Both parties caught up in symbolism of wall, Utah Rep. Ben McAdams says

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    Feb. 6, 2019 2:56 p.m.

    Make the Border Stations into welcome centers. Tear down all the walls. Free everything for everyone. That's the Democrats MO; that and kill babies at birth and no matter what; hate Trump. Sounds pretty sane and rational to me.

  • help america Eden, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 8:08 p.m.

    I think Ben is trying to avoid the obvious. He can’t speak I’ll of his parties leaders. I hope he has a voice for Utahn’s. When leaders speak of the wall as immoral yet are all in favor of late term abortions, then we need to reassess what it is to be immoral

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 9:36 a.m.

    Thid Barker - Victor, ID, above, refers to what he calls the old saying, "good fences make good neighbors," without apparently realizing that's a direct quote from Robert Frost's famous poem, "Mending Wall." But Frost also says, unless I'm very much mistaken, "Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Were he still among the living, Mr. Frost would not, in my opinion, be a supporter of Mr. Trump's wall.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 3, 2019 6:55 p.m.

    Dems have approved funds for border security.

    The mayors of border towns don't want a wall.

  • Yuge Opportunity Here Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 3, 2019 2:40 p.m.

    @cityboy
    I stand by my statement that we have enticed illegal aliens to make the dangerous trip here, and that better border security would deter future efforts.

    In January 2005 the Bush administration conducted a survey of people captured at the border. (Judicial Watch was able to get partial results.) They come here because of the high likelihood of getting in and the hope of amnesty.

    There is a direct correlation between Obama's start of DACA and the unaccompanied minors problem at the border.

    What we decide to do HERE has a direct impact on what they decide to do THERE.

    As a Christian, it is cruel to entice people to come here illegally. It is far better to help them at home and encourage a local economy and government in their native land. The most needy could never benefit from the present scheme.

    The same goes for feel-good refugee programs that transplant them to the USA.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 3, 2019 11:02 a.m.

    To Trump and his supporters, the wall was never symbolic. It was an actual wall. To now try to shift it to metaphor and blame "both sides" is just dishonest.

  • bamafone Salem, UT
    Feb. 3, 2019 9:46 a.m.

    I guess Ben, your going to have to tell your party to do some bending if your going to meet half way.

  • Flipphone , 00
    Feb. 3, 2019 8:06 a.m.

    I have not heard one good reason Why a security wall to help protect America is a bad idea? other than its President Trump Idea.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 11:05 p.m.

    Both sides have attached too much symbolism to the wall and to Trump and Pelosi personally.

    The discussion and decisions must stay focused on how can we most effectively secure our borders both physically and financially?

    It shouldn't be about Dems, Republicans, or about personality of our leaders. We have to move away from this for the long term best interest of our country, security, and our well bring.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 7:15 p.m.

    @anti-liar

    "telling us, gaslighting us, that there is no illegal immigration problem"

    False, and speculative.

    I specifically stated there's not an illegal immigration problem that is solved by Trump's wall.

    There are absolutely illegal immigration problems, but they all require funding outside of a wall to address.

    We have 11+ million illegals in the country. A wall won't deport a single one of those illegals nor reduce a single penny of their costs.

    We have 3000+ empty job openings for Border Patrol. A wall won't hire a single one of those agents, nor give the existing agents pay raises.

    We have thousands of asylum hearings in the backlog. A wall won't reduce that number at all and won't hire more judges to try cases..

    We have a majority of illegals getting here by overstaying visas. A wall won't stop that number at all and won't stop Trump from increasing H2B visas by 30% as he did in 2017.

    We have thousands of employers who hire illegals under the table to save money. A wall holds none of them accountable.

    80% of drugs crossing the southern border come through existing ports of entry by vehicle. A wall in the desert stops zero of those vehicles.

  • DudeDude Chicago, IL
    Feb. 2, 2019 7:05 p.m.

    I am fine with removing the existing fences and using technology solutions if the technology solutions include using deadly force to keep people out. Armed drones would go a long way to eliminate illegal border entry.

  • cityboy Farmington, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 5:22 p.m.

    @ stand up for truth,

    “Anyone who argues against it seems to be either uninformed or insensitive of the countless lives lost in trying to cross, in harmful drugs (fentanyl) that could, potentially, kill millions of Americans at once by tracing our water supplies with them. This is super serious business!”

    Oh my goodness! You are one-upping Trump on his scare tactics. Without any data to support his claim Trump has branded illegal immigrants as rapists, criminals and drug purveyors. You now tout that they are terrorists aiming to poison our water supplies putting millions of people at risk.

    The vast majority of drugs that enter the US from our southern border do so through ports of entry. A wall will not prevent this. Only more sophisticated detection methods will.

    Most fentanyl has its origens in China. It is either shipped directly to the US from China in the mail, comes in from China via Canada or from China to Mexico and through the ports of entry. Have we considered building a wall in China (not a new concept) or one across our 4,000 mile border with Canada?

    Walls will not stop or even slow the drug trade.

  • cl_rand North Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 3:33 p.m.

    Once again the comments here prove one thing. If you want to find out just how 'Christian' folks are try bringing up immigration along the Southern border. Hard to imagine that such ugliness dwells in the hearts of so many. A sad commentary indeed.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Feb. 2, 2019 3:32 p.m.

    There is an old but true saying: " Good fences (walls) make good neighbors". No symbolism, just fact. Nancy and Chuck have wall around their homes to keep intruders out but they insist what's good for them isn't necessary for you and me? Why?

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 2:39 p.m.

    @silo

    Satan said, "I am no devil, for there is none." This he did in order to conceal the threat that he is so that people would not be on guard.

    Now, you are pulling essentially the same sophistry -- telling us, gaslighting us, that there is no illegal immigration problem, that it is just all in our heads.

    Hardly.

  • stand up for truth Lehi, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 2:38 p.m.

    Walls, barriers, fences work. Wherever they have been implemented along our southern border trafficking and illegal activities have dramatically been reduced in those areas... usually about 95%.

    Anyone who argues against it seems to be either uninformed or insensitive of the countless lives lost in trying to cross, in harmful drugs (fentanyl) that could, potentially, kill millions of Americans at once by tracing our water supplies with them. This is super serious business!

    Stop the nonsense, build the wall and add the additional measures to protect our country!

  • cjf Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 2:30 p.m.

    Tim Ballard is CEO of Operation Underground Railroad (OUR). They rescue children around the world from sex slavery.

    He says that thousands of child sex predators bring child sex slaves across the border every year. The USA is sadly a huge market for these horrible crimes.

    He recently wrote about how building the wall will counter child sex trafficking. This is because in areas where there already is a wall it funnels the predators to cross in the port areas making it easier to catch them, and that has already happened.

    I was opposed to the wall but Ballard changed my mind. Since the wall will help to rescue children from predators trying to cross the border and will help to prevent such crimes, then we should definitely build the wall.

    Put aside petty politics. Save children.

    Build the wall.

  • cityboy Farmington, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 2:15 p.m.

    @ Yuge Opportunity Here,

    “Let's bring the issue down to earth. The legal doctrine here is Attractive Nuisance... Why is this so hard to understand?”

    There are many poor analogies for “the wall”. This is one of them.

    The “Attractive Nisance” doctrine is about landowner liability for children who trespass and are injured when they can’t appreciate the risk of their action. Under your analogy the wall should apparently be built because illegal immigrants don’t understand the risk they are taking in coming to our country and so we need to protect them from their own ill-adventure.

    For the sake of compromise the Dems ought to give Trump his $5.7 million for whatever amount of ineffective wall he wants to build. In thos McAdams is correct. The wall is a symbol for Trump and his supporters. It isn’t about whether it would be effective or not.

    But the trade-off needs to be allowing the Dreamers to stay in this country and work and provide them a pathway to citizenship. Why cannot Repubs understand that the economic boost to the economy provided by the Dreamers is $350 billion over the next 10 years PLUS $90 billion in tax revenues? Folks, this is a no-brainer.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 1:51 p.m.

    @tab
    Illegal immigration facts you want?

    Well, let's talk baseline. Most folks would say we have about 10 or 11 million here now. But it could easily be twice that. Yale/MIT research says it's probably 22 million.

    Now, about that decrease. How do we know? Because DHS says so? Hmm. Any "data" is a guess. Counting the uncountable. How can you possibly estimate how many are getting through, what with boats and tunnels and undetected entry. Face it; we don't know.

    Thirdly, how small is your number when we don't have to worry. Is 100,000 an acceptable, annual flow for you?

    Or, as many on the left ( and libertarians) are saying, we ought not worry about it at all. Open borders are OK. Is that really your position?

    There's a lot of that thinking going around these days.

  • Nunn24 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 12:05 p.m.

    "And I think comprehensive immigration reform, at the end of the day, has to be part of that, too."

    No it doesn't.

    Furthermore, how interesting and revealing, the use of that euphemism. It suggests that most everyone knows it is fundamentally wrong to reward law-breaking; to signify, in the process, that borders and laws mean nothing; and to allow children to keep the merchandise their parents stole, that "merchandise" being U.S. residency, which is the very essence of DACA. That is why the euphemism, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," is used -- to help disguise the push of something fundamentally wrong.

    Let there be no mistake, nor sophistry. There is only one, legitimate common ground: effective, Constitutionality-mandated border security; obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law -- which includes NOT rewarding lawbreaking with the very object of the lawbreaking, namely, U.S. residency -- and the need for persons south of the border to stop coveting their neighbor's house.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 11:35 a.m.

    The total waste of money should be the main reason. Spend it on actual border security, judges and enforcement that helps States not on the boded as well.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 11:31 a.m.

    "A wall is not a symbolic issue. There has to be a physical barrier that will deter those who wish to cross our southern border illegally"

    The "southern border" of the US stretches not just from Tijuana to Brownsville, TX (1,933 miles). It stretches all the way through Galveston, and Port Eads, and Orange Beach, and Pensacola, and Apalachicola, and Sarasota, and the Everglades, and Miami.

    A physical barrier on land will not stop migrants arriving on the beaches along the Gulf Coast! What will you do, build tall walls all along the beaches!? Well over 3,000 miles!?

    Migrants will always find ways around, under, over and through physical barriers.

    Even Dems agree some physical barriers are necessary, but only fools believe they are sufficient. Trump is one of the latter, and all he cares about is how his reality-show-WhiteHouse is doing in the ratings!

    He's aTV personality, not a Presidential personality. If he wants to continue turning the US into the world's largest reality TV Show, let him do it with his own money!

    Or, as he promised, make Mexico write the check!

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 11:12 a.m.

    @1covey
    "That is the fact; arguments to the contrary are not based on facts."

    Here are some 'facts' you neglected to mention.

    In 2006, when Democrats supported a fence on the border, the number of illegals in the US was growing year over year. A fence was justified then.

    In 2018, the number of illegals in the US has not grown in more than a decade. A wall is not justified now.

    In 2006, the number of illegals arriving at our southern border every year was more than a million. A fence was justified then.

    In 2018, the number of illegals arriving at our southern border is 1/5th its peak. A wall is not justified now.

    In addition, a wall will require seizure of land from hundreds of private landowners. It will cut private access to water. It will cause many legal issues and will cause many watershed/environmental issues.

    Finally, border patrol does not want 'more wall'. They want headcount, raises, equipment, technology, judges, lawyers.

    "They are simply a cost effective method to assist in the total effort to control our border."

    Cite any valid source that specifically shows Trump's proposed wall to be 'cost effective'. Just one.

  • There You Go Again St George, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 10:48 a.m.

    Trumps wall?

    Trump endlessly campaigned on the premise Mexicans would pay for his wall.

    Trump is now trying to shakedown Americans to pay for his wall.

    Border Security... Yes.

    Americans paying for a failed Trump Campaign slogan...No.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 10:46 a.m.

    scrappy do - DRAPER, UT

    "Democrats lack of support for the wall is symbolic of their belief in open borders as well as their lack of respect for the rule of law"

    Dems don't believe in open borders and most of the drugs come in by plane, ship and truck. That has been proven. The Mexicans have also figured out how to tunnel under a wall. It's in all the "main stream media" reports.

    deseret pete - Springville, UT

    "The democrats have let pelosi and the main stream media control their agenda in stead of Border security. Trump has talked about all those for border security but the media controls your thoughts and dislike for Trump so you hear only what they tell you to hear."

    Ahhh, the old "main stream media" Republican dog whistle again. Should we be using the Republican propaganda arm, Faux news or Breitbart as the standard instead?

    You love Trump so much that you will only hear what he and Faux tell you.

    Red Smith

    "Same goes for the Dems. Don't Dems love Americans enough to build a safety wall? drive without safety seat belts, and ride bikes without safety helmets."

    Red Smith, feel free to drive without seat belts, and ride a bike without a helmet, what could go wrong?

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Feb. 2, 2019 10:38 a.m.

    This is typical McAdams, try to stay above the fray and not choose sides. Gutlessness personified, IMO. Why does the media not ask him tough questions on this - or any other subject? Why do they let him get away with it?

    The choice is pretty clear to many of us observing this situation. The Democrat leadership is opposed to border security with a wall being "immoral" according to Pelosi. To nearly all of the opposite party the Immigration laws are being seriously abused by illegals (with the support of NGO entities in the US.) The wall is part of the need to secure the border in certain locations.

    Structural changes in the Immigration laws are sorely needed and this ought to be recognized by all elected officials of all persuasions. If one is to carry the current immigration laws, and their abuse, to their logical conclusion you can forecast the catastrophic consequences to our economic well-being, breakdown of law and order and reduction of the quality of life in the US.

  • Nunn24 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 10:24 a.m.

    "And I think comprehensive immigration reform, at the end of the day, has to be part of that, too."

    No it doesn't.

    Furthermore, how interesting and revealing, the use of that euphemism. It suggests that most everyone knows it is fundamentally wrong to reward law-breaking; to signify, in the process, that borders and laws mean nothing; and to allow children to keep the merchandise their parents stole, which is the very essence of DACA. That is why the euphemism, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," is used -- to help disguise the push of something fundamentally wrong.

    Let there be no mistake, nor sophistry. There is only one, legitimate common ground: effective Constitutionality+mandates border security; obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law -- which includes NOT rewarding lawbreaking with the very object of the lawbreaking, such as U.S. residency -- and the need for persons south of the border to stop coveting their neighbor's house.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 10:19 a.m.

    McAdams dodged the question about Speaker Pelosi's statements about the 'immorality' of walls ( news articles do not provide her reasons ).Common ground is good. Does Mr. McAdams think that border security and cost effective ways to accomplish that goal are not common ground ? And does that not mean that walls are much more substantial than a symbol ? As argued previously, walls are cost effective, without a doubt. Time to decide if our security is more important than politics, Mr. McAdams.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 10:14 a.m.

    It's time for the American public to hear more about the facts in an easy to understand, comprehensive way. About how many illegal immigrants are actually getting into the United States and compared to past years, where are they mostly getting into the United States and how, the amount of illegal drugs coming into the United States and how and what method of catching these drugs have proven the most effective, and whether spending more money to reduce the demand for drugs (drug abuse prevention and treatment) is more cost effective than focusing on supply, how many illegal immigrants has the United States caught over the past years and what has seemed to work the best? Until the public can confront our elected officials and pressure them towards real solutions that work, this issue will continue to divide our Country and all that will be debated is symbolic, meaningful sound bytes. Let's get real here.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 9:25 a.m.

    @thid

    It is symbolism because until trump really amped up the border talk it wasn’t seen as a crisis. The wall is symbolic to his campaign. In fact many conservatives comments on here gave trump credit for the severe drop in illegal immigration but now claim we have a crisis.

    The wall has been hyped to the point that people believe if it doesn’t get built it will lead to immediate crime and waves of illegal immigration and that isn’t the truth.

    Also Trumps style is really the problem. The way he negotiates is off putting.

  • What in Tucket Provo, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 8:57 a.m.

    Here is what we need:
    1] The slat fence in priority areas
    2] Increase legal immigration from the current 1 million a year.
    3] Rather than illegals coming mainly from Mexico and south give a more or less equal number from each of the 6 continents, Africa, Europe, Asia, Africa. South America and North America.
    4] set up guest worker system allowing ? several hundred thousand workers a year for a temporary stay.
    5] Legal immigrants would be screened for communicable disease, whether they plan harm to the US, if they have a criminal record, etc.
    6] Scientists might have a priority admission or those with valuable skills.

  • MGoodwin Murray/USA, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 8:53 a.m.

    While I can agree with a lot of McAdams points, I do see one flaw with the physical barriers only in strategic locations idea. Regardless of how remote an inhospitable the gaps are coyotes are going to drive people there. They don't care if they lose a few dozen people along the way, well that's why they make them pay up front. Regardless of detection equipment it is always a better prospect than trying to overcome a physical barrier with a large group.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Feb. 2, 2019 8:44 a.m.

    We do not need an iron curtain!

    We do not need dictator Trump creating divisiveness.

    We don't need millions of illegal aliens flooding our streets and destroying our country.

    And we wouldn't be on this subject today if Republicans would have listened to Democrats in 2002!

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 8:40 a.m.

    A wall is not a symbolic issue. There has to be a physical barrier that will deter those who wish to cross our southern border illegally. Technology is helpful but will not stop border crossings. Mr. McAdams is simply parsing words when talking about the "symbolism" of a wall. Border patrol agents and experts have been very specific about the need for a physical barrier and what President Trump is proposing is what they have said they need. There are not enough border patrol agents to cover a 2000 mile border. It is the Democratic, more specifically Nancy Pelosi and the radical Democrats in Congress that want to focus the debate that border security without a wall is possible. Every real expert on this issue says it is not.

  • Yuge Opportunity Here Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 8:33 a.m.

    Let's bring the issue down to earth. The legal doctrine here is Attractive Nuisance.

    If you put a swimming pool in your back yard and a neighbor kid, say a 4 or 7-year-old (sound familiar), comes into your yard and is drowned, you are liable.

    That's why the city code requires you to put a fence around your yard and a locking gate if you have a pool. It is too much of a temptation.

    Now, we have another caravan forming with the intention of coming into the USA. Actually, unlawful entry has been a problem at our southern border for 50 years or more.

    We are an attractive nuisance to millions of people from the third world. The remedy? A fence and a locking gate.

    Why is this so hard for people to understand?

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 8:34 a.m.

    A walls was not part of a solution to the problem before Pres Trump. Now he is president it is still not a solution.

    Pres Trump wants to protect the country from illegals, that is why they have been working at Key Largo for over the past 14 years and only recently got fired during the government shutdown. Really the president has been employing illegals for more than a decade while at the same time offering to spend over 5 billion of our tax payer funds on his wall.

    How about enforcing existing laws? Pres Obama moved over 3 million illegals out of the country, so many in fact Mitch McConnell came and asked him to stop as it was upsetting the economy. President Trump has only moved a fraction of the illegals out of the country.

    The wall is no magic elixir it will not keep out drugs and crime so why is the president so stuck on that is the only way forward? It is far from the only way forward and with a fraction of those funds the border security can be beefed up with current technology.

    Is the border more important than healthcare? Over 200 people die each month in Chicago alone due to not having insurance or access to healthcare. Fix that instead.

  • P5Proud Santa Monica, CA
    Feb. 2, 2019 8:28 a.m.

    I think that the wall symbolizes the idea that we really love our country and that we will make sure that even though the Statue of Liberty says "Give us your poor---your tired--your huddled masses yearning to breath free" we don't want people thinking that means just anybody. Some huddled masses are simply better than other huddled masses, right?

  • Lets check the facts Santa Fe, NM
    Feb. 2, 2019 8:21 a.m.

    The real problem is that people think the wall is symbolic.

  • Flipphone , 00
    Feb. 2, 2019 8:10 a.m.

    We will see if he is as central as he sounds after he has been time with the extreme liberal majority of his party.

  • Red Smith , 00
    Feb. 2, 2019 7:49 a.m.

    Don't we love Mexicans enough to build a safety wall to save their lives from our drug money, guns, and crime?

    Our drug money has killed thousands of husbands, wives, and children. We owe it to humanity to build a safety wall to protect Mexico from us.

    Same goes for the Dems. Don't Dems love Americans enough to build a safety wall? We can't drive without safety seat belts, and ride bikes without safety helmets.

    But the nation can't have a safety wall? Seems pretty cruel.

  • deseret pete Springville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 7:38 a.m.

    One old Man - If you have been listening - Trump been has advocating the same thing that mcAdams Talked about--- Walls where we need them other types of security at other places -- More border patrols and especially better laws. The democrats have let pelosi and the main stream media control their agenda in stead of Border security. Trump has talked about all those for border security but the media controls your thoughts and dislike for Trump so you hear only what they tell you to hear.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Feb. 2, 2019 7:28 a.m.

    There is nothing "symbolic" in a wall on our southern border! A wall would be substance, not symbolism! If McAdams ( or anyone else) doesn't understand the difference between symbolism and substance, consult your dictionary.

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    Feb. 2, 2019 6:09 a.m.

    Sure
    Democrats lack of support for the wall is symbolic of their belief in open borders as well as their lack of respect for the rule of law

  • HughMatheson CD, 00
    Feb. 2, 2019 6:08 a.m.

    Finding common ground, avoiding partisanship, sensibly solving problems: that's the same Ben McAdams who, as Salt Lake county mayor, enabled us to break through years of entrenched self-interest on many sides and finally have a reasoned public debate on the subject of incorporating the Millcreek. Now the City of Millcreek just had its second birthday, the community is unified and things are going great.

    For the sake of American democracy, let's hope the same approach can still work in Washington.

  • TimBehrend Auckland, 00
    Feb. 2, 2019 5:26 a.m.

    The simple fact is, the constantly lying POTUS is appealing to a fake "crisis" on the southern border for purely cynical, political reasons. We have recently learned (Forbes article last month) that the very idea of the wall was created by Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone as a mnemonic device to help the attention-deficit candidate to remember to talk about (i.e., demonize) immigrants and immigration. Real world, honest, professional policy analysis like this week's Worldwide Threat Assessment do not assert that there is a threat on the border. Traffic has been on a downward trend there for several years. McAdams' call to give in to Trump's fear-mongering and prejudice-baiting bawling about the need for a wall is mealy mouthed accommodation, nothing more. It's political positioning. I'm with the Democratic leadership on this one. Not another penny for a useless segment of wall that will waste money and have no effect on traffic across the border. Stop Trump and his lies in their tracks now.

  • Joyfully American Fork, UT
    Feb. 1, 2019 11:48 p.m.

    Trump has called the Dems bluff. They are not really negotiating at all. I predict he will use his legal power as President to declare a national emergency and build physical barriers, or walls, in places that the Border Patrol (the experts on the front lines) recommend. In the end he will make the country safer, and fulfill a campaign promise. The Dems will get nothing,even though he was willing to do something for the DACA kids, asking other things, all because of their hatred of the President. Sadly, McAdams has no power within his party. He isn't radical enough.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2019 10:19 p.m.

    @1covey
    "Until the election of Trump to the Presidency, the Democratic party was in favor of walls"

    Democrats were not the ones pushing the walls, the Republicans were and Democrats would agree to it in exchange for pathways to citizenship for large numbers of undocumented immigrants. You know the old GOP saying, trading amnesty for the wall. Well guess who was/is pushing for the amnesty side of those trades?

    Even under Trump, last year the Democrats offered 20 billion for the wall in exchange for pathways to citizenship for the Dreamers, and then Trump demanded more restrictions on refugees, legal immigration, chain migration (even though that same year Melania's family used it)... and then bailed on it all.

    Trump had his chance but he got greedy, said no, and then Democrats won in a landslide in the midterms (winning the house popular vote by a huge margin).

  • Holy-Schamoly-What Baloney Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 1, 2019 8:54 p.m.

    Instead of "all wall' or "no wall" how about "some wall?" Oh, I see, one side won't except ANY wall as that 'is immoral,' even though they have a wall around their private residence. I foresee another shutdown because this idea of not even talking about a "wall" is basically saying "no wall" and that's what got us in this fine mess to begin with. They were given 3 weeks to negotiate and throwing out the options in totality for just your solution is not a successful strategy for a positive outcome in the negotiations. See if I'm wrong, but I predict another shutdown.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    Feb. 1, 2019 7:02 p.m.

    McAdams is one of very few reasonable, sensible adults in all of Washington.

    What a great breath of fresh air.

    He's not MY congressman, but I'm proud that he's from Utah.

    We need a few hundred more like him in the Capitol.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Feb. 1, 2019 6:58 p.m.

    I am baffled by Pelosi immoral argument. Politically that is about the lamest argument you could give and it doesn’t give democrats the edge at all with independent voters and that is who they need to win over.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2019 6:47 p.m.

    Until the election of Trump to the Presidency, the Democratic party was in favor of walls, Walls alone are not totally effective, but nobody said they were. They are simply a cost effective method to assist in the total effort to control our border. That has been the experience in the locations where good walls have been erected, not only in the US, but in other countries ( Israel, Spain, Bulgaria ) as well. That is the fact; arguments to the contrary are not based on facts.