The problem with Trump's 'national emergency' plan is much bigger than any wall

[Mycroft]

And i would say there is no emergency on the southern border. Your head is full of Trump. Everyone cares about immigration. Maybe if Trump put forth a plan instead of repeating over and over again there is a crisis we need a wall something would get done.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Fortunately, Trump is entitled to his action.

 

[mike2810]

Case in point: You believe that Fox News is a better authority on the number of apprehensions along the southern border than the U.S. Border Patrol.

My link was for a story that was during fiscal year 2018. The BP data ended for the FY2017.,

 

[mike2810]

That has been discussed ad nauseam in many threads here. First, if the existence of the Migrant Farm Workers program were considered sufficient to the desires of American Capital, we wouldn't be here now would we? Oh by the way, our entire ex-border unauthorized immigrant problem at the Southern Border is now relegated to asylum seekers from three small Central American countries that we have been frigging up beyond all recognition for over a century.

In the first place, Immigration Policy is not Border Security and these half baked efforts at "lets make a deal" Legislation that try to pile all of the Immigration Policy chips of one set of constituent's on one end and then pile all of the Border Security Funds Appropriation chips of another set of constituents on the other end are in the main garbage legislation, an easy way for politicians to all claim victory and go home. The 2013 bill was at least a decent effort at crafting legislation but it was crafted in the Senate into an impossible situation for passage in the House. The GOP had the House which means the Hastert Rule was in effect which means the Bill was never going to be brought to the floor of the House for a vote no matter how much work Senators put into that Bill. Actually Newt Gingrich was the inventor of the Rule. I have no real idea why Hastert (now in jail) got hung with the title. At any rate, if there is one good reason why the GOP should NEVER be allowed to gain a majority in the House again it is surely their idiotic Hastert Rule.

As for what we should do:
On Immigration Policy,
- hire more immigration judges
- process asylum claims more rapidly while still considering the applicants and keep those that deserve to stay while sending back those that do not
- repurpose ICE to go after those that forge documents and funnel unauthorized immigrants into the labor pool
- stiffen penalties for everybody in the food chain of unauthorized immigrant labor

On Border Security,
- continue the repairs and refurbishments and gap closures on human physical barrier that currently exists from the 2006 Border Fence Act
- Add updated scanners at all POE's like the scanners that caught that trailer full of drugs at the Nogales POE
- add more and better drones at the border, more technology generally at the border
- add more CBP officers, more vehicles and more aircraft
- maybe AND I DO MEAN maybe add more Normandy where it makes sense

It should be noted that all of that would be much more effective and less costly than Trump's vanity Wall ever thought of being.

AND,
- Do something effective about drug addiction in this country. The source of this particular problem is the demand, not the supply. Perhaps toss some of the owners of Purdue Pharma in jail for the drug peddlers they are.
- Help those three Central American countries that we have helped drop down a rathole and where all of our ex-border issues on the Southern border originate to get back on their feet. Staggering to think that we now have negative unauthorized immigrant traffic from Mexico and nobody seems to think about why that is!

Thank you for a thoughtful response. Maybe Pelosi will speak to that detail someday.

 

[mike2810]

Were these the people who tunneled there way in? Sounds about right for the number and I think it was in two places. I want a plan that we can all agree on. Plan being the key word

What would your plan contain?

 

[apdst]

Congress never imagined that a pud president like Trump would attempt to bastardize this law for strictly political ends … i.e. when no emergency exists.

If Congress would perform it's constitutional duty and secure the border, President Trump wouldn't have to.

Keep over-interpreting "emergency" all you want, but the law isn't just for national emergencies. Was there an emergency when Carter used the law to freeze Iranian cash in U.S. banks? No, not really.

 

[apdst]

Yes, it does require an emergency, which is why he has to declare a national emergency.

Is prohibiting new investment in Burma an emergency? That's been in place for 20 years.

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=1886

 

[Rogue Valley]

If Congress would perform it's constitutional duty and secure the border, President Trump wouldn't have to.

Congress is under no mandate to build Trumps vanity wall. The people of America don't want Trumps wall nor any emergency decree...

The Wall Is Not Popular. (And Neither Is Trump.)

Most Americans — and some GOP senators — don't want Trump to declare a national emergency to get his border wall

Most oppose Trump declaring national emergency for wall funding, CBS News poll finds

 

[HumblePi]

OK Trumpsters, tell us why if Trump gets away with declaring this a national crisis after all this time, what is to stop any president in the future from using this exact same tactic to bypass Congress on any issue? Remember, Trump has said "Give me the funding I want or I will declare a national crisis!" Can you tell us what is to stop him or any future president from repeating this line to further his agenda?

Good point and since I'm a liberal and a Democrat, that once a Democrat is sitting in the White House I would pressure my Democratic Congress to call a 'national emergency' to immediately put a ban all assault weapons, remove the 'right to carry' law and put more restrictions on the purchase of weapons, and I would also ask to have all EPA regulations doubled.

oh, and shut down every coal mine in the country. (so there)

 

[CaughtInThe]

i'm PRAYING that Trump goes the National Emergency route. that opens up the next Democratic president to declare a National Emergency on a number of things.

please, let him do it.

 

[apdst]

Congress is under no mandate to build Trumps vanity wall. The people of America don't want Trumps wall nor any emergency decree...

The Wall Is Not Popular. (And Neither Is Trump.)

Most Americans — and some GOP senators — don't want Trump to declare a national emergency to get his border wall

Most oppose Trump declaring national emergency for wall funding, CBS News poll finds

Congress is mandated by The Constitution to secure our borders.

Article 4, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

A huge majority opposes open borders. It's high time Congress carried out the will of the people.

 

[washunut]

i'm PRAYING that Trump goes the National Emergency route. that opens up the next Democratic president to declare a National Emergency on a number of things.

please, let him do it.

What makes you think that if Trump doesn't do it the next president from whichever party will not? Did Trump trigger the executive branch to give birth to DACA?

 

[CaughtInThe]

What makes you think that if Trump doesn't do it the next president from whichever party will not? Did Trump trigger the executive branch to give birth to DACA?

that's not declaring a National Emergency.

 

[washunut]

that's not declaring a National Emergency.

Does it really matter which format is used. The result is the same.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Does it really matter which format is used. The result is the same.

sure it does. if a national emergency can be declared (after being in power for two years and doing nothing) then it's much easier for a demcrat to claim precedent to PROTECT the american people.

 

[noonereal]

The optics of such a Wall might not change the country forever.

Oh yes it will.

 

[noonereal]

What makes you think that if Trump doesn't do it the next president from whichever party will not? Did Trump trigger the executive branch to give birth to DACA?

WTF?

Come on man, this is silly.

 

[Lursa]

The more he repeats the threat of declaring the emergency, the more he indicates he does not want to do it...he wants the threat to be enough, to bluff his way into the Dems giving him $ for his wall. Because IMO his handlers have explained to him that this end run around Congress will fail, be overturned by the courts and he'll look like an idiot again.

 

[washunut]

sure it does. if a national emergency can be declared (after being in power for two years and doing nothing) then it's many thngsmuch easier for a demcrat to claim precedent to PROTECT the american people.

I repeat,what difference does the FORMAT make. We even have a judge somewhere who seems to uphold DACA as if congress passed it into law. Smart lawyers and biased judges, of which both sides have plenty can come up with a reason to bypass congress on many things. You seem to forget the " I've got a phone and a pen" quote from your messiah.

 

[Carleen]

You are entitled to your opinion.

Fortunately, Trump is entitled to his action.

We need to know what that action is i.e., a plan

 

[Carleen]

What would your plan contain?

A review of all the existing wall, fence whatever you want to call it. Increasing borders patrols, increasing processing at legal points of entry deporting those who have overstayed their visas, taking care of all those now held in camps for a start. And you did not answer my question.

 

[Mycroft]

We need to know what that action is i.e., a plan

He has already given that in that latest Saturday speech. Didn't you watch it?

 

[maxparrish]

That has been discussed ad nauseam in many threads here. First, if the existence of the Migrant Farm Workers program were considered sufficient to the desires of American Capital, we wouldn't be here now would we? Oh by the way, our entire ex-border unauthorized immigrant problem at the Southern Border is now relegated to asylum seekers from three small Central American countries that we have been frigging up beyond all recognition for over a century. ...snip

Ignoring your ancillary swipes at Republicans, your proposal could be considered moderate and reasonable - not unlike the prior moderate and reasonable customs and border control policies of the past. But also like them, they are unserious and proven ineffective. And if human beings honored reason more than they do their gut feelings, it wouldn't be necessary to point out the obvious ad nauseam.

So, once more:

First, no "desire of American capital" can be satisfied as long as the average wages in the US is significantly higher than its immediate neighbors. "Desires" for less expensive labor is as natural as desires for less expensive televisions - if you want them and can get them (even illegally), you will. In other words, you failed to note that "sufficiency" as a goal does not exist in a vacuum. Their actual desire (want) is for "Sufficiency at the lowest possible cost" WHICH is why people employ illegals in ag, day labor, nannies, and kitchen help.

Second, yes the Migrant Farm Worker program is "insufficient" for getting the lowest possible cost of labor for one major reason: it requires that the employer show proof of, and provision for, the worker's housing, worker's comp, medical care, etc. It is a lengthily process that is more expensive than hiring an illegal off the back of a truck. However, for those willing to pursue it, it does provide the sufficient labor wanted at rates lower than what they would have to pay a non-immigrant for the same work.

Third, border security and regulated migration are different in that you must have the first to have the second. As long as you have up to half million crossing illegally successfully, you can't have a immigration system that regulates who does and does not enter the country.

Four, the current system does not work. Illegal immigration continues, from illegal border crossers to violation of the terms and conditions by VISA users. Violators, if not caught near the border, disappear within the population, often in protected asylum havens. As a practical matter, the few caught deep inside the US are, in practice, largely immune to deportation. The border is so porous it is not unusual to find illegals that repeatedly return to the US after leaving the US on numerous occasions.

THEREFORE, after nearly 50 years of repeated failure to create a "reasonable" and "moderate" border and visa control another proposal of "half-baked" and "half-hearted" choices , such as yours, is not credible nor rational - more of the same tepid semi-action that keeps dodges ALL of the above reasons for prior failure is embracing empirical failure as your benchmark.

Why, like many, you are unable to consider the most SERIOUS and ROBUST border and VISA control is as mysterious as it is obtuse.

After 50 years of "half-baked" actions and "full-baked" protection of illegals you might try the reverse; otherwise you're just pissing on our shoes and telling us its raining.

 

[jnug]

Ignoring your ancillary swipes at Republicans, your proposal would be considered moderate and reasonable - not unlike the prior moderate and reasonable customs and border control policies of the past. They are also, like them, unserious and equally ineffective. And if human beings honored reason more than they do their gut feelings, it wouldn't be necessary to discuss this ad nauseam.

So, once more:


First, no "desire of American capital" can be satisfied as long as the average wages in the US is significantly higher than its immediate neighbors. "Desires" for less expensive labor is as natural as desires for less expensive televisions - if you want them and can get them (even illegally), you will. In other words "Sufficiency" as a goal does not exist in a vacuum. Their actual desire (want) is for "Sufficiency at the lowest possible cost".

Second, the Migrant Farm Worker program is "insufficient" for the lowest possible cost of labor for one of two major reasons, the most important being that it requires that the employer show proof of, and provision for, the worker's housing, worker's comp, medical care, etc. It is a lengthily process that is more expensive than hiring an illegal off the back of a truck. However, for those willing to pursue it, it does provide the labor wanted at rates lower than what they would have to pay a non-immigrant for the same work. (The other reason it can be insufficient is that it is difficult to find SKILLED farm labor from Mexico - legal or illegal).

Third, border security and regulated migration are different in that you must have the first to have the second. As long as you have up to half million crossing illegally successfully, you can't have a immigration system that regulates who does and does not enter the country.

Four, the current system does not work. Illegal immigration continues, from illegal border crossers to violation of the terms and conditions by VISA users. Violators, if not caught near the border, disappear within the population, often in protected asylum havens. As a practical matter, the few caught deep inside the US are, in practice, largely immune to deportation. The border is so porous it is not unusual to find illegals that repeatedly return to the US after leaving the US on numerous occasions.

THEREFORE, after nearly 50 years of repeated failure to create a "reasonable" and "moderate" border and visa control another proposal of "half-baked" and "half-hearted" choices , such as yours, is not credible nor rational - more of the same tepid semi-action that keeps dodges ALL of the above reasons for prior failure is embracing empirical failure as your benchmark.

Why, like many, you are unable to consider the most SERIOUS and ROBUST border and VISA control is as mysterious as it is obtuse.

After 50 years of "half-baked" actions and "full-baked" protection of illegals you might try the reverse; otherwise you're just pissing on our shoes and telling us its raining.

"immediate neighbors" like those walking 1,500 miles or more to get here.

"border security and regulated migration are different in that you must have the first to have the second. As long as you have up to half million crossing illegally successfully, you can't have a immigration system that regulates who does and does not enter the country."

Nobody argues against Border Security. Trump's vanity Wall is not the answer to border security. Personal physical barriers are effective in urban areas when coupled with appropriate supporting border elements which happens to be where we have them. They are basically worthless across most of the Southern border. They would be a big expensive white elephant.

That is the problem with the entire discussion. Trumpets are bought into something it is unclear Trump himself believes, that being the notion that the answer is The Wall. I remain unconvinced that Trump actually wants anything more than a Wall Fight to use to keep his troops riled.

If this were a good idea or any sort of idea that could have attracted funding then Trump and the GOP would have tried to gain funding for it during the first two years of his term. In fact, they could have used their 2018 Reconciliation shot for it and they could have had any darned thing they wanted with a simply majority vote in both Houses which they had. THEY DIDN'T try it under Reconciliation or normal order. At some point Trumpets are going to have to get used to the idea that they didn't try ANYTHING for two years because they couldn't even get an Appropriations Bill of any sort out of first gear even with majorities in both Houses AND THEY KNEW IT!

 

[mike2810]

A review of all the existing wall, fence whatever you want to call it. Increasing borders patrols, increasing processing at legal points of entry deporting those who have overstayed their visas, taking care of all those now held in camps for a start. And you did not answer my question.

Did you read the linked article?
To be honest I am not sure if the article covered the ones who tunneled under. What is more important than how they crosses the border is that they came in illegally.

Yes, tunnels happen at the border. Some used for smuggling drugs, some tunnel to cross in to just get into America.

 

[Carleen]

Did you read the linked article?
To be honest I am not sure if the article covered the ones who tunneled under. What is more important than how they crosses the border is that they came in illegally.

Yes, tunnels happen at the border. Some used for smuggling drugs, some tunnel to cross in to just get into America.

Yes so a lot more security at the border would help and a review of all types of security including review where a wall, fence, would help.