Should the Military Build the WALL?

[Gaugingcatenate]

With the largest military budget in the world, with the largest military expenditures in the world, its outrageous to infer our military has run into the ground. You know nothing more than what you hear on right wing media drivel

I listen to military people, I listen to folks I determined are the most truthful. I will agree that there is bloat in getting value for our budget dollar ... its that way in nearly every department.

We can agree to reducing the size of the federal government? We cannot ever afford to fall to 2nd place in our defense. America always need be America's best ally.

 

[faithful_servant]

Except for the part where people overstay their visas, like quite a few do, and thus render a "chokepoint" just as meaningless.

So sacrifice "better" because it's not perfect.... :roll:

 

[Tigerace117]

So sacrifice "better" because it's not perfect.... :roll:

Except there isn't really any evidence that it even falls under "better".

 

[Deuce]

As one of my favorite immigrants, Desi Arnaz, was alleged to have said, " 'Splain it to me Lucy..."

Defense appropriations are not a giant pile of cash the DOD can use however it wants. Congress says "use X dollars to buy Y tanks." Even when the DOD says "We have too many tanks. Stop buying tanks." Problem is, Senator DoucheNozzle and Senator AssClown both have factories in their states that make parts for the tanks, which "creates jobs" in their district, and their votes were key to passing the bill, so we get more ****in tanks.

Hey, I dont make the rules, I just cleverly suggest or encourage them. Yano?

The person paying a tax in your scenario lives in the United States, not Mexico.

 

[Deuce]

So sacrifice "better" because it's not perfect.... :roll:

We should put scarecrows every 50 feet along the border, because .00000001% of illegal immigrants have a phobia of scarecrows so will not cross.

What, you don't want "better?"

A wall is an inefficient use of funds if your goal is improving border security. I thought you people didn't like waste.

 

[faithful_servant]

Except there isn't really any evidence that it even falls under "better".

How about we use the ACA argument and build it so that we see how well it works...???:mrgreen:

Seriously...
Why do seem to want to allow illegal immigration in this country? We already have some of the most lax immigration laws in the world and are seeing the results of that in a huge number of areas. I live in an area where illegal immigration is a minor problem. There are some illegal immigrants here but not that many as compared to years past. But when there is a violent crime, about half the time it is carried out by one those small handful of illegal immigrants (that number comes from 3 different friends who are a local LEO, a State LEO and a big wheel in our local version of the DEA). That means that if we cut off 50% of the illegal immigration, my little neck of the woods sees a 25% drop in violent crime. So if we can take steps to reduce illegal immigration and that means that we reduce violent crime, then isn't reducing illegal immigration a good thing.

Now I support increasing legal immigration by going to a bonded immigrant approach with high demand skills requiring a lower bond and low demand skills requiring a higher bond. Draw on any public services and the $$ comes form your bond.

 

[faithful_servant]

We should put scarecrows every 50 feet along the border, because .00000001% of illegal immigrants have a phobia of scarecrows so will not cross.

What, you don't want "better?"

A wall is an inefficient use of funds if your goal is improving border security. I thought you people didn't like waste.

C'mon, TRY to contribute intelligent comments... :roll:

 

[Deuce]

How about we use the ACA argument and build it so that we see how well it works...???:mrgreen:

Seriously...
Why do seem to want to allow illegal immigration in this country?

False dichotomy. Pointing out a wall is a stupid, wasteful plan doesn't mean I want to "allow illegal immigration."

If you're against my scarecrow plan, it means you are for open borders?

 

[Deuce]

C'mon, TRY to contribute intelligent comments... :roll:

A wall is an inefficient use of funds if your goal is improving border security

Simple enough for you or should I break out the crayons?

 

[Tangmo]

As has been noted many times, it's not how many come across but who they are that come across and where they are from....


Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings, Trend Expected to Continue

The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally, raising questions about the effectiveness of President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.

Crossing the border is not the way "the large majority of persons now become undocumented," the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) said in a recent report. Two-thirds of those who joined the undocumented population did so by entering with a valid visa and then overstaying their period of admission, the center repored.

Overstays have exceeded those entering illegally every year since 2007, and there have been half a million more overstays than illegal entries since 2007.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino...der-crossings-trend-expected-continue-n730216


Cuban refugees are welcomed while most everyone else from almost everywhere else south of the USA are unwelcome. Someone here already called undocumented migrants to USA the "enemy" and "potential and proven enemies" of the USA when an enemy is in fact a side trying to destroy your armed forces and conquer the country. The word 'enemy' is dead wrong concerning this issue (and most issues). Indeed, having the USA armed forces fund and construct Trump's Wall would positively harm the national security of the United States by treating the people and country of Mexico as the, well, the enemy. This extends to all the peoples and governments of central America and South America. The harm to the national security of the United States is both intolerable and unacceptable.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Defense appropriations are not a giant pile of cash the DOD can use however it wants. Congress says "use X dollars to buy Y tanks." Even when the DOD says "We have too many tanks. Stop buying tanks." Problem is, Senator DoucheNozzle and Senator AssClown both have factories in their states that make parts for the tanks, which "creates jobs" in their district, and their votes were key to passing the bill, so we get more ****in tanks.



The person paying a tax in your scenario lives in the United States, not Mexico.

You are stating categorically here that the President cannot declare a national state of emergency?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1621

50 U.S. Code § 1621 - Declaration of national emergency by President; publication in Federal Register; effect on other laws; superseding legislation
US Code

(a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

(b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be exercised during a national emergency shall be effective and remain in effect (1) only when the President (in accordance with subsection (a) of this section), specifically declares a national emergency, and (2) only in accordance with this chapter. No law enacted after September 14, 1976, shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so in specific terms, referring to this subchapter, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this subchapter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act Looks pretty clear Trump can get around the regular appropriations issues, tell me where I am mistaken.


As to the tax, are you purporting that most of the money is being sent to Mexico by US citizens? They might live in the USA, that does not confirm they are here legally or are citizens. An easy solution if they are citizens, deduct 10% from the amount being sent to Mexico and, Voila!, you get Mexicans to be paying for the wall. Maybe they should up the %? How about 20% or better yet, 50%? Have the wall paid for in 2 years...nice, I agree with ya.

 

[jnug]

He can but if he does, he certainly dooms the GOP is the Nov elections outside of districts that are full on red. It might be doomed already.

There is simply no rational for the Wall no matter how many of the 33% of the total electorate that put him in office voted for it. Our issue with illegals are visa overstays and "our drugs". Our drugs come in through ports of entry. He will pay a price for it in November because THERE IS NO STATE OF EMERGENCY that justifies calling a state of emergency to build a wall that is unresponsive to the issue.

Some border residents want it....none of them want to give up their property for it. So there is that. There are just far far better ways to spend our immigration dollars than a southern border wall will ever be. The Wall does play well to the cultural divide crowd though.

 

[Deuce]

You are stating categorically here that the President cannot declare a national state of emergency?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1621

50 U.S. Code § 1621 - Declaration of national emergency by President; publication in Federal Register; effect on other laws; superseding legislation
US Code

(a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

(b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be exercised during a national emergency shall be effective and remain in effect (1) only when the President (in accordance with subsection (a) of this section), specifically declares a national emergency, and (2) only in accordance with this chapter. No law enacted after September 14, 1976, shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so in specific terms, referring to this subchapter, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this subchapter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act Looks pretty clear Trump can get around the regular appropriations issues, tell me where I am mistaken.

This law, in short, says "laws that have emergency powers only have those powers active when there's a declared emergency." So you'll have to identify a specific law that says the president has emergency powers to appropriate funds in this manner.

The law you quoted actually limits the president's emergency powers to things explicitly granted by Congress.

As to the tax, are you purporting that most of the money is being sent to Mexico by US citizens? They might live in the USA, that does not confirm they are here legally or are citizens. An easy solution if they are citizens, deduct 10% from the amount being sent to Mexico and, Voila!, you get Mexicans to be paying for the wall. Maybe they should up the %? How about 20% or better yet, 50%? Have the wall paid for in 2 years...nice, I agree with ya.

Doesn't matter if they are a citizen or not. They live here and are spending money here. The economy doesn't care about citizenship, supply and demand don't check your passport. Money that might have been spent on a television in an American store is now spent on a wall. That's Americans paying for the wall.

 

[jnug]

I suspect his argument is that the President can game the system if he wants to and if he is going to go so far as declare a state of emergency he would happily take the added step of finding some law with emergency powers authority embedded in it. Takes me back to where I was....trump can bend and twist a whole bunch of stuff if he wants to...but he will have about 5 feet of wall done if that by the time we get to November and the GOP ends up paying for it.

 

[faithful_servant]

False dichotomy. Pointing out a wall is a stupid, wasteful plan doesn't mean I want to "allow illegal immigration."

If you're against my scarecrow plan, it means you are for open borders?

That was why the word "seem" was in there...

You're making every effort to shoot down any idea that gets proposed, yet you offer none of your own. So let's put our cards on the table:
Do you want to to see illegal immigration stopped?

 

[faithful_servant]

A wall is an inefficient use of funds if your goal is improving border security

Simple enough for you or should I break out the crayons?

Making a statement doesn't make it true. A wall in the right places would do a lot to reduce illegal immigration and allow resources to be focused on areas where a wall wouldn't be effective or cost effective. My argument isn't based on a binary choice of wall/no wall, but rather the right wall in the right places with right support to those places where the wall wouldn't work.

 

[faithful_servant]

As has been noted many times, it's not how many come across but who they are that come across and where they are from....


Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings, Trend Expected to Continue

The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally, raising questions about the effectiveness of President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.

Crossing the border is not the way "the large majority of persons now become undocumented," the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) said in a recent report. Two-thirds of those who joined the undocumented population did so by entering with a valid visa and then overstaying their period of admission, the center repored.

Overstays have exceeded those entering illegally every year since 2007, and there have been half a million more overstays than illegal entries since 2007.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino...der-crossings-trend-expected-continue-n730216


Cuban refugees are welcomed while most everyone else from almost everywhere else south of the USA are unwelcome. Someone here already called undocumented migrants to USA the "enemy" and "potential and proven enemies" of the USA when an enemy is in fact a side trying to destroy your armed forces and conquer the country. The word 'enemy' is dead wrong concerning this issue (and most issues). Indeed, having the USA armed forces fund and construct Trump's Wall would positively harm the national security of the United States by treating the people and country of Mexico as the, well, the enemy. This extends to all the peoples and governments of central America and South America. The harm to the national security of the United States is both intolerable and unacceptable.

Are you saying that because we have two problems facing us, we should ignore one of them?? Why not address both of them?? Start with a database of all immigrants and require that anyone who employs or contracts with any immigrant report that fact to the gov't, along with the immigrant's current address and an ID# attached to their "green card". This way we know where they are, so that if they do overstay their visit, they can be contacted to correct the situation and if they won't correct it, then send them home. Now that we have the visa issue addressed, how about you take a turn and address how to stop the illegal border crossings...

 

[Deuce]

That was why the word "seem" was in there...

You're making every effort to shoot down any idea that gets proposed, yet you offer none of your own. So let's put our cards on the table:
Do you want to to see illegal immigration stopped?

Do you want to see murder stopped?

Exactly what card is this revealing? Useless platitudes?

Do you want to improve border security more efficiently and effectively than a wall would accomplish? Because you seem dead-set on the worst possible way to improve border security. My only conclusion, therefore, is that you're actually against improving border security. See, I can play silly games too.

 

[Deuce]

Making a statement doesn't make it true. A wall in the right places would do a lot to reduce illegal immigration and allow resources to be focused on areas where a wall wouldn't be effective or cost effective. My argument isn't based on a binary choice of wall/no wall, but rather the right wall in the right places with right support to those places where the wall wouldn't work.

Weird how you're allowed a non-binary choice, but you're assigning a binary choice to others.

 

[faithful_servant]

Do you want to see murder stopped?

Exactly what card is this revealing? Useless platitudes?

Do you want to improve border security more efficiently and effectively than a wall would accomplish? Because you seem dead-set on the worst possible way to improve border security. My only conclusion, therefore, is that you're actually against improving border security. See, I can play silly games too.

You haven't seemed to take a stand one way or the other, so I'd just like some clarity on this issue. Can you just provide a simple Yes or No, because so far it sounds like you don't want illegal immigration stopped. If you do, then why not offer solutions instead of just attacking ideas??

 

[faithful_servant]

Weird how you're allowed a non-binary choice, but you're assigning a binary choice to others.

Some issues are binary in nature, others aren't. :roll:

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

This law, in short, says "laws that have emergency powers only have those powers active when there's a declared emergency." So you'll have to identify a specific law that says the president has emergency powers to appropriate funds in this manner.

The law you quoted actually limits the president's emergency powers to things explicitly granted by Congress.


Doesn't matter if they are a citizen or not. They live here and are spending money here. The economy doesn't care about citizenship, supply and demand don't check your passport. Money that might have been spent on a television in an American store is now spent on a wall. That's Americans paying for the wall.

Want to clue us in? What are you even talking about? That is about as clear and thick, compared to the text of the statute and presidential emergency poweres, as a wall without windows or doors. If only our border wall could be this thick, wide and tall.

 

[phattonez]

In other words, even a totalitarian system couldn’t stop people from getting past their wall.

Say we found a drug that cured 99% of cancers. Your response would be "even this can't cure everyone of cancer." Right.

 

[Deuce]

You haven't seemed to take a stand one way or the other, so I'd just like some clarity on this issue. Can you just provide a simple Yes or No, because so far it sounds like you don't want illegal immigration stopped. If you do, then why not offer solutions instead of just attacking ideas??

It seems like you think the choice is binary.

I want all crime to stop, all hunger to stop, all sadness to stop, and the Kardashians to have never existed. That's not a useful discussion point.

I've offered ideas in the past. UAV patrols, for example.

 

[Deuce]

Want to clue us in? What are you even talking about? That is about as clear and thick, compared to the text of the statute and presidential emergency poweres, as a wall without windows or doors. If only our border wall could be this thick, wide and tall.

The law you quoted doesn't grant Donald Trump power to reappropriate funds for a border wall.

The law you quoted actually limits emergency powers, ensuring there must be a defined start and end point to a "state of emergency" and a president didn't just decide to hang on to emergency powers forever.

So, can you show me a law that states the President has emergency authority to reappropriate funds from, say, tank production to wall construction?