Let’s look at an alternative view of why the Democrats are fighting so hard to not fund the Mexican border wall.
As I have written before $5-$6 billion in funding is equivalent to running an aircraft carrier group for a week, so it’s not about the money.
Let’s look at the principals behind this stonewalling (pun intended). Sen. Chuck Schumer is the voice of Wall Street banking in the Senate. Rep. Nancy Pelosi has Silicon Valley just to her south. In this matter it’s the newer financial products, which allow digital transfers, that have a vested interest in cross-border payments.
What would a wall do to the money flows over the border? How would the wall change cash inflows to the US banking system?
President Trump in his Oval Office address last week said: “The border wall would very quickly pay for itself. The cost of illegal drugs exceeds $500 billion a year. Vastly more than the $5.7 billion we have requested from Congress.”
Well all that cash winds up in the US banking system eventually.
So between legal and illegal trading profits moving over the border and US banking firms counting on that additional liquidity to fund other revenue streams, you could make a case that larger forces are at play over the funding of the wall to keep the status quo.
This explanation makes more sense from the point of view of the protracted stalemate going on right now.
What’s that old expression? Follow the money.