SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:12AM
from the at-least-the-House-and-Senate-agreed-on-something dept.
from the at-least-the-House-and-Senate-agreed-on-something dept.
breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/15/donald-trump-vetoes-attempt-to-block-national-emergency
President Donald Trump vetoed a bill designed to block his emergency declaration at the Southern Border on Friday, in a ceremony at the White House.
“Today, I am vetoing this resolution,” Trump said. “Congress has the freedom to pass this resolution and I have the duty to veto it. And I’m very proud to veto it.”
Also at CBS News, CNBC, and USA Today.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump Vetoes Attempt to Block his Declaration of a National Emergency
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 127 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 mosquito is the state bird of New Jersey.
-- Andy Warhol
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Sunday March 17 2019, @08:03AM (37 children)
I'm not in favor of the border wall. Trump's not the first person to propose it, not likely to be the last, but for better or worse he made it a signature of his campaign so he has indeed a *duty* to attempt to implement it.
Unfortunately, if built it will be expensive, cause unintended harm, and ultimately be ineffective at its professed purpose as well.
So I applaud the veto, but I'm also looking forward to an override.
As a bonus, should this work out as I hope, the precedent could well impede moves by a future executive of either party.
Good political news is so rare, but this brought a smile to my face.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:08AM (12 children)
Even using the most expensive wall cost estimate, we'd break even in two years due to the expense of handling illegal aliens. After two years, it's just a win... or we could be silly and rebuild it every two years. Again, that is with the high estimate for cost. More likely, we could do a new wall every year and come out ahead.
We've built a couple times that much wall just along interstate highways. It is supposed to reduce noise. Notice also the interstates themselves, which are far more costly than walls. (must be smooth, need more land, etc.)
The shutdown cost more than the wall.
By shutting down the war in Syria, Trump saved more than enough to build the wall.
Walls have been effective all over the world, even in modern times. Israel has two walls that work fine. Walls have reduce the migrant crisis problem in southeastern Europe. Mexico has a wall on their other border. Saudi Arabia has one. We're paying for Jordan to have a wall.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:20AM (10 children)
IF that's true it's only because we've made that 'handling' ridiculously expensive.
And you're assuming it's effective. It won't be. A 10' wall just means increased demand for 12' ladders. And digging machines.
But in a sense it will be effective. Other forms of wildlife, some of them at least, will have difficulty. It might actually drive a few species extinct.
It's ridiculous, and it's theatre. They've got the entire border under 24/7 surveillance already. And 100 miles inland.
The last bit is what you should be worried about.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by physicsmajor on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:15PM (5 children)
You're pretty ignorant about the border, friend. The claim that it's already under 24/7 surveillance exposes it hilariously.
A physical barrier is imperfect, but serves a similar propose as the locks on your home: deterrence. Lockpicks are available, sure, but you still have locks don't you? So the least common denominator can't walk in any time. This is the purpose a wall serves. It does not have to be perfect to dramatically ameliorate the problem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:27PM (2 children)
False analogy. Houses have ceilings and floors, and are much smaller than the southern border. Thus, tunneling under them or climbing over them with ladders would be ineffective, unlike with a giant wall in the middle of nowhere.
(Score: 2) by EEMac on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:32PM (1 child)
Walls worked for Israel [politifact.com], China [reddit.com], Hungary [breitbart.com] . . .
(Score: 2) by arslan on Monday March 18 2019, @05:55AM
There's also a big "wall" between North & South Korea... sure it is primarily a piece of land with fences on both sides, but it is what's inside that counts =)
When I saw Trump propose this in his election campaign, I though he was gonna spin this into a win-win... you know maybe build a golf course on top or at least a driving range - get part of the cover fee to employ those waiting to be processed to go collect golf balls or something. Do some tourism murica campaign to Asia about this new radical golfing joint - get all those govie and charity sponsored "workshops" & "offsite team building" events there. Win, win for everyone.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 18 2019, @07:40AM
I need to make a point for "the other side" here.
Yes, a simple wall, or even a simple fence, will deter the lowest common denominator to which you refer. But, the LCD doesn't even come to the border. The LCD's of the various populations to our south, stay home, and live their lives. You would have a hard time forcing them to walk a thousand miles or more, just to make a death defying walk across the desert, to climb over some Normandy Beach type barricades.
Those people who have made that thousand mile trek are pretty determined. If they know beforehand that they need a twelve foot ladder, then there will be a twelve foot ladder with the group - probably two of them, so that they don't have to jump down from the top of the wall.
You're right, we cut down on the number of people willing to make the trek, simply because they know there is a wall there. But, no wall is enough. We MUST patrol the wall, more effectively than we already do. We MUST install surveillance that is far more effective than we already have. We should know well in advance any time a group of five or more starts moving toward the wall. We have satellites that can scan in infrared, ultraviolet, visible light, and various forms of radar. We have all of that, and more that can be mounted on the fence. We can wire the fence for sound, to the point we can hear owls and bats gliding over the fence at night.
And, we have PEOPLE. I insist that there should be (at least) an army division regularly patrolling the badlands. We already have the army. We already have more than enough people in the army. All we need do, is decide to task a division with patrolling and securing that border. Unfortunately, we lack the determination to do so.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday March 18 2019, @09:32AM
The sonoran desert straddles the border and it's under intense surveillance. There are satellites, of course, there are also blimps. Some days they come down low enough you can spot them, if you know where to look, but even when they're so far up you can't see them, they are watching. Internet surveillance is constant and pervasive regardless of location, of course. Finally there are checkpoints, numerous checkpoints both at the border and far, far inland from it, for one more layer of surveillance.
The sensible crossing points already have walls, or at least fences, and more cameras. But even when folks detour way out into the sonoran and cross in the middle of the desert where there is no wall and no guards, you know what happens? Border patrol gets a call from the eye in the sky and they go out in the middle of the desert and pick them up. They bring water and medicine when they do this - that desert is mean and the folks they pick up are typically in bad shape and wind up being rescued as much as intercepted but the point is it happens. It happens because the entire area is under constant surveillance, even if you go around all the walls you don't get in that way. It just gets you a short stay in custody followed by a free bus ride back to the border. This happens constantly.
It's ignorant of you to not grasp this basic fact, something which is known and reported and easily verified if you wanted to do any research.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:43PM (3 children)
It's a 30' wall.
If you try to erect a simple 30' ladder, you will fail. Suppose your arms can reach up 7 feet. You can balance and rotate a ladder twice that length, so 14 feet. If it is longer, it strikes the ground before you can rotate it to be vertical. You can get maybe another foot of distance by holding the ladder off-center if you have very strong hands.
Clearly, you'll need a sliding ladder. Those are expensive. Well, the plain ones would be too, because a plain 30' ladder is not generally available on the market. With a sliding ladder, you need some overlap of the sections, so you still won't get 30 feet. You'd need a 3-section ladder. Those are really rare and expensive, and they are heavy as fuck. Lugging the ladder across the desert, to a place with limited border patrol, will be very difficult.
Then we confiscate the ladder. That was expensive.
I'd rather we push the ladder backwards with the illegals on it, but insane leftists don't see this for the violent invasion that it is. Anyway...
It just isn't practical for them to come in large numbers with ladders. Sure, it will happen. Some may even manage to build scaffolding or bore a deep tunnel. Other modern walls, in Israel and in southeastern Europe, have stopped more than 99% of the traffic coming through. It's a lot easier to shoot (OK, "apprehend", sigh) the remaining 1%.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @12:53PM
Dear Mr. Engineer,
More than one of us will carry the ladders, and more than one of us will raise the ladders. And then more than one of us will use the ladders.
And in case you think that we will build the ladders right in front of the wall within clear view of the US Border Patrol, you are mistaken. We will buy ladders near by because capitalism works on both sides of the border whether people as smart as you believe it or not.
Signed,
Desperate and Seeking Refuge
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nobuddy on Monday March 18 2019, @02:59PM (1 child)
https://www.wernerco.com/us/view/Products/Climbing-Equipment/Extension-Ladders/D6200-2/D6240-2 [wernerco.com]
(hint: look at manufacture location)
Thats gotta fucking hurt. That much ignorance being being both exposed and blown away by a simple link. Ouch. Will you need some therapy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @08:15AM
That is the biggest ladder, extending from 20 feet to 35 feet. It goes for $500 to $800.
So, how do you erect it? Dangerously, you could use a step ladder. The point is that your hands will need to be about 10 feet above the ground if it isn't extended. A better plan would be to use a crane... but then you have a crane and don't need a ladder.
It's also too damn heavy to lug across the desert. Once we find it, we confiscate it. Overall, this is not a viable plan for millions of people crossing the border.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:41PM
There's so much wrong with that single statement. First, the most expensive wall estimate will far short of the actual cost of the wall. It's standard government accounting these days to vastly understate the cost of such projects. Second, the wall will need to be maintained - at least till some future president kills it. Third, those expensively handled illegal aliens will just find some other way to get it. Fourth, unless someone explicitly cuts that ICE budget, the money will continue to be spent, whether it be on illegal aliens or something else. It's a standard funding rule in the US. Use it or lose it.
Finally, what's going to happen when protestors and smugglers vandalize the wall? The wall designs mentioned are durable [washingtonpost.com], but can be broken down by large groups of people using basic hand tools.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:39AM (2 children)
Forty Days And Forty Nights, not of Rain, but of _Projectiles_:
The Ballista.
That just had to suck to be them.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday March 18 2019, @11:55PM
The Dutch merchants in New Amsterdam figured they would have better access to English markets if they renamed their city New York. That's why.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday March 19 2019, @07:21AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Touché) by SpockLogic on Sunday March 17 2019, @12:02PM (8 children)
Just like his *duty* to get Mexico to pay for it?
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 17 2019, @01:07PM (7 children)
That's the bit that no one seems to get.
Each and every Mexican shipped back to Mexico, who IS NOT REPLACED by ten more Mexicans, is payment on the wall. Mexico's biggest industry is the smuggling of drugs. Mexico's second biggest industry is "remissions" from the United States. If the wall stops, or even slows, the flow of drugs and invaders, then yes, Mexico will have paid for the wall. It isn't even necessary to stop all of the drugs, or all of the illegal aliens. If we cut the flow in half, Mexico will pay for the wall, in the form of lost funds.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:46PM (5 children)
One of the few things Obama got right was coming up with a sensible way [nbcnews.com] to keep people from illegally immigrating. Get caught and you can't apply for legal immigration for a period of time (maybe two years?). Get caught multiple times and you're banned from applying for life. Of course, this requires that there is a credible legal way to immigrate, but seems a small price to pay for getting even a part of immigration policy that works.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:48PM (4 children)
It doesn't require that there be a credible legal way to immigrate. It absolutely does not.
We DO NOT have to accept these people. This is OUR nation. We can choose to accept ZERO and that is our right. This land is OUR land.
It is especially bad to accept any immigrant who would enlarge a significant non-English ghetto. This means that all Spanish-speaking people, without regard for country of origin, are really bad.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:17PM
Tell that to all the greedhead CEOs who love the slave labor force with no rights, the Democrats who are cynically aiming for a larger voter base, and so on. THAT is your problem right there. The US could stop illegal immigration easily if it had the political will: destroy and nationalize any company hiring illegals. But it won't, because the system WANTS this. Which means you lot are being played for a fool by the very people stoking your anti-immigrant sentiment.
Wake up and smell the cafe con leche: the elite are using you *and* the illegals and playing you off one another. The illegals didn't steal your job; the elite did, and GAVE it to one of them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:42PM (2 children)
Yes, it does. Because otherwise it's just an empty threat and would-be illegal immigrants have no incentive to stay out.
We had the same drama with Europeans (Poles, Germans, Scandinavians, etc). It sorted out fine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:55PM (1 child)
We catch them. We flay them. Who will sign up for that? Obviously we don't just set them back on the other side of the border to try again.
Prison works too, as long as we take it seriously. We can outsource the prisons to El Salvador, Haiti, Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, or any other place that would make prisons be an actual punishment.
The drama with Europeans was less severe except possibly for the Germans. It took a couple centuries to fully clear that up. We actually needed a world war against Germany to make speaking German be fully unacceptable in public. So... is your solution to have a world war against a Spanish-speaking country? IMHO that would really suck.
I don't want to wait 2 centuries to get my country unified again. I won't live that long. I'd suffer all my life, and my great-grandchildren would too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @12:49AM
Eighth amendment precludes us from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments, such as flaying, for minor crimes like illegal immigration.
It never was a problem, much less one requiring a world war.
When was the last time it was "unified" in the way you claim? I think ignorance of history is biting you here.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday March 18 2019, @03:06PM
An amendment to the US constitution says humans can no longer be used as currency. So we are back to cash.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @12:41PM (2 children)
Border wall was already built under Bush and then Obama.. But since Trump wants only to tear down and take ownership of what Obama did, he pretends he came up with the idea. Like the ACA (Affordable Care Act) or Obamacare... and the useful idiots are too stupid to know any better.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/ [politifact.com]
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:22PM
Politifact is biased as fuck with liberal AIDS.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:43PM
Some wall building was present under those two administrations. The Trump version apparently would run over most of the US-Mexico border and require a great deal of imminent domain.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:29PM (8 children)
That was pretty much my thought too.
Especially given that L'Orange promised a veto. If Congress isn't prepared to override said veto, they never should have passed the bill in the first place.
We shall see.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:57PM (7 children)
I dunno. I kind of like seeing them actually passing things they're not sure will be signed. If they're sure ahead of time it's because of backroom dealing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 18 2019, @12:20AM (6 children)
Says who? Does any bill that has a veto-proof majority necessarily mean that there's, as you say, "back room dealing?"
I mean that a bill could be, well, you know, in the best interests of the nation and its people. And if it is, then shouldn't all of our legislators support it?
Just a crazy thought.
A united Congress *working together* (a novel concept these days) to pass legislation despite opposition from the Executive branch would be a welcome change from the "my party right or wrong" business as usual shenanigans.
I'd hoped that *before* (or certainly during) the most recent shutdown, that Congress would pass a CR [wikipedia.org] keeping (or reopening) the government up and running with a veto-proof majority. That, alas, proved too much for the weasels on the Hill.
Truth be told, I'd have preferred to see this last bill passed with veto-proof majorities in the first place.
I thought (and it may still end up being the case, but I'm not holding my breath) that since the administration is attempting to spend money Congress hasn't appropriated for that purpose might just be enough to get these folks to override the veto.
Like I said, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 18 2019, @03:15AM (5 children)
There essentially aren't any bills with veto-proof majorities that say anything more substantial than "Breathing air is good." I'd quite like it if this were not the case but they never ask me what I think. Not putting the requirement to ask me beforehand in the constitution was a gross oversight by the founding fathers but nobody's perfect.
Frankly, I'm hoping it honks enough congress critters off that they start pulling powers from the executive branch in a bipartisan manner but I'm not going to hold my breath.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 18 2019, @04:09AM (4 children)
Really?
I think the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act [wikipedia.org] did a little more than say "breathing air is good."
And I think even you would agree that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 [wikipedia.org] was fairly substantial.
Overriding Reagan's veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 [wikipedia.org] was also far from just window dressing.
Congress also overrode Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act [wikipedia.org].
I'd also point out that a number of appropriations bills were also overridden since the Clean Water Act in 1973. I'll leave the details of those up to you.
So. No. Veto overrides have happened WRT substantial legislation. Repeatedly. I didn't go back before 1973 because I imagine I've made my point, no?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 18 2019, @05:31AM (3 children)
No, you haven't. You had to go back over forty years to get that many instances. We're not talking about forty years ago when a goodly majority of the people were perfectly willing to listen to ideas not their own and even cross party lines in their voting habits. We're talking about the hyper-polarized partisan environment we currently live in. Unless you get a veto-proof majority entirely of one party, you're not passing anything with a veto-proof majority. Maybe if we get bombed. Maybe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 18 2019, @11:16AM (2 children)
And that's the problem, isn't it? I say we do something about it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 18 2019, @11:36AM (1 child)
Prison would interfere with my fishing. It'll have to be voting unless they cheese me off to a pretty epic level.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 18 2019, @01:06PM
Works for me. I have a 50+ year Cal Ripken-like streak of never going to jail working. I'd like to keep that streak up too, as it would interfere with much more than just my fishing.
I totally get partisan politics, and there really are partisan policy differences.
It just seems ridiculous that folks who are elected to represent us sell us down the river to support "their" side *first* rather than focusing on what's best for, in order, their constituency, the nation, and then their party.
You and I are gettin' old, so I imagine you remember Ronnie Raygun and Tip O'Neill [wikipedia.org] (link for the young'uns who don't recall). As much as I disliked both of those guys (but not as much as they hated each other), they made a point to get past that on several occasions to do what was best for the nation.
After Billy Boy got into office, and the 'R's took control of Congress, we had a taste of what we now see all the time now from that piece of shit Newt [wikipedia.org] and his flunkies.
That's not to say Billy Boy was all sweetness and light either. He sold us down the river to get *something* done with Burgermeister Meisterburger over in the House in full "my way or the highway" mode. And, predictably, the 'D's eventually followed suit.
It's a sad state of affairs, and I'd appreciate it if you did vote, Buzzard.
But just vote. I'd be afraid for anyone who ended up in jail with you. :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr