Shut her down boys, shut her down.

[jamil]

It’s not like he’s bombing someone to delay being impeached. He’s fulfilling campaign promises to the country who voted him in. The emergency is what’s left when nothing else is working to accomplish it.

when you’re lost in the woods it’s not an emergency until you’ve run out of options for self-rescue

Wow. If fulfilling a campaign promise is the kind of emergency which authorizes special presidential powers, the next president to have promised sweeping gun controls is gonna love the precedent Trump established.

 

[hoosierdoc]

30,000 marching towards your border is not an emergency?

think the National Guard would be called out if the entire population of Bloomington banded together and decided to wreck havoc? Sounds like an emergency to me

 

[jamil]

30,000 marching towards your border is not an emergency?

think the National Guard would be called out if the entire population of Bloomington banded together and decided to wreck havoc? Sounds like an emergency to me

We’re not talking about the national guard though, are we? I’m fine with that. Building a wall isn’t exactly an emergent kind of fix, now is it?

 

[churchmouse]

We’re not talking about the national guard though, are we? I’m fine with that. Building a wall isn’t exactly an emergent kind of fix, now is it?

But all that goes with it is. There is much more here tan just the wall.

 

[Expat]

Since whenever the Dems do or say something, the GOP later uses that to do the same or even up the ante, I have been wondering if the GOP holds the House with a Dem POTUS, if there will ever be a SOTU speech?

 

[jamil]

But all that goes with it is. There is much more here tan just the wall.

Sure there is. But we’re talking about the President claiming emergency powers to fund a wall—a long term NOT emergency project—to fulfill a campaign promise. That’s a precedent I do not want given to the next Democrat who campaigns on strict gun control.

So use emergency powers to react in emergent ways. The wall is not that.

 

[churchmouse]

Sure there is. But we’re talking about the President claiming emergency powers to fund a wall—a long term NOT emergency project—to fulfill a campaign promise. That’s a precedent I do not want given to the next Democrat who campaigns on strict gun control.

So use emergency powers to react in emergent ways. The wall is not that.

Point made and yes, it is a bit sketchy.

 

[Denny347]

I think they'll come up with something next week. The Senate and Pres will take whatever crumbs Nancy offers as "border security" WITHOUT A WALL...





...then the pres will declare an emergency and build the wall anyway.

Emergency is easy to agree with considering all the recent caravans full of gang members breaching our border.

It’s not like he’s bombing someone to delay being impeached. He’s fulfilling campaign promises to the country who voted him in. The emergency is what’s left when nothing else is working to accomplish it.

when you’re lost in the woods it’s not an emergency until you’ve run out of options for self-rescue

I don't like this "emergency" at all. He does this and when a Dem takes office, it will happen, they use this same power to push gun control. I can see it clear as day. I just don't like opening doors that are better left closed.

 

[2A_Tom]

I don't like this "emergency" at all. He does this and when a Dem takes office, it will happen, they use this same power to push gun control. I can see it clear as day. I just don't like opening doors that are better left closed.

[video=youtube;eq9FCBatl3A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq9FCBatl3A[/video]

 

[BugI02]

I don't like this "emergency" at all. He does this and when a Dem takes office, it will happen, they use this same power to push gun control. I can see it clear as day. I just don't like opening doors that are better left closed.

Then don't let a Dem take office, stop *****ing and work to re-elect him. If you get enough strict constructionist/constitutionalist/originalist judges layered into the judiciary you will leave the Democrat you fear as much or more hamstrung as Trump is now. Six more years to work on that is infinitely better than two

And if you think that a Democratic president cut from the activist/progressive/socialist cloth would hesitate for one second to use emergency powers, whether Trump does or not, then can I have all that 5.56 you obviously don't think you'll need

 

[JettaKnight]

Then don't let a Dem take office, stop *****ing and work to re-elect him.

I think I'll just work on getting a conservative elected, thankyouverymuch.


(Or maybe Kasich. )

 

[Phase2]

Question, is this "emergency" a recent development? I mean Trump has been in office for two years, and just recently, he's started throwing around the "emergency" word. If its been an ongoing emergency, why wasn't he saying that DAY ONE when he took office?

He took his first actions to address border enforcement his first week in office. However, the situation has become much worse since 2018.

We’re not talking about the national guard though, are we? I’m fine with that. Building a wall isn’t exactly an emergent kind of fix, now is it?

Def: Emergent: calling for immediate action; urgent.
I believe it fits exactly this definition. The national guard can't/shouldn't be used for years to make up for the lack of strong border protection. I believe that you are confusing it with fact that it can't be fully implemented immediately. Details below.

Wow. If fulfilling a campaign promise is the kind of emergency which authorizes special presidential powers, the next president to have promised sweeping gun controls is gonna love the precedent Trump established.

I don't like this "emergency" at all. He does this and when a Dem takes office, it will happen, they use this same power to push gun control. I can see it clear as day. I just don't like opening doors that are better left closed.

There is a huge difference between taking actions to fulfill constitutional duties and taking actions to directly violate the Constitution. See particularly #10 below.

--------

President Trump doesn't want to declare an emergency or he would have done it already. He has really been trying to avoid it. The possible "emergency declaration" is not because we suddenly have bad border controls, but because Democrats have changed tactics to opportunistically resist all border controls as long as Trump is the chief law enforcement official of the US.

1. We have had poor border policies for years. Trump ran partly on addressing that problem and a significant part of his election win was due to that campaign promise.
2. Like the Jerusalem embassy, cutting taxes, cutting regulations, etc., Trump isn't just paying lip service, but wants to actually live up to his campaign promises as much as possible. That puts him well above the virtually every other politician in that respect.
3. In earlier budget fights, Trump prioritized getting funds for the military that had been neglected during Obamas presidency and needed a lot of rebuilding. It is the nature of budgets that you can't get everything at once, so the wall wasn't addressed then.
4. Although Trump had taken his first action to address the border situation his first week in office, in 2018 the border became a much higher priority.
5. Two things happened in 2018 to make addressing the border more urgent. The advent of "migrant caravans" and Democrats reversal on any form of border enforcement.
6. April 2018 saw the first caravan with over 1000 people. Not long before the 2018 elections, a much larger (14,000?) person caravan started heading north that was timed to arrive right about election day. This provided a lot of fodder for Democrats and the MSM to talk about every day leading up to the election.
   
7. Democrats really support illegal immigration for reasons that I won't list here due to length, but they recently have turned that support up to 11. Remember the fodder mentioned above? How about images of "poor sympathetic women and children just wanting a better life" in the media while the 80-90% of the caravan (military-age men) were ignored? How about the family separation policy that was suddenly "emergency" front page news years after it was initiated? Remember Democrats still-ongoing push to abolish ICE and border enforcement entirely? How many of these were issues before 2018? Zero.
8. A good immigration policy involves many factors: physical border controls, eliminating government handouts and policies that attract primarily third world low-skill immigrants, making e-verify mandatory, reducing the time/expense/hassle for the legal immigrant process, changing policy to attract immigration of people with useful skills, etc. How many of those have any significant Democrat support? Maybe the last one, but I'm not even sure about that.
9. So, after addressing the large spend to help the military in 2017, Trump decided it was time to address the border in 2018. The wall/fence/whatever is not the only change needed to improve border enforcement/policy, but it is an important and necessary component. Given the scope of the problem and the ongoing intransigence by Democrats to work with Trump on securing the border, the problem has only intensified.
10. Declaring "national emergencies" is neither new nor rare. Although many national emergencies have been declared since Wilson first did it in 1917, a formal "National Emergencies Act" wasn't created until 1976. Since then, there have been about 1.3 "emergencies" declared/year. You can certainly debate if any of this is proper, but Trump is following precedent to address a real problem. I'm not worried about Democrats suddenly changing direction on using such emergency powers due to Trumps actions because they had been using the same powers for decades beforehand.

 

[bwframe]

A border security breach by invaders is far far away from the loons on the left attempting to change the constitution. Not a comparison at all.

 

[BugI02]

I think I'll just work on getting a conservative elected, thankyouverymuch.


(Or maybe Kasich. )

I'm glad to see your definition of conservative is not broad enough to encompass Kasich, now that he's shown his true colors. He still might qualify as a RealRepublican®, though; if you go that route

I see a real future for him as mayor of Bloomington

 

[Denny347]

There is a huge difference between taking actions to fulfill constitutional duties and taking actions to directly violate the Constitution.

It's all a matter of perspective. I really have no issue with a wall and providing whatever assistance Border Patrol needs to safely do their jobs. I just not convinced that this tactic will work or if this DOES happen that it won't be administered poorly and become a bloated bottomless pit of bureaucratic waste. I guess it's the cynic in me.

 

[Phase2]

I'll just leave this here just in case anyone thought that the lack of a budget agreement actually meant that spending would be significantly curtailed:

What Shutdown? Federal Spending per Day Is Down Only 7 Percent

 

[JettaKnight]

A border security breach by invaders ...

That term "invader" is just as inappropriate as "undocumented citizen".

They aren't Mongols coming with broadswords to pillage, nor are they citizens who merely someone lost their paperwork.


They are, for the most part, people looking for a better life than the one they were living in their **** hole country. Granted, it's offensive to all of us that they choose to ignore proper immigration channels and flaunt that law, but they aren't "invaders".

Let's just stick to what they actually are, "illegal immigrants" and quit trying to change the truth by changing the terminology. That's what the left did, and I'd like to think we're better than that.

 

[Phase2]

That term "invader" is just as inappropriate as "undocumented citizen".

False.

Undocumented citizen states that they are a citizen, but lacking any documentation as such. They are not citizens of this country.

There are multiple definitions for invade that accurately describe their actions. Although this is not an armed/military invasion, the word still fits:

• to intrude upon
• to encroach or infringe upon
• to permeate
• to penetrate; spread into or over

 

[mmpsteve]

That term "invader" is just as inappropriate as "undocumented citizen".

They aren't Mongols coming with broadswords to pillage, nor are they citizens who merely someone lost their paperwork.


They are, for the most part, people looking for a better life than the one they were living in their **** hole country. Granted, it's offensive to all of us that they choose to ignore proper immigration channels and flaunt that law, but they aren't "invaders".

Let's just stick to what they actually are, "illegal immigrants" and quit trying to change the truth by changing the terminology. That's what the left did, and I'd like to think we're better than that.

No matter what term you use, it doesn't fix the problem, if you agree there is a problem. I believe caravans of 1000's overwhelming our border system is a big problem. One entity (trump) is trying to fix the problem, and several entities (dems and never-trumpers) are working against fixing the problem, even though in years gone by, they supported fixing the problem.

.

 

[JettaKnight]

False.

Undocumented citizen states that they are a citizen, but lacking any documentation as such. They are not citizens of this country.

There are multiple definitions for invade that accurately describe their actions. Although this is not an armed/military invasion, the word still fits:

• to intrude upon
• to encroach or infringe upon
• to permeate
• to penetrate; spread into or over

Huh?

The left started using the term "undocumented citizen" instead of the long accepted term of "illegal immigrant" because they wanted a term with a softer, more welcoming tone that fits their agenda.

The right now seems to have taken on that strategy with the term "invader" in an effort to portray people as a horde of Huns and Vikings coming to rape our livestock and slaughter our women.