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

[Integrityrespec]

So thousands of illegal aliens and millions of dollars in drugs and hundrends of felons coming into the country is not an emergency?

 

[jnug]

So thousands of illegal aliens and millions of dollars in drugs and hundrends of felons coming into the country is not an emergency?

Trump himself has not treated it as an Emergency which is why IMO he is going to run into the brick wall of Article 3 Judges and Justices defending Article 1, Constitutional powers of the Legislature. The issue is whether a Chief Executive's inability to get the Legislature to provide funding for something he wants but has made virtually no effort to achieve via Appropriation is a National Emergency. Trump might decide he "wants" the government to buy him a solid gold Cadillac next. But I doubt that will make the grade of a National Emergency either.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Sounds to me like the anti-Trump talking potato heads are getting frantic. It's causing them to turn into these guys:

View attachment 67249563

We'll see...

1. Gun control - NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!

2. Climate change - NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!

3. Overpopulation - NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!

Thing is, Dems don't pull stunts like that but if they did, every last one of you would be:

 

[Mycroft]

We'll see...

1. Gun control - NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!

2. Climate change - NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!

3. Overpopulation - NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!

Thing is, Dems don't pull stunts like that but if they did, every last one of you would be:

View attachment 67249601

"every last one of me"?? LOL!!

Dude...there is only ONE of me.

And nope, I won't have a problem unless something unconstitutional is done.

Keep in mind that there are only a certain number of laws that have provisions built in that allow action during a time of national emergency.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

"every last one of me"?? LOL!!

Dude...there is only ONE of me.

And nope, I won't have a problem unless something unconstitutional is done.

Keep in mind that there are only a certain number of laws that have provisions built in that allow action during a time of national emergency.

Which ones?

 

[maxparrish]

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

I mean exactly "like" what I stated, as long as immediate neighbors have large wage disparities with the US, there will be illegal migrants seeking better pay and some employers for than happy to employ them. But if you wish to add that even less immediate neighbors who also have large wage disparities with the US will, through more difficult land routes over the Mexican border or expensive air travel, also seek to illegally enter the US then I fully accept your nit-picking carp as another demonstration that wage differences drive the desire to immigrate legal or illegal.

"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.

Then if you or a critic accepts that border security is necessary for regulated migration, it is necessary for these critics to propose what will work - something none of them are willing to do.

And before you conclude that "Trump's vanity Wall" is a white elephant and won't work, you would need to know if it is just a wall. If, as I assume, it were designed by professionals as an integrated security system - something like the photos of existing system I have previously provided of a combination of walls, double fences with vehicle traps and patrol roads, covered by guard towers and drones, I have no reason to suppose that they would do anything less than they have for these other countries. "The Wall" maybe thought of either as 2000 miles of a just a literal wall or as a metaphor for walls, fencing, and various robust borders to seriously control the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants that cross each year.

Trumps motivations are irrelevant; give him a professional and robust border control with Mexico that works - something Democrats are loath to champion. Why? Because they would rather lambast Trump than shut down a porous border. That may be your idea of "not arguing against Border Security", but it is obvious opposition to border security. Anything less than supporting and delivering effective border systems is a position against border security - period.

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!

A good idea is still a good idea whether or not someone fights for it, or "attracts funding". Logically that is fairly obvious. I am unclear as to the reason did not (or could not) use budget reconciliation, or why he handled this so poorly - his manifest political deal making incompetence and talent at artless negotiation is now apparent even to his previously most ardent supporters.

That said, were his opposition serious there is no reason they could not propose an Israeli styled system of mainly double fencing, patrol roads, contina wire, drones, etc. from border to border. As it stands, only 38 miles of double fencing were ever installed - which seems to be more than enough as far as Trump's critics are concerned.

 

[jnug]

I mean exactly "like" what I stated, as long as immediate neighbors have large wage disparities with the US, there will be illegal migrants seeking better pay and some employers for than happy to employ them. But if you wish to add that even less immediate neighbors who also have large wage disparities with the US will, through more difficult land routes over the Mexican border or expensive air travel, also seek to illegally enter the US then I fully accept your nit-picking carp as another demonstration that wage differences drive the desire to immigrate legal or illegal.

"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."

You would have to know the nature of "Trump's vanity Wall" before you conclude its a white elephant. If, as I assume, it were designed by professionals as an integrated security system - something like the photos of existing system I have previously provided of a combination of walls, double fences with vehicle traps and patrol roads, covered by guard towers and drones, I have no reason to suppose that they would do anything less than they have for these other countries. "The Wall" maybe thought of either as 2000 miles of a just a literal wall or as a metaphor for walls, fencing, and various robust borders to seriously control the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants that cross each year.

Trumps motivations are irrelevant; give him a professional and robust border control with Mexico that works - something Democrats are loath to champion. That may be your idea of "not arguing against Border Security", but it is actual opposition to border security. Anything less than supporting and delivering effective border systems is a position against border security - period.



A good idea is still a good idea whether or not someone fights for it, or "attracts funding". Logically that is fairly obvious. I am unclear as to the reason did not (or could not) use budget reconciliation, or why he handled this so poorly - his manifest political deal making incompetence and talent at artless negotiation is now apparent even to his previously most ardent supporters.

That said, were his opposition serious there is no reason they could not propose an Israeli styled system of mainly double fencing, patrol roads, contina wire, drones, etc. from border to border. As it stands, only 38 miles of double fencing were ever installed - which seems to be enough as far as Trump's critics are concerned.

But its not a good idea. There...fixed it for you. And..."fights for it" would be kind. Trump did NOTHING for it in two years after bellowing about it for two years of campaigning. Just did more bellowing from the WH.

But wait....Trumpets think bellowing is governance. They need a Civics 101 lesson.

 

[Mycroft]

Which ones?

You know...I posted a link to some that might affect Trump's wall thing in a couple threads. You can probably do a search and find it.

Other than that, you can look it up on Google or somewhere if you like.

 

[Idiometer]

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

I highly doubt the Trump administration could convince most Federal judges that a "national emergency" exists on the southern border. The facts just don't support such a cockeyed conclusion.

What is obvious is that, for purely partisan political reasons, Trump would be attempting to usurp/arrogate the power of Congress to appropriate federal funding.

If Obama or any other Democrat had suggested pulling such a stunt, you Trumpanzees would have been screaming for his head in a hot second. Can any of you admit that?

No ... I thought not

 

[Idiometer]

Sounds to me like the anti-Trump talking potato heads are getting frantic. It's causing them to turn into these guys:

View attachment 67249563

See my reply to Rogue Valley above.

 

[Mycroft]

See my reply to Rogue Valley above.

Is that all you have? Whataboutism?

Dismissed.

 

[Idiometer]

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?

They'll just claim that somehow, this is okay for Trump to do, and never admit that if a Democrat threatened the same, they'd scream their lungs out. There is so much hypocrisy on the right, it's a wonder they don't drown in it.

:sinking:

 

[Idiometer]

What about Congressiuonal Disapproval to terminate any declared "emergency".

Only needs a majority vote in the House and the Senate.


GOP senators will be forced to chose between their party (or Trump) and Congress. Balance of opinion is that enough will vote against Trump.


Where would that put Trump ?


Politically dead ?

Never trust Senate Republicans. We're talking about McConnell, Graham ... they've been Trump's biggest enablers from the beginning. There is not an ounce of honor left there.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You know...I posted a link to some that might affect Trump's wall thing in a couple threads. You can probably do a search and find it.

Other than that, you can look it up on Google or somewhere if you like.

So you're admitting that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency over climate change.
Thanks.

 

[Mycroft]

So you're admitting that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency over climate change.
Thanks.

shrug...

We had a Democratic President who declared a national emergency so he could start a war. Why not one over climate change?

 

[Idiometer]

Is that all you have? Whataboutism?

Dismissed.

That is not whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you call one politician a liar, and someone replies with "well, what about when Obama said ..."

This is simply pointing out that if the rolls were reversed, the same sheeple stating here that they would have no problem if Trump circumvents congress (which in essence is circumventing we the people) would be crying foul if Obama or Clinton had threatened to do the same thing.

Can you admit it?

 

[Idiometer]

So you're admitting that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency over climate change.
Thanks.

That actually IS an impending disaster.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That actually IS an impending disaster.

True that.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

President Trump isn't bypassing Congress, nor The Constitution.

Then you're saying that any president simply has to declare a national emergency for whatever he chooses to advance his agenda of choice. And when he/she does, you will say this: President isn't bypassing Congress, nor The Constitution.

Of course you will, because you're not a hypocrite.

 

[apdst]

Then you're saying that any president simply has to declare a national emergency for whatever he chooses to advance his agenda of choice. And when he/she does, you will say this: President isn't bypassing Congress, nor The Constitution.

Of course you will, because you're not a hypocrite.

No, because a president can't declare an emergency and suspend the 2nd Amendment.

There's nothing in the USC, or The Constitution prohibiting the securing of the border.

See the difference?

 

[lwf]

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

In any case, border apprehensions are down by somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% since the late 90's. Two bad days in Yuma doesn't change that.

No, I am not OK with a relatively small spike in border crossings during a two day period in Arizona. I am also not OK with the number of rapes that occur in the U.S., nor the number of mass shootings. This doesn't make any of those things a national emergency, and it's pretty clear to me that anyone who tells me that a wall or any other quick fix will solve all of my problems may as well be selling me the Statue of Liberty.

 

[Lursa]

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.

The bold is in direct opposition to decisions weighing the effectiveness and thus the validity of spending all that $ on the wall.

 

[Lursa]

So thousands of illegal aliens and millions of dollars in drugs and hundrends of felons coming into the country is not an emergency?

Moreso than in the first 2 yrs of The Donald's presidency?

 

[Lursa]

If Obama or any other Democrat had suggested pulling such a stunt, you Trumpanzees would have been screaming for his head in a hot second. Can any of you admit that?

No ... I thought not

They constantly tried to call Obama a tyrant or dictator. :roll:

 

[mike2810]

The bold is in direct opposition to decisions weighing the effectiveness and thus the validity of spending all that $ on the wall.

If you have followed I have stated what is needed is a wall, other security measures, and people. I agree the "wall" is impractical to build from one coast to another.
That said. It interesting people are upset at the proposed spending. Have you looked at some of the projects that Congress has passed funding for? There is many areas of waste. At least a wall may provide some good in spots the BP and others have said a physical barrier would be an asset.