Trump to declare National emergency for Wall

Don't forget "chain migration".

 

I accept the WhatAboutism you are pitching

Trump used the immigration laws to help bring his wife’s family to America

We are not proposing that America turn back the clock to 1965 and deport every family member who slipped in through the family unification loophole

But its 2019 and enough is enough

 

So these special agents and informants know how the drugs get in.....so why don't these sophisticates get with enforcement and connect the dots? You're the wizard! It's because they come across the unmanned border that you don't care to protect!

 

Holy god! You did it! You just solved the war on drugs problem. You're a genius sir.

 

Yes, for once I admit to whataboutism: GUILTY as charged.
Glad you're at least trying to be reasonable about immigration reform.
You'll actually learn that I am reasonable too but right at the moment, till we're rid of Trump and McConnell, being reasonable is a joke, because nothing reasonable comes out of Trump's mouth and nothing reasonable will be allowed by his turtle-faced human shield.

Once we're rid of that garbage, I don't even care if we wind up with another Republican in the White House, we can hammer out something where each side gets a little and gives a little.

I don't hate conservatives, real ones. We need them, even liberals.
Sorry, but just shaking my head at this absurd nonsense.
By the way, you might have heard, he even admitted it's not REALLY an emergency after all.

 

That's not what I said, is it?

I said there's been what I consider a lot of overreaction and sour grapes and a lot of it is politically and/or personally motivated. I freely confess that I overreacted last night when I first heard the news, too, but I didn't just sit there and keep freaking out, either. I read the NEA, I read through the list of national emergencies in the U.S., I read various parts of the U.S. Code, I read legal analyses by people who are far more qualified than I am to explain what is going on here and what can and cannot be done legally and unconstitutionally, etc., etc.

Is there a way the president can misuse this law? Perhaps. Will he? Who knows, and if he does don't the courts have a duty and an obligation to stop him? Trump can't do anything he pleases. Even the megalomaniac who preceded him couldn't.

No, I don't think it's the end of the world. If you want to go over that cliff that's fine, but I'm not going to go there until I'm given a reason to do so.

Now, if you want to convince me otherwise, I'm all ears. I have an open-mind and I don't presume to know everything and possess all the answers. I'm still working my through this like everyone else.

 

1. Your post is inaccurate. The 1.37 billion dollars in the bill submitted to Trump by Congress was an agreed upon amount by BOTH PARTIES, not just Democrats. Republicans had to support it or it would have never passed--and BOTH houses of Congress passed it with large margins.
2. Democrats aren't challenging the right of a President to declare a national emergency. Democrats & a few Republicans are challenging the right of ANY President to declare a false or fake national emergency for personal political gain. In any REAL national emergency, the President, all his advisers, and possibly even Congress would stay in Washington & keep working to resolve that emergency ASAP. Immediately after announcing the fake "emergency," Trump flew off to Mar A Lago, FL, for a leisurely weekend. He also publicly stated that he didn't have to declare an emergency, but did so to get his wall faster. Trump's own statements & behavior belie the integrity of his "emergency." No President has ever used this technique to circumvent Congress, who is Constitutionally responsible for all spending measures. By doing this, Trump is ignoring the Constitution & separation of powers, and setting a precedent that could be used by later Presidents for their own abuse of power. Trump endangers the Constitution with his actions, and our Congressional leaders & members must decide what to do about that threat.

 

Here's a list of the 28 active national emergencies:

1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)

2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)

3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (Jan. 23, 1995)

4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (Mar. 15, 1995)

5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (Oct. 21, 1995)

6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (Mar. 1, 1996)

7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (Nov. 3, 1997)

8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (Jun. 26, 2001)

9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (Aug. 17, 2001)

10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (Sept. 14, 2001)

11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (Sept. 23, 2001)

12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (Mar. 6, 2003)

13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)

14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)

15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (Jun. 16, 2006)

16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Oct. 27, 2006)

17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (Aug. 1, 2007)

18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (Jun. 26, 200

19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)

20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)

21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)

22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)

23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)

24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)

25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)

26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)

27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)

28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)

Most of these don’t involve shifting money around but blocking access to unsavory groups.

 

So you are a DemocraticSocialist.....actually, you are just a "socialist".... OR A BETTER DESCRIPTION WOULD BE A "STATIST". The Democratic word is tossed around like the word "racist" in todays culture. Actually, you are most likely part of the silent coup that wants to overturn our Democratically elected President from the day he took office. Global Warming is a cause socialist use to bring about globalism. Bring the U.S. down while third world nations continue to pollute and compete. My own father explained that to me in the seventies,,,,but they weren't calling it "global warming" then. They called it "global cooling". You better stick with the words "climate change". Those words would be safe in any decade.

 

Great post. I obviously don't know the answers either. I have purposely not opined on the technicalities of the NEA. What I do know though, is that trump is playing the emergency card in direct response to failing to get legislation passed. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge that has never been tried ergo it's a terrible precedent.

 

You must be kidding

McConnell is a liberal lapdog

He dispises trump even more than you do because trump is a washington outsider and not psrt of the old boys club

I dont think the nation can wait 2 or 6 years for the swamp rats in congress to give trump the tools he needs to end illegal alien migration

The illegals are becoming bolder and bolder

 

And another 27 that have come and gone. It's a long list...

 

They are illegal if in the US and not accepted for asylum. Until sent back. Some in Mexico apply at our Consulates too.

I doubt most of Trump's supporters believe All immigrants are illegal.

 

Nah.....the puter with Twitter already up on the screen is ready to go.

 

Yes, they could not legally get much funding to do anything significant. Plus, that a president could declare such an emergency is possible but the declaration might run into political if not legal problems. Since the security of the nation is the presidents #1 (or maybe #2) job, a national emergency related to that is right up the alley. But a national emergency of healthcare? Where?

 

I apologize in advance for posting this - I needed to take a shower after listening to her drivel...


The last few seconds were ominous though: "just think what a president with different values can present to the American people."
Indeed.

 

Thanks. Believe me, I share your concerns and distaste for this matter and I'm not happy that we're having this conversation.

I'll say this, if Trump gets his hands on the $8 billion I've heard is available the Democrats are really going to look like a bunch of jackasses. Of course, he'll probably wind up taking more political heat, too.

Just lovely...

 

So the order is signed, and I’ll sign the final papers as soon as I get into the Oval Office, and we will have a national emergency.....snip~





The only thing the meme forgot is.....While triggering the TDS in the Cult of Leftness.

 

So, it was good for Trump's in-laws, but not for anyone else.

Double standard, again.........typical flagrant hypocracy.

 

So basically, you refuse to answer the question. I have to say to you what you said to me: What has you in fear? For me, this is just a discussion. I don't know why you're afraid to have the discussion(nor is it moving the goal posts.)

I asked you simply: Are they here legally or not? Yes or no? I'll be blunt: They're not here legally and by enabling or creating their legal residence, we basically give the justification for future crossings without obtaining legal residence. At that, it also does a great moral disservice to the people here who did come over legally.

Laws are followed consistently, so that they can maintain their legitimacy. When we don't uphold the law's consistency(in which, "moral judgments" as Liberals call them are invalid, because they're not consistent), we invalidate the law itself. There's no need to "abolish" ICE. By virtue of not upholding the law, you've already invalidated the US Border.

Now, I will grant(in the case of slavery or in the case of Jim Crow or the Japanese-American detainments) that some laws or actions that do not meet moral standards, should not be granted legal authority even if it isn't explicitly outlawed by the Constitution/founding/legal government document. This is the general consensus after Nuremburg, I won't argue against that consensus.

But even these moral standards should be defined, and it's luckily easy to define: If it's legal in multiple countries, it should be legal in this one. So UHC is legal, it may not be financially prudent(another argument) but hey it's legal. And I hold the same's true for the Border Wall. Otherwise, we would persecute the Israelis for the Gaza Wall. But that's not even a criticism among anti-Zionists. That is to say absolutely NO ONE criticized the Wall(they criticized living conditions/state of the war, but not the wall itself.)

The Canadians have a checkpoint, the Mexicans have their own checkpoint, etc. Where is the immorality for the United States? Where is the so-called fear and prejudice that comes with the 'border wall'? There isn't. There isn't a logical morality issue in the base of the Liberal argument. Only by accepting their/your definition of fear and prejudice, could we presume that there's a morality issue.

And that's going to be your problem in court against Trump: You cannot prove that the 'wall' is a symbol of fear and prejudice, because that's your opinion. It's not a fact. Not on evidence, or anything at all. It's your political stance. A stance you're free to have, but it won't be legally enforced.

Since your argument is therefore logically invalid, we can now look to Trump's argument: That there's an emergency. It follows along mostly the same lines: Just because you perceive it to be a symbol of fear and prejudice, doesn't mean that it is. And just because you perceive it's not an emergency, doesn't mean it isn't. And the same is true for Trump as well: Just because Trump perceives it's an emergency, doesn't automatically mean it is. He has to prove it.

Thing is: Like it or not, he has a much stronger argument for proving it, then you have for denying it. The school-related gang shootings by illegals, other related crime, border rapes, etc. Drug smuggling. The estimated cost of illegal immigration versus their production for the State.

Numerous(and if I were he, I'd make all of the above arguments) that he can make to prove the case that this is an emergency.

Trump will likely prevail in court, though whether or not he gets his new 8 billion number is dubious since he's long insisted 5 billion. I project the Court to give approximately the 4 billion dollars missing to get to 5 billion and leave it at that.

That is to say, the Court will finally settle this retarded dispute over 1% of GDP spending.

 

The intellectual lightweight strikes again and once again proves that he is a terrible negotiator and should be kept as far away from any position of power as possible. Get him the hell outta here already.

 

This is how democracy dies.

It's how it dies in Weimar Germany.

 

That's the way of precedent. We warned you when Obama was bragging about his pen and his phone.

It's like when the brother pulled his sister's hair and she complained and Mom explained that "He doesn't know what it feels like." This was followed by a shriek from the brother and the sister explaining: "He does now!"

It's very common for Congress to grant legal authority under broad, vague, statutes.

During the Obama administration, defenders of presidential unilateralism argued vociferously that

(a) the president was elected to get things accomplished;
(b) Congress, via Republican majorities in the House, and later the House and Senate, was being obstructionist; and
(c) therefore, the president was within his rights to use his full authority to govern unilaterally, even in the face of longstanding contrary norms.​

For example, Obama, like Trump, was stymied by Congress on his preferred immigration policy, so he used his broad statutory authority under the immigration laws to resolve the "Dreamer" issue indefinitely, using that authority far more broadly, more consequentially, and in more direct defiance of Congress than any president had previously, and the Left cheered him for it.

 

Now there's a reassuring thought.

And she helped make ALL of this possible...

 

The difference here is that Trump has actual statutory authority to both secure our border and declare a national emergency.