hostage over a wall that a majority of voters don't want or see necessary, what will he hold us hostage over next? We are the only country that plays this stupid political game over budgetary matters. Let's pass a law to end the insanity. This is perhaps the only thing Mike Lee and I agree on, but it's a good idea. The unnecessary and ineffective wall Trump wants has nothing to do with the parts of government he is strangling to try to get his way. He should open the government, then start dickering over things like walls and DACA and real security issues.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 9:20 a.m.

    @ Rick for Truth: "No compromise, no backing down, just build the wall. If Pelosi and Schumer will not budge, give the State of the Union Address from the Senate Chamber, declare a State if Emergency, and do not open the government without the funding. "

    C'mon, Rick, be bold! Trump should just abolish the House of Representatives if they don't support him! The Democrats are just obstructionists.

    I guarantee his base, including many on this board, would support him.
    I gair-ohn-teee.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 9:03 a.m.

    For permanent codification of DACA--yet another amnesty--border wall funding can't be half of what President Trump asked for, but would need to be 100% of the amount required to finish the entire wall. And the effective date of any permanent, legislative DACA would have to be in the future triggered only when the wall is actually built.

    Sorry. But we've had far too many amnesties with promises of future border security or future enforcement of our immigration laws. We got the amnesties, but never got any real security or enforcement. These are now fools' deals.

    Furthermore, any DACA must apply only to those brought here before a certain date, say Jan 1 of 2015. No more encouraging future violations. And those who have only been here a couple of years ought to be encouraged to go home and get right legally.

    It is well past time to get very serious about real border security and real interior enforcement including real and meaningful penalties for employers (companies and their human officers) who hire illegal aliens. No more promises we know will be broken with the next election.

  • Forrest , 00
    Jan. 17, 2019 8:56 a.m.

    Good compromise, DesNews. Everyone seems to forget that these representatives of ours are there because folks expect them to represent different positions on issues. Compromise is what resolves the disputes. Some respect for all viewpoints. This should move forward. Trump will compromise. He needs an offer, something more than nothing. Pelosi is still at nothing.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 17, 2019 8:54 a.m.

    "Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a useless wall and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for half of a useless wall either."

    I am sitting on the wall on this issue. Others have said the same as you, but they have not explain their reasoning, nor have you. I have heard statistics from the other side that cite other countries that have built walls and been successful.

    Unless I can hear a good reason why the wall would be useless, I will conclude that the anti-wall party have no good reason.

    I agree with this compromise. And add e-verify and stiff penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens.

    Yes, Trump said he would get Mexico to pay for it. From Day 1, it was clear that it was buffoon comment. Why would Mexico pay for the wall? But the wall idea makes sense (because no one can effectively explain why a wall is useless.)

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 17, 2019 8:49 a.m.

    "Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a useless wall and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for half of a useless wall either."

    I am sitting on the wall on this issue. Others have said the same as you, but they have not explain their reasoning, nor have you. I have heard statistics from the other side that cite other countries that have built walls and been successful.

    Unless I can hear a good reason why the wall would be useless, I will conclude that the anti-wall party have no good reason.

    I agree with this compromise. And add e-verify and stiff penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens.

    Yes, Trump said he would get Mexico to pay for it. From Day 1, it was clear that it was buffoon comment. Why would Mexico pay for the wall? But the wall idea makes sense (because no one can effectively explain why a wall is useless.)

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Jan. 17, 2019 8:18 a.m.

    @GoldenRules

    Please tell me and others how "Republicans could have had their wall before November 30".

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe 60 votes are still required in the Senate.

    What would they have had to concede to enact such legislation?

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Jan. 17, 2019 8:11 a.m.

    @Ute Fan-60

    Don't think President Trump ever said that Mexico would write a check for the wall. He said Mexico would "pay" for the wall. That can be done in more than one way.

    I hope that a copy of this article has been put in the hands of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the President.

    Seems reasonable to me but with the current status of partisan politics, who knows?

    🤔

  • Uncle_Dave Springville, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 7:54 a.m.

    Brilliant! Let's do it!

  • tsobserver Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 7:36 a.m.

    It's a sad day when an editorial board has to propose a way to keep the parties happy in order to get the government funded. George Washington might say, "See, I told you so," in reference to his warnings in his farewell address.

    It's not a bad idea except that legislation which allocates funds must originate in the House and we all know that Nancy has decided it is to her advantage to appease her base rather than compromise. Her hold on power requires it.

    And so we remain at an impasse.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 7:29 a.m.

    Nothing but doom and gloom from the Left. NO family is going to starve. Who started that rumor? Why did they start it?

    The role of the Federal Government is to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The wall is needed. It is needed for the same reasons that Schumer, Pelosi, Clinton and Obama have walls around their homes. It is needed for the same reason that the White House has a fence. It is needed for the same reason that we have airport security. It is needed for the same reason that we all have locks on our doors.

    The Left has lost this argument. They have proven by their own lifestyles that they consider a fence to be important to each of them personally. But, as usual, it's just more of the "do what we say, not what we do".

  • kolob1 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 7:10 a.m.

    What part of Donald Trump's "I will never back down" statement do you think is in the spirit of wanting to reach a deal or a compromise?

  • Hockey Fan Miles City, MT
    Jan. 17, 2019 7:06 a.m.

    Here's a novel idea: Since the president is not going to back down, and the House and Senate majority and minority leaders are not going to back down, the members of the House and Senate could be true servants of "We the People" and craft a bipartisan solution that would garner a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers to override a presidential veto. I realize that may be asking the highly improbable, but it is possible. Set aside the egos and think about the people you serve.

  • kolob1 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 7:08 a.m.

    Here is better compromise.
    1) Merrick Garland for Supreme Court to replace Ginsburg when she retires
    2) DACA extended and enacted into law as written by Obama. Trumps signs the bill.
    3) All "illegal" immigrants in the USA be given 2 years to sign up with state governments and attend citizenship classes prior to be legitimized as US Citizens
    4) 4 year moratorium on ALL new citizens rights to vote.

  • kolob1 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 6:58 a.m.

    " the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that exists today only because President Obama issued an executive order."

    Executive orders by Obama in 8 years = 276 or 34.5 per year
    Executive orders by Trump in 2 years = 92 or 46 per year
    And Trump wants to suspend the US Constitution and talke over the government by declaring a national emergency by , you guessed it , Executive Order.

    The artlicle author's slick slight of hand " that exists only today" in reference to Obama does not mention Trump's "that only exists today" use of the executive order.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 6:54 a.m.

    "Both sides agree to the deal, appropriate money to reopen the government and agree to work on border security together."
    Yeah, that's the way things should work. But not with Trump. First, he doesn't keep his word. Next, he doesn't work with anyone. He bullies and dictates. He doesn't work well with others. Not our allies. Not with congress, not with Americans. He's been that way his entire life and now, the curtain has been pulled back and his PR teams have no credibility.

  • kmike las vegas, NV
    Jan. 17, 2019 6:52 a.m.

    The President ran on the premise that "Mexico" would pay for the wall.
    Wrong.
    The President was going to sign the Bill passed by the Senate, Until he was told from People outside of his Own Administration that he would look "weak".
    The President Admitted on Camera that "He" would shut down the Government and "Not " blame the Democrats,
    Speaker Pelosi is Standing up to the President, this has been 2 years in the making and Long Overdue.
    The President needs to show some Integrity ADMIT he was wrong, and open up the Government.

  • BYU-Dave Highland, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 6:46 a.m.

    The republicans and the president are or claim to be for some level of a DACA solution. The Democrats also claim to be for border security including a metal wall. Clearly there should be a solution if they were no so entrenched. Neither can back down now without losing politically. Both need to be able to claim victory. I haven’t been too happy with Romney’s actions as a senator so far but brokering a deal across the isle is something he could excel at

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 6:41 a.m.

    This is NOT a Democrat vs. Republican issue!

    The shutdown would have never occurred if President Trump had honored an agreement that Congress had worked out. But he did not! This is a Trump vs. everyone else deal. His pride and arrogance is the ultimate issue.

    Sadly many Republicans have been forced to take Trump's position upon themselves. They are 'falling on their swords' for votes in the coming elections. Not much courage in the room!

    The solution to the shutdown is simple. The Senate needs to vote on the bill they originally passed, which the current House has agreed to pass as well. Send it to President Trump. Let him veto the bill, then override his veto later the same day. The shutdown would then be over.

    Trump's pride will still be intact because it "wasn't his fault"... nothing is! The Republicans in the Senate will have to actually work to get re-elected in their home states, but hey, a little work never hurt anyone.

  • Utefan60 , 00
    Jan. 17, 2019 6:30 a.m.

    DN Subscriber - Cottonwood Heights, UT, said "Democrats can end this now, but they refuse to even show up to discuss options with the President. Shame on them keeping workers from getting paid."

    That is a twist of not only real facts, but what Trump has said about owning this shutdown. He said it publicly, and now his supporters try and blame the Democrats? What a twist of the real truth.

    DN, where is the payment from Mexico from the wall? Was that a lie? Could Trump have not been telling the truth? Democrats are holding this man to his promise right?

    It must be hard for Trump supporters in the face of what Trump says, the real facts, and real truth to keep deflecting and blaming everyone else except the guy who did this. Cognitive Dissonance in play here,

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 6:03 a.m.

    OK, but appreciate this is a hostage situation, with the hostage taker being the president. He will get paid for shutting down essential government functions. This is a way forward, but it stinks.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Jan. 17, 2019 5:54 a.m.

    On the surface, this sounds good. And it would get people back to work and paid. A good result.

    However, given the character of the President it is a bad compromise. Indeed, given the President's mercurial nature, any compromise with this man is likely to turn out poorly. As is said of hostage negotiations, you can not give into demands from the hostage taker.

    Trump and his lieutenants have extraordinarily expansive views of Presidential power. Link that to a failure to understand Constitutional principles and the foundations of democracy make this administration a hazard to our democratic republic. The President proposes, and the Congress disposes. Plain and simple.

    A shutdown over an extremist policy is in the hands of this President, and no one should forget it. No President, Democrat or Republican should be allowed temper tantrums when he/she does not get her way.

  • RedRockUte St George, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 5:48 a.m.

    Normally in a successful negotiation, both sides get something they want, and give up something they would rather not give up. You want a new car, be prepared to give up money. How much money is for the negotiation to decide.

    Trump, on the other hand, sees negotiation as a zero sum game....for him to win, the other side has to lose. Right now, he has not offered the democrats anything in exchange for border money. Nothing. In my car analogy, Trump wants the car. Period.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Jan. 17, 2019 5:41 a.m.

    Trump told McConnell he'd sign McConnell's bill in December. The House passed the bill, and Rush and Ann Coulter persuaded Trump to hold out for more. Trump then refused to sign it.

    That is how Trump honors the promises he makes.

    That is how much this "crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul" means to him.

    This is what Trump's word means.

    Nobody who has watched how this "businessman" has conducted business over the last four decades should have been surprised.

    McConnell has been the ultimate loyal lapdog. Let's suppose that McConnell brought Trump the proposal you suggest. Let's suppose that Trump says that he'll go for it. And then Ann Coulter says that, since the D's have caved on part of the wall, to hold out for the full Wall, because that will make him look even stronger. Do you believe--for even a minute--that Trump would honor the verbal agreement he'd already made? Even though reneging would be yet another stab in the back to McConnell?

    The odds are against it.

  • Mark from Montana Davis County, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 4:52 a.m.

    How about if all voters look at where things are in the country and vote everyone of the current crop of legislatures and president out of office. That is a real win for the country. Pelosi and Trump are worried about who wins, while the country, American citizens and the economy all lose. Our political leaders care only about their own power, wealth and position. They care nothing about the country.

  • Copybook Headings Draper, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 4:25 a.m.

    @Golden Rules - Okay, OK
    "Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a useless wall and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for half of a useless wall either."

    Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay the cost of providing all the rights and privileges of being an American citizen to illegal immigrants either.

  • Mark Terran Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2019 2:36 a.m.

    So, the Wall, and DACA, merely represent things one group or another "wants" and that the solution therefore is to simply give each side something they "want?"

    No; it is not about what one side or another merely "wants." It is about what is constitutionally mandated.

    Despite what the Deseret News is subtly suggesting here, "the Wall," and DACA, are not on an equal footing Constitutionally, legally, or morally. These criteria happen to be on Trump's side.

    By diametric contrast, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are in fact rogues -- standing as they are in abject defiance of the Constitution.

    Trump owes Schumer and Pelosi nothing.

    That includes DACA -- which is itself, at once:1) a defiance of this nation's borders and immigration laws; 2) a reward for law-breaking tantamount to allowing children of shoplifters to keep the stolen merchandise; and 3) an encouragement to further disrespect of this nation's borders and laws.

    The DN is telling us how awful it would for these children to be returned to countries "they have never known." But weren't they coming to a country "they have never known" when coming here illegally? Why is it a problem in one direction, but not the other?

  • Golden Rules Okay, OK
    Jan. 17, 2019 12:20 a.m.

    Republicans could have had their wall any time before November if they really thought it was a good idea. The people who want the wall can join the people who want abortion to be illegal. They believe the Republican party is going to do it for them someday but for some reason it just never happens. . . . .

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Jan. 16, 2019 11:29 p.m.

    The DACA is worth the wall, e-verify, and the end to extended family migration.

    There is a lawsuit in Texas that questions DACA's constitutionality. Let them decide it. Obviously if there are rulings against DACA it would give America a better deal as far as enforcement.

    At 11,000 dollars per student, we are paying 11 million dollars for every one million children of those here illegally for schooling. A wall would pay for itself.

    The Schumer-Pelosi-Bush wall act of 2006 gave us short (3 feet) vehicle barriers in many places, we don't need this waste again. Build a real barrier. We need to enforce the laws, and a barrier is one of the most humane ways. Stop them before they come here and blend into the country, then it gets expensive.

  • toosmartforyou Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2019 11:09 p.m.

    You really think that Nancy will agree to fund even a lineal foot of a wall? I don't think she would, at least not at the present time. Trump isn't going to budge and the Dems would prefer to go on vacation rather than try and find a solution. So to quote the last line of Coddington's book The Gettysburg Campaign, "the war went on.''

  • Rick for Truth Provo, UT
    Jan. 16, 2019 11:14 p.m.

    No compromise, no backing down, just build the wall. If Pelosi and Schumer will not budge, give the State of the Union Address from the Senate Chamber, declare a State if Emergency, and do not open the government without the funding. Start the wall but be ready for the Democrat attack in the courts. Be proactive and get an injunction immediately from some conservative Judge in Texas and keep it out of the liberal 9th Circuit in California. It will be resolved in less than 30 days and the wall will be built.

  • Golden Rules Okay, OK
    Jan. 16, 2019 10:53 p.m.

    Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a useless wall and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for half of a useless wall either.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 16, 2019 10:43 p.m.

    No, this is not a good compromise. Ever since 1986 Simpson Mazzoli compromise the Republicans have given up lots of what they wanted in the way of border security while allowing the Democrats to run several amnesties and promises to fix border security in the future.

    This has been the Lucy and Charlie Brown football trick for far too long, and thankfully President Trump is having none of it. All of this should have been hammered out and appropriations bills passed by September 30, 2018, instead of ducking the issue and dong endless continuing resolutions.

    Full funding for border security and then the government shut down can end.

    Meanwhile, Trump should also make it policy that while workers who were forced to work (TSA, Coast Guard, etc) will get paid, non-essential workers who did not work will not get paid. No paid vacations for work not done.

    Democrats can end this now, but they refuse to even show up to discuss options with the President. Shame on them keeping workers from getting paid.

  • byufootballrocks Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2019 10:45 p.m.

    I agree with this. Appropriate a good portion of the money for the wall, codify the heart of DACA, and re-open the government. Essentially done in what, 10 minutes?

    Both sides giving some and wouldn't that be a nice change...

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2019 10:41 p.m.

    "Republican senators should propose a bill that includes at least part of the money for the wall — say half of the $5.7 billion President Trump wants — as well as a strong codification of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that exists today only because President Obama issued an executive order."

    Totally fine with that deal but that should be the part of seperate immigration reform discussions that can easily bring Democrats to the table because they want DACA. The budget is not a proper place for this fight which is why I and many of my Democratic friends and family opposed the Democratic shutdown a year ago over DACA (and why Democrats abandoned it after a couple days).