Proposed Budget Deal Is MUCH WORSE On U.S. Border Security Than We Originally ThoughtOnly a few days after his inauguration, President Donald Trump moved aggressively to tighten the nation s immigration policies Wednesday, signing executive actions to jumpstart construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall and block federal grants from immigrant-protecting  sanctuary cities. Beginning today the United States of America gets back control of its borders,  Trump declared during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security.  We are going to save lives on both sides of the border. Trump cast his actions as fulfillment of a campaign pledge to enact hard-line immigration measures, including construction of a wall paid for by Mexico. With the families of Americans killed by people living in the U.S. illegally sitting in the audience, Trump said,  When it comes to public safety, there is no place for politics. Trump cast his actions as fulfillment of a campaign pledge to enact hard-line immigration measures, including construction of a wall paid for by Mexico. With the families of Americans killed by people living in the U.S. illegally sitting in the audience, Trump said,  When it comes to public safety, there is no place for politics.   PBSAlthough the source of funding for a border wall was never really clear, most Americans believed with a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, funding for a secure border wall, as part of our national security was a no-brainer. Conservative Review   The proposed budget deal before the House of Representatives is playing out like a bad replay of the latter Obama era: A Republican-controlled Congress   given the power of the purse by the American people   giving away the farm to Democrat demands.But the capitulation is far worse than one may realize. It s not just the lack of new funding for a southern border wall; this omnibus, which funds countless liberal priorities, prohibits existing funds from being used on any sort of border wall as well.According to a Congressional Research Service report from January, the Department of Homeland Security could have taken non-obligated funds and used them to put structures along areas of the border already spelled out in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandating a double-layered fence. Indeed, nothing in current law would appear to bar DHS from installing hundreds of miles of additional physical barriers,  it contends,  at least so long as this action was determined appropriate to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry or was deemed warranted to achieve  operational control  of the southern border. It s important to remember that the requirement to construct  no less than 700 miles  of border fencing (originally 850 miles) has been the law on the books for over a decade. Obama used waiver authority and very loose discretion (thanks to the weakening of the law in 2008) to skirt the requirement.Now that Trump wants to fulfill the existing mandate, Congress really has a moral obligation to honor the existing statutory authorization with sufficient appropriations. This is not some Trump boondoggle; this is a law passed with major bipartisan support in 2006.What the current proposal does is not only not fund a border wall, but it s so specifically worded as to prohibit any of the currently allocated funds from going to construction on the project. The bill actually rescinds $21 million in unobligated funds for border fencing.This means that even previous resources cannot be used on new construction as well, thereby tying the administration s hands and essentially weakening current law. Without this language, Trump could theoretically begin entering into contracts so that by the time the September funding bill is signed, he can hit the ground running with new funding (not that he will fight then, either). So, rather than take what money exists and use that to start negotiating contracts, run studies, and do whatever else is conceivable on physical border security between now and when Congress revisits this never-ending budget circus in September, nothing except for maintenance on the current, insufficient structure will be permitted.Meanwhile, the current budget retains provisions either providing funds specifically for, or predicating them upon, border security in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Ethiopia, and other countries  affected by extremism. That is not to say that the security of these borders against the likes of jihadists aren t our concern, or that these provisions ought not to exist. Assisting in physically stopping the flow of terrorist arms and personnel across borders is but one basic tool to be employed in the global fight against Sharia supremacism. But the juxtaposition of these is telling.A Republican Congress is willing to pass a bill that realizes border security is necessary for countries across the ocean, but will sacrifice not only a symbol of our own sovereignty, but a physical means of protecting it (the only effective way of tackling the policy and political problems with open borders). politics
proposed budget deal is much worse on border security than we originally thoughtonly days inauguration president donald trump moved aggressively tighten nation immigration policies wednesday signing executive actions upstart construction border wall block federal grants sanctuary cities beginning today united states america gets back control borders trump declared visit department homeland security we going save lives sides border trump cast actions fulfillment campaign pledge enact immigration measures including construction wall paid mexico with families americans killed people living illegally sitting audience trump said when comes public safety place politics trump cast actions fulfillment campaign pledge enact immigration measures including construction wall paid mexico with families americans killed people living illegally sitting audience trump said when comes public safety place politics pbsalthough source funding border wall never really clear americans believed republican majority house senate funding secure border wall part national security conservative review the proposed budget deal house representatives playing like bad replay latter obama era a congress given power purse american people giving away farm democrat capitulation far worse one may realize it lack new funding southern border wall omnibus funds countless liberal priorities prohibits existing funds used sort border wall congressional research service report january department homeland security could taken funds used put structures along areas border already spelled secure fence act mandating fence indeed nothing current law would appear bar dhs installing hundreds miles additional physical barriers contends least long action determined appropriate deter illegal crossings areas high illegal entry deemed warranted achieve operational control southern border it important remember requirement construct less miles border fencing originally miles law books decade obama used waiver authority loose discretion thanks weakening law skirt trump wants fulfill existing mandate congress really moral obligation honor existing statutory authorization sufficient appropriations this trump boondoggle law passed major bipartisan support current proposal fund border wall specifically worded prohibit currently allocated funds going construction project the bill actually rescind million obligated funds border means even previous resources used new construction well thereby tying administration hands essentially weakening current law without language trump could theoretically begin entering contracts time september funding bill signed hit ground running new funding fight either so rather take money exists use start negotiating contracts run studies whatever else conceivable physical border security congress revisits budget circus september nothing except maintenance current insufficient structure current budget retains provisions either providing funds specifically predicting upon border security countries jordan lebanon egypt pakistan libya ethiopia countries affected extremism that say security borders likes jihadists concern provisions ought exist assisting physically stopping flow terrorist arms personnel across borders one basic tool employed global fight sharia supremacist but juxtaposition republican congress willing pass bill realizes border security necessary countries across ocean sacrifice symbol sovereignty physical means protecting effective way tackling policy political problems open borders politics
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Proposed Budget Deal Is MUCH WORSE On U.S. Border Security Than We Originally ThoughtOnly a few days after his inauguration, President Donald Trump moved aggressively to tighten the nation s immigration policies Wednesday, signing executive actions to jumpstart construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall and block federal grants from immigrant-protecting  sanctuary cities. Beginning today the United States of America gets back control of its borders,  Trump declared during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security.  We are going to save lives on both sides of the border. Trump cast his actions as fulfillment of a campaign pledge to enact hard-line immigration measures, including construction of a wall paid for by Mexico. With the families of Americans killed by people living in the U.S. illegally sitting in the audience, Trump said,  When it comes to public safety, there is no place for politics. Trump cast his actions as fulfillment of a campaign pledge to enact hard-line immigration measures, including construction of a wall paid for by Mexico. With the families of Americans killed by people living in the U.S. illegally sitting in the audience, Trump said,  When it comes to public safety, there is no place for politics.   PBSAlthough the source of funding for a border wall was never really clear, most Americans believed with a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, funding for a secure border wall, as part of our national security was a no-brainer. Conservative Review   The proposed budget deal before the House of Representatives is playing out like a bad replay of the latter Obama era: A Republican-controlled Congress   given the power of the purse by the American people   giving away the farm to Democrat demands.But the capitulation is far worse than one may realize. It s not just the lack of new funding for a southern border wall; this omnibus, which funds countless liberal priorities, prohibits existing funds from being used on any sort of border wall as well.According to a Congressional Research Service report from January, the Department of Homeland Security could have taken non-obligated funds and used them to put structures along areas of the border already spelled out in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandating a double-layered fence. Indeed, nothing in current law would appear to bar DHS from installing hundreds of miles of additional physical barriers,  it contends,  at least so long as this action was determined appropriate to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry or was deemed warranted to achieve  operational control  of the southern border. It s important to remember that the requirement to construct  no less than 700 miles  of border fencing (originally 850 miles) has been the law on the books for over a decade. Obama used waiver authority and very loose discretion (thanks to the weakening of the law in 2008) to skirt the requirement.Now that Trump wants to fulfill the existing mandate, Congress really has a moral obligation to honor the existing statutory authorization with sufficient appropriations. This is not some Trump boondoggle; this is a law passed with major bipartisan support in 2006.What the current proposal does is not only not fund a border wall, but it s so specifically worded as to prohibit any of the currently allocated funds from going to construction on the project. The bill actually rescinds $21 million in unobligated funds for border fencing.This means that even previous resources cannot be used on new construction as well, thereby tying the administration s hands and essentially weakening current law. Without this language, Trump could theoretically begin entering into contracts so that by the time the September funding bill is signed, he can hit the ground running with new funding (not that he will fight then, either). So, rather than take what money exists and use that to start negotiating contracts, run studies, and do whatever else is conceivable on physical border security between now and when Congress revisits this never-ending budget circus in September, nothing except for maintenance on the current, insufficient structure will be permitted.Meanwhile, the current budget retains provisions either providing funds specifically for, or predicating them upon, border security in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Ethiopia, and other countries  affected by extremism. That is not to say that the security of these borders against the likes of jihadists aren t our concern, or that these provisions ought not to exist. Assisting in physically stopping the flow of terrorist arms and personnel across borders is but one basic tool to be employed in the global fight against Sharia supremacism. But the juxtaposition of these is telling.A Republican Congress is willing to pass a bill that realizes border security is necessary for countries across the ocean, but will sacrifice not only a symbol of our own sovereignty, but a physical means of protecting it (the only effective way of tackling the policy and political problems with open borders). politics
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: proposed budget deal is much worse on border security than we originally thoughtonly days inauguration president donald trump moved aggressively tighten nation immigration policies wednesday signing executive actions upstart construction border wall block federal grants sanctuary cities beginning today united states america gets back control borders trump declared visit department homeland security we going save lives sides border trump cast actions fulfillment campaign pledge enact immigration measures including construction wall paid mexico with families americans killed people living illegally sitting audience trump said when comes public safety place politics trump cast actions fulfillment campaign pledge enact immigration measures including construction wall paid mexico with families americans killed people living illegally sitting audience trump said when comes public safety place politics pbsalthough source funding border wall never really clear americans believed republican majority house senate funding secure border wall part national security conservative review the proposed budget deal house representatives playing like bad replay latter obama era a congress given power purse american people giving away farm democrat capitulation far worse one may realize it lack new funding southern border wall omnibus funds countless liberal priorities prohibits existing funds used sort border wall congressional research service report january department homeland security could taken funds used put structures along areas border already spelled secure fence act mandating fence indeed nothing current law would appear bar dhs installing hundreds miles additional physical barriers contends least long action determined appropriate deter illegal crossings areas high illegal entry deemed warranted achieve operational control southern border it important remember requirement construct less miles border fencing originally miles law books decade obama used waiver authority loose discretion thanks weakening law skirt trump wants fulfill existing mandate congress really moral obligation honor existing statutory authorization sufficient appropriations this trump boondoggle law passed major bipartisan support current proposal fund border wall specifically worded prohibit currently allocated funds going construction project the bill actually rescind million obligated funds border means even previous resources used new construction well thereby tying administration hands essentially weakening current law without language trump could theoretically begin entering contracts time september funding bill signed hit ground running new funding fight either so rather take money exists use start negotiating contracts run studies whatever else conceivable physical border security congress revisits budget circus september nothing except maintenance current insufficient structure current budget retains provisions either providing funds specifically predicting upon border security countries jordan lebanon egypt pakistan libya ethiopia countries affected extremism that say security borders likes jihadists concern provisions ought exist assisting physically stopping flow terrorist arms personnel across borders one basic tool employed global fight sharia supremacist but juxtaposition republican congress willing pass bill realizes border security necessary countries across ocean sacrifice symbol sovereignty physical means protecting effective way tackling policy political problems open borders politics