Texas officials suggested the federal government could pick up construction. However, during President Trump’s first term, his administration built about one-third of what the state was able to put up in the same amount of time.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31570120

Four years after Gov. Greg Abbott announced Texas would be the first state to build its own border wall, lawmakers have quietly stopped funding the project, leaving only scattered segments covering a small fraction of the border.

That decision, made in the waning hours of this year’s legislative session, leaves the future of the state wall unclear. Just 8% of the 805 miles the state identified for construction is complete, which has cost taxpayers more than $3 billion to date. The Texas Tribune reported last year that the wall is full of gaps that migrants and smugglers can easily walk around and mostly concentrated on sprawling ranches in rural areas, where illegal border crossings are less likely to occur.

State leaders suggested the federal government could pick up the effort. However, during President Donald Trump’s first term, when wall building was his top priority, his administration completed just 21 miles in Texas — about a third of what the state was able to build over the past four years.

The Tribune reported last year that the state’s wall program would take around 30 years and more than $20 billion to complete.

  • JcbAzPx@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    4 hours ago

    Any Democrat that runs will campaign on “Actually I always supported the wall and I’m upset he didn’t build it fast enough”.

    Maybe they should try not being an idiot.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      4 hours ago

      Sorry, I hired a political consultant at $12,000/hr and he told me voters will only support idiots.

      Besides, we need to do something as a party to distance ourselves from Muslims, Women, PoC, and the LGBTQ community. They’re holding us back and scaring off all the white male social media millionaires!

      • nthavoc@lemmy.todayEnglish
        11·
        2 hours ago

        I see your argument, but having an opposing candidate that can read the room may significantly increase chances of victory. Of course, victory is a very fleeting concept for democrats.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 hour ago

          having an opposing candidate that can read the room may significantly increase chances of victory

          Only in a large-turnout neck-and-neck general election, where the game actually is about who can deliver the right mix of popular red meat and inoffensive centrism.

          In the more local races where the game is 90% getting name recognition, you don’t need to read the room of voters. You need to court the donor pool that will endlessly and enthusiastically promote you. Go look at the NYC Mayoral race. One reason Cuomo has been the favorite to win since Day 1 - despite being a well-established sleazeball, DINO, and sex pest - is the 24/7/365 friendly media coverage.

          Zohran’s recent surge in support has come thanks to tons and tons of grassroots activists screaming his name at the top of their lungs. And the debates proved he’s masterful at reading the crowd, focusing on the popular issues, deflecting criticism, and engaging a wide audience. But it’s still an uphill climb against a guy whose family name has echoed through NY politics for nearly a century. Cuomo can shit the bed every day for a month and still never dip below 40% favorability, purely thanks to political inertia.

          Just buying celebrity friendships is enough to keep Cuomo above water, even if he does have to spend $1000 for every $10 Mamdani can bring to bare.