Thoughts on the potential use of the emergency declaration to fund the border wall?

Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.

Thoughts?

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.
Thoughts?

I worry that Trump has become obsessed with the wall. In my opinion he gave up too much to get a sliver of wall. I want border security and a rational immigration policy, but I don't think a wall is the best or most cost-effective way to go.

That puts me at odds with both sides. I don't agree with Trump in that I want other things instead of a wall. I don't agree with democrats because I do want a secure border and a rational immigration policy. Democrats don't want that because they see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of democrat votes. Get them in, get them to sanctuary cities, get them hooked on welfare, and figure out how to get their vote.

(02-15-2019 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.
Thoughts?

I worry that Trump has become obsessed with the wall. In my opinion he gave up too much to get a sliver of wall. I want border security and a rational immigration policy, but I don't think a wall is the best or most cost-effective way to go.

That puts me at odds with both sides. I don't agree with Trump in that I want other things instead of a wall. I don't agree with democrats because I do want a secure border and a rational immigration policy. Democrats don't want that because they see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of democrat votes. Get them in, get them to sanctuary cities, get them hooked on welfare, and figure out how to get their vote.

I'm not sure Trump gave up anything in his agreement.

All the Dems "got" was less funding for the wall. There's still funding in the bill for extra border security agents, customs officers, immigration judges, and technology to detect drugs and weapons.

(02-15-2019 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.
Thoughts?

I worry that Trump has become obsessed with the wall. In my opinion he gave up too much to get a sliver of wall. I want border security and a rational immigration policy, but I don't think a wall is the best or most cost-effective way to go.

That puts me at odds with both sides. I don't agree with Trump in that I want other things instead of a wall. I don't agree with democrats because I do want a secure border and a rational immigration policy. Democrats don't want that because they see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of democrat votes. Get them in, get them to sanctuary cities, get them hooked on welfare, and figure out how to get their vote.

I don't understand this position - it's either entirely nihilistic or entirely condescending. Nihilistic in the sense that it assumes there's nothing Republicans can do to attract the votes of naturalized immigrants who originally entered the country illegally; condescending in the sense that it assumes these people have no other motivation than to get on welfare, as you put it. It seems to me that people who are inclined to risk travelling thousands of miles, sneak into the country illegally and remain here despite the threat of deportation or imprisonment, then do whatever it takes to become citizens once offered the opportunity are exactly the kind of self-motivated people Republicans would typically exhort. I don't see why they wouldn't reward Republicans with votes if that party decided to support them rather than vilify them.

(02-15-2019 04:07 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.
Thoughts?

I worry that Trump has become obsessed with the wall. In my opinion he gave up too much to get a sliver of wall. I want border security and a rational immigration policy, but I don't think a wall is the best or most cost-effective way to go.

That puts me at odds with both sides. I don't agree with Trump in that I want other things instead of a wall. I don't agree with democrats because I do want a secure border and a rational immigration policy. Democrats don't want that because they see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of democrat votes. Get them in, get them to sanctuary cities, get them hooked on welfare, and figure out how to get their vote.

I don't understand this position - it's either entirely nihilistic or entirely condescending. Nihilistic in the sense that it assumes there's nothing Republicans can do to attract the votes of naturalized immigrants who originally entered the country illegally; condescending in the sense that it assumes these people have no other motivation than to get on welfare, as you put it. It seems to me that people who are inclined to risk travelling thousands of miles, sneak into the country illegally and remain here despite the threat of deportation or imprisonment, then do whatever it takes to become citizens once offered the opportunity are exactly the kind of self-motivated people Republicans would typically exhort. I don't see why they wouldn't reward Republicans with votes if that party decided to support them rather than vilify them.

This reminds me of one of my favorite political cartoons (if you can call it that):

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.

Thoughts?

My thoughts on use of executive power are pretty simple.

SCOTUS put a three part test into place (the Youngstown Steel decision (1950's)) that is dead on. The President has huge amount of executive power when the Congress acts in conjunction with him and gives *some* underlying authority; medium amount when Congress is silent; and it is at its ebb when Congress speaks to the contrary.

Trumps decision here falls somewhere between the last two, from what I can see. Congress has spoken, but that 'voice' (while not necessarily in direct contradiction to Trump's move), is at least in the negative vein.

Trump moved in the same manner that Obama moved for DACA and DAPA -- and I felt those were over-extensions.

Additionally, the precedent of 'declaring a national emergency' is not a good one for this. One could see President Harris declaring a 'national emergency' on the use of firearms in the same vein exercised here.

But, I am in agreement with Owl#s two points above as well.

I guess calling out the literal importation of Democratic leaning constituencies as somehow 'nihilistic' and/or condescending. The simple fact that Latino communities vote *overwhelmingly* Democratic is a verbotten subject? Or is the simple fact that the Democratic community wants to open all the doors for them a verbotten subject? Which one there is the electric rail now?

If those two facts 'vilify'...... (need I complete the query?)

If I didnt know better I would think that OONH2 is getting his dog-whistle themed warrior tom-tom warmed up.

Edited to add: Has someone done a detailed analysis of why the 31 currently active states of emergency are legitimate, and the newest one concerning the US-Mexico border is not? (from something that was forwarded to me) That is, aside from this one being Trump and the subject being the border? I mean, that patch of topic-paired ground is as active and volatile as the DMZ north of Seoul.....

Edited to add (2) : I am so glad that the Progressives how now joined common cause to rail against Executive power. But, I wonder how fickle that common cause will be. Their rank silence during the Obama years echoes loudly.

(02-15-2019 04:07 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.
Thoughts?

I worry that Trump has become obsessed with the wall. In my opinion he gave up too much to get a sliver of wall. I want border security and a rational immigration policy, but I don't think a wall is the best or most cost-effective way to go.

That puts me at odds with both sides. I don't agree with Trump in that I want other things instead of a wall. I don't agree with democrats because I do want a secure border and a rational immigration policy. Democrats don't want that because they see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of democrat votes. Get them in, get them to sanctuary cities, get them hooked on welfare, and figure out how to get their vote.

I don't understand this position - it's either entirely nihilistic or entirely condescending. Nihilistic in the sense that it assumes there's nothing Republicans can do to attract the votes of naturalized immigrants who originally entered the country illegally; condescending in the sense that it assumes these people have no other motivation than to get on welfare, as you put it. It seems to me that people who are inclined to risk travelling thousands of miles, sneak into the country illegally and remain here despite the threat of deportation or imprisonment, then do whatever it takes to become citizens once offered the opportunity are exactly the kind of self-motivated people Republicans would typically exhort. I don't see why they wouldn't reward Republicans with votes if that party decided to support them rather than vilify them.

Does "whatever it takes" encompass going back home, starting at the back of the line, and applying through normal channels? No? So, something less than whatever it takes, then?

(02-15-2019 06:51 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 04:07 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.
Thoughts?

I worry that Trump has become obsessed with the wall. In my opinion he gave up too much to get a sliver of wall. I want border security and a rational immigration policy, but I don't think a wall is the best or most cost-effective way to go.

That puts me at odds with both sides. I don't agree with Trump in that I want other things instead of a wall. I don't agree with democrats because I do want a secure border and a rational immigration policy. Democrats don't want that because they see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of democrat votes. Get them in, get them to sanctuary cities, get them hooked on welfare, and figure out how to get their vote.

I don't understand this position - it's either entirely nihilistic or entirely condescending. Nihilistic in the sense that it assumes there's nothing Republicans can do to attract the votes of naturalized immigrants who originally entered the country illegally; condescending in the sense that it assumes these people have no other motivation than to get on welfare, as you put it. It seems to me that people who are inclined to risk travelling thousands of miles, sneak into the country illegally and remain here despite the threat of deportation or imprisonment, then do whatever it takes to become citizens once offered the opportunity are exactly the kind of self-motivated people Republicans would typically exhort. I don't see why they wouldn't reward Republicans with votes if that party decided to support them rather than vilify them.

Does "whatever it takes" encompass going back home, starting at the back of the line, and applying through normal channels? No? So, something less than whatever it takes, then?

But that would get rid of the social justice soapbox so prominent in the tableau og guilt being woven for us.

Thats *so far* out of bounds that Im not surprised a rabble of chubby girls in tank tops and the associated gaggle of guys in alpaca ski caps with the weirdo ear danglies isnt headed to your door to picket that comment....

Heh....

Quote: Im old enough to remember when Democrats loved and supported unilateral Executive action on immigration

(02-15-2019 04:07 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.
Thoughts?

I worry that Trump has become obsessed with the wall. In my opinion he gave up too much to get a sliver of wall. I want border security and a rational immigration policy, but I don't think a wall is the best or most cost-effective way to go.
That puts me at odds with both sides. I don't agree with Trump in that I want other things instead of a wall. I don't agree with democrats because I do want a secure border and a rational immigration policy. Democrats don't want that because they see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of democrat votes. Get them in, get them to sanctuary cities, get them hooked on welfare, and figure out how to get their vote.

I don't understand this position - it's either entirely nihilistic or entirely condescending. Nihilistic in the sense that it assumes there's nothing Republicans can do to attract the votes of naturalized immigrants who originally entered the country illegally; condescending in the sense that it assumes these people have no other motivation than to get on welfare, as you put it. It seems to me that people who are inclined to risk travelling thousands of miles, sneak into the country illegally and remain here despite the threat of deportation or imprisonment, then do whatever it takes to become citizens once offered the opportunity are exactly the kind of self-motivated people Republicans would typically exhort. I don't see why they wouldn't reward Republicans with votes if that party decided to support them rather than vilify them.

I really don’t understand either of your characterizations. I suppose nihilistic might fit if I were talking about republicans believing that they could not bring those people around. But I said nothing about that. I said democrats believe they can cultivate them as voters.

And I did not say that those people hdno objective but to get on welfare. I said that the democrats’ objective was to get them on welfare. Relatively uneducated and frequently non-English-speaking people would be excellent candidates to form a long lasting underclass.

If you want to argue that I am mischaracterizing Democrats, kindly start by explaining how opposing improves border security, and supporting catch-and-release, sanctuary cities, adding non-citizens to welfare rolls, and extending the vote to non-citizens are indicative of a different democrat objective.

I am characterizing democrats, not immigrants. Your whole post depends on characterizing my comments as attacking immigrants. In the future kindly respond to my actual comments instead of putting words in my mouth.

(02-15-2019 08:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 04:07 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.
Thoughts?

I worry that Trump has become obsessed with the wall. In my opinion he gave up too much to get a sliver of wall. I want border security and a rational immigration policy, but I don't think a wall is the best or most cost-effective way to go.
That puts me at odds with both sides. I don't agree with Trump in that I want other things instead of a wall. I don't agree with democrats because I do want a secure border and a rational immigration policy. Democrats don't want that because they see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of democrat votes. Get them in, get them to sanctuary cities, get them hooked on welfare, and figure out how to get their vote.

I don't understand this position - it's either entirely nihilistic or entirely condescending. Nihilistic in the sense that it assumes there's nothing Republicans can do to attract the votes of naturalized immigrants who originally entered the country illegally; condescending in the sense that it assumes these people have no other motivation than to get on welfare, as you put it. It seems to me that people who are inclined to risk travelling thousands of miles, sneak into the country illegally and remain here despite the threat of deportation or imprisonment, then do whatever it takes to become citizens once offered the opportunity are exactly the kind of self-motivated people Republicans would typically exhort. I don't see why they wouldn't reward Republicans with votes if that party decided to support them rather than vilify them.

I really don’t understand either of your characterizations. I suppose nihilistic might fit if I were talking about republicans believing that they could not bring those people around. But I said nothing about that. I said democrats believe they can cultivate them as voters.

And I did not say that those people hdno objective but to get on welfare. I said that the democrats’ objective was to get them on welfare. Relatively uneducated and frequently non-English-speaking people would be excellent candidates to form a long lasting underclass.

If you want to argue that I am mischaracterizing Democrats, kindly start by explaining how opposing improves border security, and supporting catch-and-release, sanctuary cities, adding non-citizens to welfare rolls, and extending the vote to non-citizens are indicative of a different democrat objective.

I am characterizing democrats, not immigrants. Your whole post depends on characterizing my comments as attacking immigrants. In the future kindly respond to my actual comments instead of putting words in my mouth.

This is Huckabee-Sanders-level hair-splitting. If you're using Democrats' supposed motivations as a reason to oppose whatever they're offering on border policy, then you must believe those motivations will have an actual effect vis-a-vis undocumented aliens - i.e., that naturalized aliens who originally entered the county illegally will, in fact, vote for Democrats once they become citizens. If you don't think they'll necessarily vote for Democrats, then there's no reason to oppose Democratic border policy on the grounds that their alleged motivations are to garner immigrant votes. Either way, you're saying something about the immigrants themselves.

This is "I have a pen and a phone", part two.

(02-15-2019 09:08 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 08:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 04:07 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump has declared a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall.
Thoughts?

I worry that Trump has become obsessed with the wall. In my opinion he gave up too much to get a sliver of wall. I want border security and a rational immigration policy, but I don't think a wall is the best or most cost-effective way to go.
That puts me at odds with both sides. I don't agree with Trump in that I want other things instead of a wall. I don't agree with democrats because I do want a secure border and a rational immigration policy. Democrats don't want that because they see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of democrat votes. Get them in, get them to sanctuary cities, get them hooked on welfare, and figure out how to get their vote.

I don't understand this position - it's either entirely nihilistic or entirely condescending. Nihilistic in the sense that it assumes there's nothing Republicans can do to attract the votes of naturalized immigrants who originally entered the country illegally; condescending in the sense that it assumes these people have no other motivation than to get on welfare, as you put it. It seems to me that people who are inclined to risk travelling thousands of miles, sneak into the country illegally and remain here despite the threat of deportation or imprisonment, then do whatever it takes to become citizens once offered the opportunity are exactly the kind of self-motivated people Republicans would typically exhort. I don't see why they wouldn't reward Republicans with votes if that party decided to support them rather than vilify them.

I really don’t understand either of your characterizations. I suppose nihilistic might fit if I were talking about republicans believing that they could not bring those people around. But I said nothing about that. I said democrats believe they can cultivate them as voters.
And I did not say that those people hdno objective but to get on welfare. I said that the democrats’ objective was to get them on welfare. Relatively uneducated and frequently non-English-speaking people would be excellent candidates to form a long lasting underclass.
If you want to argue that I am mischaracterizing Democrats, kindly start by explaining how opposing improves border security, and supporting catch-and-release, sanctuary cities, adding non-citizens to welfare rolls, and extending the vote to non-citizens are indicative of a different democrat objective.
I am characterizing democrats, not immigrants. Your whole post depends on characterizing my comments as attacking immigrants. In the future kindly respond to my actual comments instead of putting words in my mouth.

This is Huckabee-Sanders-level hair-splitting. If you're using Democrats' supposed motivations as a reason to oppose whatever they're offering on border policy, then you must believe those motivations will have an actual effect vis-a-vis undocumented aliens - i.e., that naturalized aliens who originally entered the county illegally will, in fact, vote for Democrats once they become citizens. If you don't think they'll necessarily vote for Democrats, then there's no reason to oppose Democratic border policy on the grounds that their alleged motivations are to garner immigrant votes. Either way, you're saying something about the immigrants themselves.

Stop mischaracterizing my comments and try to respond to what I am actually saying. Everything in your after "If..." fails because the "If" clause reflects an incorrect assumption.

No, I'm not using democrats' motivations as a reason to oppose whatever they are offering. I'm opposing what they are offering because their offer will mean more illegal immigration.

Let me be very clear. I favor more legal immigration based on merit, and less or no illegal immigration. My opposition is based upon that and that alone, not whatever their motivations are. I would support the things I support and oppose the things I oppose regardless of the democrats' motivation. All I am saying about democrats is that the policies they promote are contrary to at least the illegal immigrant part of that. For the record, I'm not really comfortable with Trump's attitude toward legal immigration, but that's not the subject here. I can't crawl inside their heads to determine their exact motivation, but based upon their actions, their motivation appears to be as I described.

I don't know whether illegals would vote for democrats or not, if they had the opportunity, but judging by the way democrats act, it would certainly appear that they think those illegals would vote for them.

I'm not saying anything about illegals. I am describing what I see in the behavior of democrats. I think it must be painful for you to have to address that, because you are clearly trying to deflect to some straw man.

(02-15-2019 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This is "I have a pen and a phone", part two.

Gee, who could have seen that coming?

After a read, I am going to 'nuance' my stance on the emergency issue.

It looks like Trump has every ability to 'declare' the emergency. But, Article 1 says '"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." I dont think that Trump can expend money for the wall under his declaration. And, Trump may claim executive power to do so --- but that is where my original post kicks in.

(02-16-2019 09:36 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This is "I have a pen and a phone", part two.

Gee, who could have seen that coming?

Anybody who wanted to see.

(02-16-2019 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  After a read, I am going to 'nuance' my stance on the emergency issue.

It looks like Trump has every ability to 'declare' the emergency. But, Article 1 says '"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." I dont think that Trump can expend money for the wall under his declaration. And, Trump may claim executive power to do so --- but that is where my original post kicks in.

What about money that is already drawn from the treasury but not yet spent?

$4B is such a tiny amount (governmentally speaking) to be having all this contretemps over. One bull headed person on one side, one bull headed person on the other side.

One thing that keeps getting passed over - the $5.7 was the BP's request, not Trumps demand. So Pelosi is in effect saying NO to the BP.

(02-16-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2019 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  After a read, I am going to 'nuance' my stance on the emergency issue.

It looks like Trump has every ability to 'declare' the emergency. But, Article 1 says '"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." I dont think that Trump can expend money for the wall under his declaration. And, Trump may claim executive power to do so --- but that is where my original post kicks in.

What about money that is already drawn from the treasury but not yet spent?

$4B is such a tiny amount (governmentally speaking) to be having all this contretemps over. One bull headed person on one side, one bull headed person on the other side.

One thing that keeps getting passed over - the $5.7 was the BP's request, not Trumps demand. So Pelosi is in effect saying NO to the BP.

I agree with your two points above -- but those are purely political questions. All my comments are are to the 'properness' within the bounds of the law and Constitution.

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-r...efforts-to

Quote: Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, issued an interim staff report after multiple whistleblowers came forward to warn about efforts inside the White House to rush the transfer of highly sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in potential violation of the Atomic Energy Act and without review by Congress as required by law—efforts that may be ongoing to this day.