Trump to sign national security funding bill, then declare State of Emergency

#751
#751
ClearwaterVol said:
We know it won't be effective to stop drugs, illegals or gang members. We know there are far more effective ways to stem illegal immigration. eg. putting business owners in jail that hire them. But Trump is not in the least bit concerned about stopping illegal immigration. He is concerned about building a monument to himself.
Click to expand...

lol, so naive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and InVOLuntary
#752
#752
Orange_Crush said:
So you're saying that it will act as a deterrent but not be 100% effective? What is your expectation of border control? What is your definition of "effective"? Being "not for open borders", what % effectiveness will make an investment worthwhile in closing the border?

I'm only being slightly sarcastic for effect, but know that the underlying point is a genuine question. What will you consider effective? Land mines? Sniper towers? A wire run with AIDS infected Dobermans?

You've seemed to admit that a wall will slow illegal entry down, (apparently vastly aiding border security personnel) and deterring MANY (most) illegal entry., and be so much of a deterrent that it will take damage as criminals try to get past it. So it will be helpful to hear what amount of deterrence becomes worthwhile in your view.

PS: There have been over 30 National Emergencies declared by the previous 3 or 4 presidents. Trump didn't set a precedent.
Click to expand...

He did by going against Congress and reappropriating funding. I think he will lose this one. And Roberts will write the opinion. Thomas will bumble his way through a dissent.
 
#754
#754
luthervol said:
Where any of those 30 opposed by both parties in congress? Where any of those 30 specifically declared to get funding for something that congress emphatically denied?
If not, then Trump is indeed setting a precedent.
Click to expand...
You're an irrational, reactionary, emotional lemming. I don't care to go through every national emergency ever instituted, so I'll let you do it to support your claim that no president has instituted a national emergency to do his job at odds with congressional support or preferences. Actually, that's what they were created to do. Once you've shown that no president has ever done so, you can claim it set a precedent. Then we can discuss whether it would be a bad president to set. Then, you could really to change the powers given the Presidents because they give him powers you think shouldn't be given.
 
#756
#756
ClearwaterVol said:
We know it won't be effective to stop drugs, illegals or gang members. We know there are far more effective ways to stem illegal immigration. eg. putting business owners in jail that hire them. But Trump is not in the least bit concerned about stopping illegal immigration. He is concerned about building a monument to himself.
Click to expand...
You're making way to many assumptions and turning them into facts. We know that a wall is a deterrent, and that it at the very least slows down illegal contraband into the US. You mention putting people in jail for hiring them makes the assumption that they are coming here for the work. There are many that come here for the free stuff, especially women and children. Was Clinton building a monument to himself when he built portions of the wall?, what about Bush?
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, AM64 and DC_Vol
#757
#757
ClearwaterVol said:
BS.
Click to expand...

Certain segments of the left want to defund ICE. Certain municipalities have forbidden their police from notifying ICE when they take illegals into custody. Others have taken themselves out of the FBI Antiterror Fusion Cell because they are "afraid" it will be used for a conservative agenda.

And yet you think those very same liberals are gong to agree to fining or putting employers in jail for employing illegals?

Yes, your naiveté is showing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tumscalcium and InVOLuntary
#758
#758
ClearwaterVol said:
He did by going against Congress and reappropriating funding. I think he will lose this one. And Roberts will write the opinion. Thomas will bumble his way through a dissent.
Click to expand...
Read my response to luther. Feel free to show that no president has used emergency power to subvert the wishes of Congress, specifically to use money he'd already budgeted for military, of which he is the Commander in Chief. I'll await your detailed historical breakdown of presidential emergency privileges so that we can say. that Trump set a precedent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#760
#760
Orange_Crush said:
Read my response to luther. Feel free to show that no president has used emergency power to subvert the wishes of Congress, specifically to use money he'd already budgeted for military, of which he is the Commander in Chief. I'll await your detailed historical breakdown of presidential emergency privileges so that we can say. that Trump set a precedent.
Click to expand...
You're missing his/their point. "By all means necessary" and "ends justify the means" as long as they have a "D" by their name. That's all they've got.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#761
#761
tumscalcium said:
Why do you want to be North Mexico so bad? The U.S. should never strive to be Mexico or Central America.
Click to expand...
If the dems were for a wall Luther would be for the wall. This has nothing to do with the end results. He's admitted it 100% that it's totally because Trump wants it that he's against it.

Pick out Luther here:

NPC-crowd-485x282.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and tumscalcium
#762
#762
InVOLuntary said:
You're missing his/their point. "By all means necessary" and "ends justify the means" as long as they have a "D" by their name. That's all they've got.
Click to expand...
Emergency powers were so "abused" by presidents in the past that in the '70s, Congress passed a law that specifically set what Presidents can do. Now, trump is setting a dangerous precedent by bypassing Congress by staying within the powers they voted to give him.

Makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#763
#763
@ClearwaterVol

You see this barrier as a "monument" to Trump. I see it as a monument to stupidity on both sides. Remember, many politicians, Democrats included, were for the barrier before they were against it. Because Trump and no other reason why. There is no moral high ground to be had here. They only oppose it because Trump supports it.

Now, you say it won't solve all the problems of illegal immigration. I agree. However, it if can stem the tide at this point, it's a worthy endeavor. Once you get control in place, you can look at the rest of the problems like overstaying visas for example. Perhaps even an amnesty type situation comparable to the Gang of 8 idea some years ago. Or what Rubio proposed during the 2016 campaign. We've reached the point where amnesty cannot be simply dismissed. Eight figures of illegals are in the country right now. You cannot and will not ever deport all of them. Even the most ardent supporter of action against illegals will admit that.

Remember, this isn't a fight about putting up a barrier along the border. It's simply an extension of the Never Trump agenda that's been going on since 2016. Just a new battleground so to speak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#764
#764
Orange_Crush said:
Emergency powers were so "abused" by presidents in the past that in the '70s, Congress passed a law that specifically set what Presidents can do. Now, trump is setting a dangerous precedent by bypassing Congress by staying within the powers they voted to give him.

Makes sense.
Click to expand...
It's nothing more than obstructivism. (I think that's a word, if not I invented one). All this is opposing anything that Trump wants, pure and simple. No logic behind any of their opinions.

Their blind hatred toward the man causes them to become irrational stooges. They run the risk here of pushing people toward Trump and galvanizing those that were on the fence. I held my nose and voted for him but as far left as the dems have moved combined with the way the dems have obstructed everything, (Kavenaugh confirmation hearings), I'll definetly cast a vote for him again with no reservations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#765
#765
Grand Vol said:
@ClearwaterVol

You see this barrier as a "monument" to Trump. I see it as a monument to stupidity on both sides. Remember, many politicians, Democrats included, were for the barrier before they were against it. Because Trump and no other reason why. There is no moral high ground to be had here. They only oppose it because Trump supports it.

Now, you say it won't solve all the problems of illegal immigration. I agree. However, it if can stem the tide at this point, it's a worthy endeavor. Once you get control in place, you can look at the rest of the problems like overstaying visas for example. Perhaps even an amnesty type situation comparable to the Gang of 8 idea some years ago. Or what Rubio proposed during the 2016 campaign. We've reached the point where amnesty cannot be simply dismissed. Eight figures of illegals are in the country right now. You cannot and will not ever deport all of them. Even the most ardent supporter of action against illegals will admit that.

Remember, this isn't a fight about putting up a barrier along the border. It's simply an extension of the Never Trump agenda that's been going on since 2016. Just a new battleground so to speak.
Click to expand...

How much will it stop? Only a tiny fraction of the illegal drugs come across the border. How many illegal aliens will it stop?

What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico
 
#766
#766
InVOLuntary said:
I held my nose and voted for him but as far left as the dems have moved combined with the way the dems have obstructed everything, (Kavenaugh confirmation hearings), I'll definetly cast a vote for him again with no reservations.
Click to expand...

And with the way the Democratic candidates are racing to the extreme left, this will only drive more voters to him or to sit it out. Nobody is going to "hold their nose" and vote for Warren's socialist agenda. Nor for Spartacus touting the Green New Deal. Or for a failed Senatorial candidate from Texas.

The only way, and it's not going to happen, is for the DNC to nominate Biden. I doubt that happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and InVOLuntary
#768
#768
ClearwaterVol said:
How much will it stop? Only a tiny fraction of the illegal drugs come across the border. How many illegal aliens will it stop?

What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico
Click to expand...

The stats I've seen published by .gov is that about 99% of weed and heroine in the US come from South and Central America, yet the VAST majority that is stopped is stopped at ports of entry. The left have used this as an irrational point that most drugs come through ports as opposed to across the unsecured border, when it actually seems to indicate that the vast majority of drug are coming across the unsecured border, we just don't catch it.
 
#769
#769
ClearwaterVol said:
How much will it stop? Only a tiny fraction of the illegal drugs come across the border. How many illegal aliens will it stop?

What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico
Click to expand...

An extremely biased research. It only shows illegals from Mexico. As in Mexican illegals. However, how many other nationalities from Central/South America make up those numbers? And how many of them came across the border?

I've had my coffee this morning. You can't pull this one off.
 
#771
#771
Orange_Crush said:
The stats I've seen published by .gov is that about 99% of weed and heroine in the US come from South and Central America, yet the VAST majority that is stopped is stopped at ports of entry. The left have used this as an irrational point that most drugs come through ports as opposed to across the unsecured border, when it actually seems to indicate that the vast majority of drug are coming across the unsecured border, we just don't catch it.
Click to expand...

And the right insists on being irrational by calling it an unsecured border.
 
#773
#773
Orange_Crush said:
You're an irrational, reactionary, emotional lemming. I don't care to go through every national emergency ever instituted, so I'll let you do it to support your claim that no president has instituted a national emergency to do his job at odds with congressional support or preferences. Actually, that's what they were created to do. Once you've shown that no president has ever done so, you can claim it set a precedent. Then we can discuss whether it would be a bad president to set. Then, you could really to change the powers given the Presidents because they give him powers you think shouldn't be given.
Click to expand...
You may want to see somebody about those loose nerve endings.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top