SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"President Trump will sign the border security compromise package on Capitol Hill to avert another government shutdown and will take the extraordinary step of declaring a national emergency to obtain funding for the border wall, the White House announced Thursday."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Trump will sign border security bill, declare national emergency, White House says
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 167 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The worst part of valor is indiscretion.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:21PM (1 child)
He's actually got a case. I find it pretty amazing how many people are taken in by the uniparty view. First let me point out that I believe that immigration law should be liberal, but also that it should be enforced.
Sanctuary cities are effectively in open rebellion against federal immigration policy. Right or wrong, immigration law is openly ignored. The Constitutional emergency is derived from the supremacy clause, as much as anything having to do with actual immigration. Generally I'm also a supporter of states rights, but SCOTUS isn't, and you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Corporations want it how it is. They want the law to be ignored so they can do whatever they want and play the ends against the middle. So congress has engineered it such, that the law cannot be reasonably enforced on purpose. It is unreasonable to expect that any of their "comprehensive reforms" will actually be comprehensive or reform. Congress passes laws so appear to care, but then refuses to fund them to create a schizm. People are being injured not because of border patrol, but because border patrol is not adequately funded to do the job that we ask them to do.
The purpose of the wall, is law enforcement. It has no other function. Border protection is the oldest duty of any government.
Of course the next argument the cabal makes is "there is no data supporting that number", which is quite ridiculous. While nobody is going to really know the final figure until the last check is signed, that doesn't mean a good estimate can't be made. The only thing you can do is generate a labor and materials estimate, and then use statistical models from similar projects to project overhead costs. But that can be done, and in fact the Congress has a bunch of guys who work for them that do exactly this sort of thing all the time. So the fact that cabal news doesn't echo a number doesn't, doesn't mean congress can't get a number. But since they are all lying bastards, you can't rely on them to count their own fingers since they all invariably have 11 (one better than everybody else).
The emergency has little to do with immigration, it has to to with the supremacy clause. There are a few ways to approach it. For the fed to sue sanctuary cities, (which it can do) or to mitigate the inflow of immigration in some other way (the wall).
Really the whole debate is reprehensible. We shouldn't be here to begin with. I don't like Trump. But the failure here is the uniparty congress. The created the problem, and now instead of sticking a thumb in the dike they are spinning tales about fault, and using the massive combined propaganda infrastructure to take a fundamentally fascist position against the very integrity of the law.
I get the humanitarian position. But I don't think humanitarians understand how bad law effects humanitarianism. I generally agree with the inscription on the statue of liberty. But the if the law has no integrity, then we aren't a country worth coming to in the first place. And that is where the emergency lies. So they can go to court. But he could win. Which is itself a bad precedent. But Congress will continue get a lot of airtime, be able to claim in between gulps of corporate cock that it wasn't their fault. And the Constitution will have slipped even deeper into an abyss.
SSDD
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:53AM
Are they? My (admittedly limited) knowledge of sanctuary cities is that they are places where local police do not bother to enforce immigration law. As an example, suppose someone taken into custody in a sanctuary city is found to be undocumented. In this case, the local law enforcement is not going to turn said person over to ICE. Local law enforcement is not obligated to do the federal government's job for them; not helping ICE is not a federal crime.
Bullshit! The purpose of the wall is so that Trump can claim to have kept a campaign promise!
The feds could sue sanctuary cities, but I suspect that they would lose. Local governments are not obligated to do the fed's job. (IANAL, so you can take my opinion for what you think it is worth.) Much more plausible is to go after groups and individuals found to be harboring fugitives from federal law enforcement; that is against federal law. But that could quickly get politically dicey. I'm sure that many of those groups are religious (e.g., Christian churches).
No, the failure here is that the guy in the White House doesn't want to be President of the USA but Autocrat of the USA. That is the failure.
Yep, and the Republicans need to be constantly reminded that the precedent they set down today will almost certainly be used against them sometime in the future.