"The constitutional provision making Congress the ultimate authority on government spending passed with far less debate. The framers were unanimous that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds—not the President or executive branch agencies."
That was from a simple google search. Now, about that national emergency....
Illegal border crossings at 40 year lows. I can't help but notice Trump doesn't take credit for that like he takes credit for 40 year lows in unemployment. Why? Because if he did, how could he claim an emergency?
And one last question: If it's a national emergency, then why didn't he declare it last year? What changed?
GOP is going to be split on this. McConnell has said he will support the president which means that any resolution in the house will not get a vote in the senate to stop Trump's usurpation of the purse strings from congress. Other senators are wary about future Democratic presidents invoking national emergency.
The courts will stop him on this one. Will the Supreme Court even get the votes necessary (I think they need 4) to give it a hearing?
Now do a google search on executive powers as related to the border.
And illegal border crossings at a 40 years low? Guess it depends on what and how you look, but I guess if you feel your logic is sound, that pesky gun debate thing is over now too as gun violence, in spite of record high ownership, is at decade level lows.
I guess what you are saying is that if you have 10 burglars in your home per night, you'll lock the door, but if it's only 7 or less, there's no point in locking the door.
Dems keep wanting to declare victory here on this silly wall debate, but the cards are stacked entirely against them. They just don't seem to know it.
So why didn't Trump declare a national emergency last year?
Gentlemen's bet. Even this decidedly conservative supreme court will rule against Trump on this one.
He certainly could have. I think he wanted a legislative victory and viewed the use of an EO as the last resort.
And I'm more than willing to accept a bet, including any reasonable wager (TBD) that the supremes, will have to side with Trump. The executive constitutional authority over the sovereignty of the border is pretty clear. The only argument will be whether the situation is a crisis. I think the numbers, coupled with the statements of Bush 1, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, will make a reasonably convincing argument that there is a crisis warranting action.
"In January and March 2017, the President issued a series of executive orders related to border security and immigration. The orders direct federal agencies to take a broad range of actions with potential resource implications. For example, Executive Order 13767 instructs DHS to construct a wall or other physical barriers along the U.S. southern border and to hire an additional 5,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents. Executive Order 13768 instructs federal agencies, including DHS and DOJ [Department of Justice], to ensure that U.S immigration law is enforced against all removable individuals and directs ICE to hire an additional 10,000 immigration officers. Executive Order 13780 directs agencies to develop a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures; and established nationality-based entry restrictions with respect to visa travelers for a 90-day period, and refugees for 120 days. GAO [Government Accountability Office] was asked to review agencies' implementation of the executive orders and related spending. This report addresses (1) actions DHS, DOJ, and State have taken, or plan to take, to implement provisions of the executive orders; and (2) resources to implement provisions of the executive orders, particularly funds DHS, DOJ, and State have obligated, expended, or shifted. GAO reviewed agency planning, tracking, and guidance documents related to the orders, as well as budget requests, appropriations acts, and internal budget information. GAO also interviewed agency officials regarding actions and budgetary costs associated with implementing the orders."
So, why do we need a National Emergency?
“So why didn't Trump declare a national emergency last year?”
Better question, why didn’t they pass wall funding when they had both houses ?
It passed the house but did not get the required 60 votes in the Senate.
“It passed the house but did not get the required 60 votes in the Senate.”
Oh.
Which takes us to the filibuster. Get back to the original intent. Just make them talk for heaven’s sake. Couple days of that and I would think compromise would be in order.
Presidential authority to defend the border would be more likely to pass legal muster if it were not being executed against the will of congress. If congress had NOT been involved in the process, like the case of the Muslim ban (or whatever you like to call it) then the president would be on solid legal ground. But he is declaring an Emergency AFTER congress has spoken on this.
For the first time ever I agree with Ann Coulter, who said... "Trump signed the bill !! Now he wants to go around his own signature? It's over." (I'm paraphrasing from memory)
I love Ann Coulter. But Ann has never had to deal with the libs and rinos we have in congress and also try to get the number of things Trumps has gotten done.
also If Trump is going down this presidential order road he may as well go all the way and over turn every single Obama order....that ought to give commies on the evening news plenty to yak about
WE WILL NOT BE A SOVEREIGN NATION WITHOUT THE WALL !!!
sov·er·eign | \ ˈsä-v(ə-)rən , -vərn also ˈsə-\
variants: or less commonly sovran
U.S.A. ... U.S.A. ... U.S.A. !!!
All the political shenanigans aside, what we should care about its whether an increase in the current wall/barrier is a good idea to help prevent people from coming into our country illegally. No doubt some are nice people but we have legal means for them to enter.
What has been the number of those getting busted? The graph below does show the current numbers close to the lowest in decades............but those numbers have been pretty steady for the past decade, around 400,000/year. Half a million people still seems like alot of people to me..........but those are the ones caught. A wall would assist in catching those breaking in that would otherwise get away with it. How many is that?
We have an estimated 12,000,000 illegal aliens currently living in the US that we assume got in that way in the past(when illegal immigration numbers were higher because border security was weaker in the past).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094
Whether it's 10,000 or 2,000/month
Of course, on this issue, like almost everything else related to Trump, we have extremely strong opinions. The side that voted for him, supports almost everything that he does and the other side is against everything that he does.
I try to just provide proof of statements using facts as defined by carl earlier:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/23966/
proof - is a fact, argument, or piece of evidence showing that something is definitely true or definitely exists
So is 400,000 illegal immigrants/year busted NOT an emergency because over a decade ago the number was higher and it wasn't an emergency then?
There is more going on at the southern border than just people coming in illegally, most probably trying to make a better life for themselves.
"Arizona and other southwestern states bordering Mexico have become a hot spot in the nation's fentanyl crisis."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fentanyl-deaths-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard-n971536
"DEA statistics show Arizona fentanyl seizures rose to 445 pounds, including 379,557 pills, in the fiscal year ending in October 2018, up from 172 pounds, including 54,984 pills, during the previous 12-month period."
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says fentanyl is now the drug involved in the most fatal overdoses in the U.S., with fatalities from synthetic opioids including fentanyl jumping more than 45 percent from 2016 to 2017, when they accounted for some 28,000 of about 70,000 overdose deaths of all kinds."
It's hard to wrap your mind around those statistics/facts they are so mind boggling. That is mega emergency..........but of course the vast majority of this stuff is coming in via routes, that having a barrier would not stop. But what if having more wall/barrier, obviously making our ability to control who and what comes in stopped 20% of it.......or even just 10% of it?
10% of 28,000 of the people dying from overdoses in 2,800 but having a wall probably would not save that many lives. What about 1%? Nobody can be objective and not acknowledge that stopping, let's say at least 5% of the illegal narcotics coming in from Mexico would result in saving at least 1% of the lives lost to overdoses(its likely much more than that).
1% of 28,000 is 280 people. I would bet that number would be quadruple that(over 1,000 people) but let's use a super low number that everybody can agree on, as a minimum. If it were 280 people/year, are their lives worth a few billion bucks? And that's 280 people every year.
And that greatly underestimated number of 280 Americans dying each year, is just from what appears to be one(biggest) problem at the southern border.
We here that a wall/barrier would not work from some sources. To me, it just seems like common sense that it would make it much more difficult to sneak in. but that would just be a personal opinion.
Wanting to go beyond opinion, I did some homework to find out what the authorities on this matter have stated, to take politics completely out of the opinions that are clearly biased.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/
"Border Patrol agents say they can’t be much clearer: They want more walls along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In a survey conducted by the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union, they overwhelmingly supported adding a “wall system” in strategic locations, embracing President Trump’s argument that it will boost their ability to nab or deter would-be illegal immigrants."
"The NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found just the opposite: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Most certainly, it already assists my men and women," Provost told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton on Wednesday.
"We already have many miles, over 600 miles of barrier along the border. I have been in locations where there was no barrier, and then I was there when we put it up. It certainly helps. It's not a be all end all. It's a part of a system. We need the technology, we need that infrastructure," she added in the interview that aired Thursday."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Head Of Border Patrol Union Weighs In On Trump's Wall Plans
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/26/511745401/head-of-border-patrol-union-on-trumps-wall-plans
"INSKEEP: In a few seconds, how different do you think the country could be in three or four years if these proposals are carried out?
JUDD: Well, I think the country is going to be a lot safer.
INSKEEP: A lot safer.
JUDD: I really do, yes, absolutely. I mean, I was there with what they call the angel families, families that had children that were killed by persons that were in the United States illegally. If these laws are carried out properly - and he's not talking about new laws. By the way, he's not saying that he's going to give us new laws. He's talking about enforcing the laws that are currently on the books."
From the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/politics/national-emergency-trump.html
“We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border, and we’re going to do it one way or the other,” he said in a televised statement in the Rose Garden barely 13 hours after Congress passed a spending measure without the money he had sought. “It’s an invasion,” he added. “We have an invasion of drugs and criminals coming into our country.”
But with illegal border crossings already down and critics accusing him of manufacturing a crisis, he may have undercut his own argument that the border situation was so urgent that it required emergency action. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster,” he said. “I just want to get it done faster, that’s all.”
metmike: I already presented the relevant facts as they appear to me related to whether the US would benefit from a wall or not and why.
Question now is related to what the Supreme Court will rule with regards to this being a Federal Emergency because that's what its going to boil down to in the end.
It will be a piece of cake to block this using a lower court judge, similar to how some previous ruling were blocked. Then it will be up to the Supreme Court.
Here are some results of their previous rulings on issues that lower court judges blocked Trump on:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.stripes.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-trump-transgender-ban-1.565496
In doing some data gathering for a different thread on overdose death rates from drugs, I found additional information related to how much fentanyl is estimated to come from Mexico.....17%, which is much less than the 68% coming from China.
However, 17% of a historically unprecedented, huge problem is a lot. Also, most of it would NOT be stopped just by adding more barrier/walls..........but some would.
Regardless, just this issue by itself is a crisis.
See more here:
"Overdose Death Rates'
This is a great example of the typical debate going on in this country. One side presents facts and figures making a credible argument for a position. The other side replies with an SNL Skit.
It sums up just about every political argument in this country right now.
Rump made the statement that he "really didn't need to declare an emergency but he did so to speed up securing money for the wall" (or something like that)...
Huh? WTH! He doesn't even believe it himself and will say or do anything to over ride the will of the people of which a large majority don't want Rump's wall. The "Donny Dictator" con job rolls on.
"This is a great example of the typical debate going on in this country. One side presents facts and figures making a credible argument for a position. The other side replies with an SNL Skit.
It sums up just about every political argument in this country right now."
Tim,
It's much worse than that. Since your post, the response has been to compare him to Hitler and to use name calling "Rump" again. I'm still trying to decide what to allow here based on having a credible forum that makes positive contributions and has good ideas, displays truth and facts...from every side on everything vs posters that just come here to call names, ooze intense hatred and make absurd accusations using no legit data but instead, sources that gush out absurd information intended to build on more hatred for President Trump.
For today, at least I'll leave the poor examples up on display because they seem to obviously show where some people are really coming from..........as described above.
There's a chance that I may decide to keep some of this stuff, if just to contrast with those that are capable of communicating thoughtful ideas using adult conversation.
I think it's a huge disservice to one side to allow posts like this.....the side that they represent, because it causes others to stereo type that side and assume everybody from that side is unable to communicate well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Wondered how long it would take
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Wondered how long it would take
Wonderful point kermit!!!!!
"there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law".[9]
mojo has no clue that he is doing damage to himself and his side with his posts here........as do posters that call President Trump "Rump".
He does represent a lot of people apparently(and his sources clearly prey on people like him) but I worry too that his posts here will cause people to over stereo type his side.........assume this is their best.
The main concern is that this sort of garbage is repugnant to most people and is MUCH more likely to repel people who come hear vs attracting them.
If for some crazy reason MarketForum would be able to attract 10,000 more people a day because of mojo's Trump is Hitler posts, then I wouldn't want to be moderator of such a forum anyway...............unless it was to fight with every iota of energy in me to expose this hateful, fraudulent, flawed thinking.
mojo,
Dude, you seriously need to get some counseling if you "really" think this way. I have speculated a few times that you actually think the opposite and are pretending to have these views and express them this way to intentionally try to discredit this position.
I seriously doubt that but my mind creatively searches for a way to think of you in a better light than the one that you use to define yourself here.
Many have exhibited symptoms of dictator but Hitler is one we went to war against so we studied him closely due to war atrocities he and his war machine committed and kept a keen out for his type ever since. We can't change history but we should learn from it.
Also..."Freedom of Speech and Expression"...it's a right that many a veteran fought for and some died for. Yes even people like Ann Coulter (who called number 45 an idiot) have this right and we should all remember to use this right or risk losing it to censorship by those who may have their own agenda. Public discourse isn't always pretty but it's very much needed in a democracy. Can we agree to disagree?
"Can we agree to disagree?"
You bet we can and I greatly encourage you to do so in an acceptable manner cliff. That has been well defined over and over here.
Going up to the Trading Forum just now, like you did to let off steam with a politically laced, hateful diatribe in a trading thread was clearly NOT acceptable.
cliff,
I appreciate the contributions that you've made here at times in the past. You are just going to have to manage your hatred for Trump and express it here in an acceptable way.
For the umpteenth time....no political Trump bashing in the Trading Forum..........., ZERO! Got it?
I have also banned you guys from calling him Rump and sending us to links, cut and paste style that are devoted to spinning absurd stories or cartoons that are far fetched from reality and dedicated to hate.
State your opinions using thoughtful words, ideally with evidence and reasoning or facts vs the mindless spewing of venomous attacks, often obtained by cut/pasting something that there is an unlimited supply of on the internet. for the sake of an attack on somebody that you hate.
Sorry, but after a decade of Halfrican, Moochel, Hitlery, Obummer and how many others this change of face rings rather hollow.
If the occasional tRump triggers anyone then I just don’t know.
Just my opinion.
If someone were to come out and do a mea culpa then maybe.
Maybe they did and I missed it, if that’s the case then fine.
To be honest it always lowered my opinion of those posters who would resort to such name calling. Always seemed rather juvenile. That will probably still be the case.
"To be honest it always lowered my opinion of those posters who would resort to such name calling. Always seemed rather juvenile."
Wonderful! Then you can also see how this will help those posters to gain more respect here by communicating in a way that helps others to take them more seriously(have a higher opinion of them, to borrow from your verbiage, if you don't mind).
Since this is not being embraced with open arms by all, if it ends up causing a few people here, learning to be better communicators and expressing less hatred then good for them.
If not, then MarketForum will not be a place/vehicle for them to project hateful messages on to others.
Anything with solid proof, facts or representing the verifiable truth will always be welcome here regardless of what side it represents.
Respectful opinions are also welcome on everything..
Just looking in from the outside
We have a tiny fraction of the problem you folks have but we do have illegals entering our country, and we don't like it one bit. All except Trudeau
I remember a poster saying foreign illegals coming into the EU would be no problem
Well it was and is a huge problem
The number of gated communities in your country boggles my mind
Maybe somebody should suggest tearing down Pelosie's gated community wall
We have many excellent Drs. who were educated in foreign countries and came here for a better life. But I know of one who was deported due to the paperwork not being exactly what it should be. But we also have many "blue collared" immigrants who are willing to do much needed manual and dirty labor that many in this country think they are too good to do. The debate goes well beyond stopping people from entering. Where do we make exceptions on who stays and who goes? After all someone once said "Prejudice is easy when we don't have all the facts."
cliff, really, where do we draw the line? Got to rely on some common sense sooner or later, so how about enter this country legally or not at all?
Tim,
Sorry, making a reference like that to the posters lack of intelligence and worse is name calling.
I thought I was accurate. Your call.
There are things that are accurate, if directed towards another poster are counterproductive to getting along.
Thanks for letting me make the call vs trying to justify or blame others or whine about being picked on/unfairness.
...... WE NEED MORE U.S.A. SABRE WRATTILING HERE....
