"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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
2
(1)
2
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @04:10AM (11 children)
Sweet!
Imagine what Democrats will be able to do with an actual planet-threatening emergency like global warming in 2020!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:22AM (1 child)
What is the process for ending all these (30 or whatever) states of emergency? Does the president need to do it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @04:35AM
What is the process for ending all these (30 or whatever) states of emergency? Does the president need to do it?
Congress can easily vote to end them if they wish. If the House passes the bill the Senate is forced to vote on it so you don't get the partisan refuse-to-vote nonsense.
(don't have a specific link, it's been the common thread in all the 'what do dems do next' articles)
Some of them are fairly legit, though. You should take a look at the list...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 15 2019, @12:14PM (3 children)
Hey, bit of a non-sequitur but did you RTFA on this? Do if you would, paying special attention to phrasing, word choice, and such for bias. Then look at the source. Interesting, eh?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @01:58PM (2 children)
Um, no. Eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @03:37PM (1 child)
Interesting, yes. You must have a mind before you can generate any interest in anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:30PM
A mind is not enough, you also require neural activity:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/02/14/1258242 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:58PM
It'll be like 1984 all over again, and Trump could even recycle the campaign. Reagan won on the economy and on protecting the nation. Aside from minor details like wall building instead of ballistic missile defense, it's all the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election#Results [wikipedia.org]
You can damage our country after you defeat Pence in 2028.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @06:24PM (3 children)
Looks like Pelosi is more worried about using emergency powers to disarm the working class. If you're worried about the environment, the Democratic Party likes to make noises but doesn't do nearly enough... unless of course you're the kind of person who, when their house is on fire, gives a moderate alarm, moderately rescues their lover from the hands of the ravisher, and gradually extricates their babe from the fire into which it has fallen. Anyway, I digress.
Trump to declare national emergency to build wall [wsws.org]:
wswswsws claims that there's been no calls for impeachment, which may be true if we're just looking at congresscritters, but there is also this. Trump's Latest Power Grab Triggers Calls for Impeachment [truthdig.com].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @10:28PM
A Democratic president using a national emergency statement to impose gun control is a great way to provoke a constitutional crisis. At least there's already laws in place regarding border security, and there's nothing in the Constitution that expressly forbids doing it. If the dems want to make sure they lose every national election for the next generation, they should go ahead with this plan.
Mind you, that's probably a best-case scenario for them if they do it. Some people would be happy to bring back the old ridden out of town on a rail punishment. We've got plenty of rails, pitch and chicken feathers.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:04AM (1 child)
An impeachment vote by the House wouldn't mean anything as long as the Senate wouldn't convict.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:04AM
That is true, but the Democratic Party instead of protesting this action by bringing articles of impeachment just rolls over and dreams about disarming the working class (so that the working class is deprived of means of providing its own security [Trotsky's "worker's militia"--such a thing is Common Sense after all] as worker's strikes intensify and the army of the bourgeois gets involved). It's business as usual in Washington.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday February 15 2019, @04:12AM (8 children)
Challenges in courts is the next thing that will happen.
One of the most authoritarians but still successful stateman (nicknamed the Iron Chancellor [wikipedia.org]) knew better: "The politics is the art of the possible".
Trump seems to think he can get this "deal" or blame "the others" - what a waste of time and money from the US people's pockets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @09:59AM
Tax and loan money in good use, eh?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @10:52AM (3 children)
well let's review...
the president wanted 5.7 billion dollars for the wall
the last shutdown cost the USA 11 billion dollars according to figures quoted by the mainstream press
given the above IMHO regardless of whether or not you support a border wall/fence/barrier
the actions of the democrats were ridiculous with regards to the shutdown
That's before you get into the fact that the democrats supported and partially built a border wall/fence/barrier under Obama .
Which just makes it even more obvious that it is nothing but political grandstanding on their part.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday February 15 2019, @11:00AM
True. Except that the senseless pissing contest involves both the parts - otherwise wouldn't be a contest, would it?
Side topic, I'm curious what was accounted against that "cost".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @04:29PM (1 child)
- Donald J Trump, Dec 11, 2018
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:06PM
He should shut it down every month or so until the government employees start saving up a little bit of rent money.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:43PM
With a name like Otto?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DrkShadow on Friday February 15 2019, @04:15AM (20 children)
His campaign promise was to build a wall.... which is now incredibly unpopular.
Wasn't his campaign promise also to make the Mexicans pay for it? What ever happened to that campaign promise?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:31AM
Depends on how badly the Mexicans will get shafted by NAFTA 2.0.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:34AM (3 children)
What would make you happy? no really, I'm interested. He's trying to fulfill his promise to build a wall and no, it doesn't look like the Mexicans will pay for it.
Although, maybe they should, because apparently, they have enough money to hire pilots to fly them over. Or to build mile+ long tunnels, or to hire boats and organize caravans and pay the media to look favorably upon them. They have enough money and resources to completely bypass the *useless* wall and walls never kept anyone out anyway.
So yea. How would you manage the borders? If you don't believe in borders, you don't believe in the United States of America and I'm ashamed to call you a fellow citizen, because somehow, somewhere, some way, you came to the conclusion that an organized system that tries to be fair, and just, and stand up for what's right in the world (mostly), shouldn't exist. You can't have a country without borders. You can't have a country unless those borders are managed. You can't manage without *doing* something to define those borders. And when FOREIGN NON-USA PEOPLE abuse and overrun the borders WE manage. WE, The People of the United States of America NEED to stand up and bring order to the chaos and manage our borders.
So what would make you happy?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @04:45AM (1 child)
What would make you happy? no really, I'm interested. He's trying to fulfill his promise to build a wall and no, it doesn't look like the Mexicans will pay for it.
So I count two promises in that sentence. How do we determine which are the real promises and which are the pretend promises?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:39AM
Look, if you like your wall, you get to keep it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Friday February 15 2019, @06:07PM
An end to the war on drugs, which is presently the fundamental cause of most problems at the border. As well as throughout our society.
--
You come from dust. You return to dust. That's
why I don't dust. Might have been a friend.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @04:37AM (4 children)
What ever happened to that campaign promise?
Throw it on the pile! We're gonna need to tetris the fuck out of this pile to get it to fit in the dumpster!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @06:18AM (3 children)
You can find it right next to Obama's promise to stop illegal mass surveillence.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @09:01AM (2 children)
But at least he fulfilled his promise to close gitmo, right? Right? Thanks Obama!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @10:16AM (1 child)
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/10/congress-overwhelmingly-votes-to-block-guantanamo-closure/ [theintercept.com]
Obama's fault? Might as well say that not building a wall is thanks to Trump. Some bizarro world you people live in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court [wikipedia.org]
So, you may want to look in the Request Denied and Modified columns. You'll see that under Obama these numbers sent up from 0 to something more than 0.
My suggestion is to wake the fuck up about realities of your country and get involved instead of spouting these idiotic things like Trump does. This may require you getting educated instead of spouting one liners based on a summary of some website clickbait you saw but never even bothered to read.
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Friday February 15 2019, @03:55PM
I see you've fallen for his propaganda. In reality, he never needed their permission, he just used that as an excuse so he could pass the blame along to someone else. He was pretty good at doing that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-president-doesnt-need-congresss-permission-to-close-guantanamo/2015/11/06/4cc9d2ac-83f5-11e5-a7ca-6ab6ec20f839_story.html?utm_term=.b99229f4a5ae [washingtonpost.com]
So you think Obama was elected in 2003 or...?
Obama approved 12,162, modified 541, and rejected 41
Bush approved 14,353, modified 399, and rejected 6
Clinton approved 6,057, modified 1, and rejected 0
Obama looks a hell of a lot closer to Bush than anyone else in that chart. What does it matter that he rejected three dozen when he approve *thousands* more?
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Friday February 15 2019, @05:18AM (1 child)
It fell by the wayside, just like his promise to Stormy (I'll respect you in the morning).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @07:31AM
It worked out. She's getting tons of respect from CNN and Michael Avenatti. Not so much from the Federal 9th District Court.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Friday February 15 2019, @09:53AM (2 children)
You're being snarky but there is a good case to be made this is already happening or will happen.
Tariffs on goods from Mexico have probably already generated more than this amount of revenue.
There's a fairly reasonable proposal to direct seized assets of the drug lord El Chapo - which are estimated over double the requested $5.7 Billion USD figure - to a physical barrier.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @10:38PM (1 child)
First, you apparently are unaware that the new NAFTA deal has not been ratified by any of the three countries. Not a single dollar or peso has been levied nor collected under this new deal, and won't for quite a while.
Second, you are apparently very unaware that the great new deal he brought is basically the same deal that has been in place, but with a few tweaks. Exactly what all three countries have been wanting to do in the first place.
And most egregious of all, you are obviously completely ignorant on what tariffs actually are and who pays them. In this case, all that wall money ain't coming from the Mexicans.
With your lack of critical thinking, I think you should switch to being something like "marketingmajor" or "MBAmajor" instead of "physicsmajor".
Look, he can very easily start building the wall in earnest when Mexico cuts him a check, but he sure as hell can't argue that he has to build it because he promised to without that other part that he emphasized very strongly: AND MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @09:46AM
Plus elements of the TPP that would give us more draconian patent rules.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stretch611 on Friday February 15 2019, @10:34AM (1 child)
Same thing with his promise to drain the swamp...
and to make the best deals...
His ego promised what his brain is unable to deliver.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @10:42AM
Wait! You mean he actually has a brain?
I was inclined to think about that matter inside his cranium as, at best, a plexus.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @03:16PM
El Chapo has donated 14 billion to the cause. I think he's Mexican?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @06:08PM
Outside of leftist enclaves, Americans want a wall.
Mexicans actually want the wall! OK, they don't want to pay for it, but actual Mexicans in Mexico want the wall because it would impact the cartels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:55AM
Yes, it was.
It's beeen forgotten long ago.
Next question!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:20AM (15 children)
How many of these states of emergency is the US in now? 33? They should all be ended, but there is nothing extraordinary about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:50AM (2 children)
This is supposedly a more expansive use of the national emergency than previous ones. No, I don't have a source for that.
(Score: 2) by mth on Friday February 15 2019, @10:56AM (1 child)
Most of the other things on the list, especially from the last 25 years, are neither national nor emergencies (not anymore anyway; they may have been urgent at the time). It seems to me that the main difference is that most things on the list weren't controversial, so politicians didn't care that the national emergency mechanism was abused to quickly react to international developments with asset freezes etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @12:38PM
I really like how Trump manages to bring all the corrupt crap that has been going on in the government to the public consciousness.
(Score: 3, Informative) by progo on Friday February 15 2019, @04:58AM (1 child)
No wonder the country is on edge. We've got 31 emergencies already before we add a new one this week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday February 16 2019, @03:29AM
Shows we should have started numbering emergencies at zero. With number 32, our five-bit emergency counter overflows.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @05:10AM (9 children)
How many of these states of emergency is the US in now? 33? They should all be ended, but there is nothing extraordinary about it.
Ok!
I vote we get rid of the one about Iran getting nukes since they're complying with their treaty. How do you feel about that one?
Executive Order 12170
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:52AM
I'm OK with it. Why are you so afraid?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @12:42PM
Yea, get rid of all of them, if they are that important have a real debate about it to bring it back. I only learned this because Trump, I had no idea the government has the legal power to confiscate all savings accounts due to these "emergencies": http://www.gata.org/node/5606 [gata.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @01:00PM (6 children)
no
muslims + nukes = bad
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @01:06PM (4 children)
Even if you think that, does that that mean therefore the government should have the power to confiscate your savings account if they feel like it?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @03:45PM (3 children)
Please, don't get angry. But, you're exposing some ignorance here.
Americans don't HAVE savings. Very damned few do, anyway. Everyone is busy spending their kid's inheritance, for the next twenty generations. No one saves money.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @03:54PM (2 children)
That is exactly how they will justify taking the cash/stocks/gold/crypto from people that did attempt to plan ahead.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 15 2019, @04:17PM (1 child)
That's why I think it's a better strategy to bank skills & knowledge that nobody can tax and that no government can take away from you. No congress can tax the love you have for your friends and family. No president can get between you and your deity of choice.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:33PM
A usual part of such events is a purging of "intellectuals" though.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Black_Categories [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 15 2019, @08:21PM
Because Pakistan has caused Armageddon, sure.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 15 2019, @04:50AM (75 children)
...but with a long, drawn-out, agonized wet fart. So ends even the illusion that there's any adults in the room when it comes to American politics. Part of me knew this was inevitable, and part of me is still surprised the GOP machinery can't keep its fat orange attack dog chained the fuck up.
In the medium to long run, if we survive, this presidency will be looked back on as the death of the GOP, and it will be good for the nation in that sense. The question is, what happens (and who dies, and why) between then and now?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:55AM
Pick your long.
On the long-enough-run, nobody survives
Nitpicking again: seems that the limits of the range are listed in reverse order, it creates a weird feeling.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:57AM (54 children)
This is a good thing.
1. There is nothing wrong or evil about building a border wall. Democrats have kicked and screamed about something they actually support in principle.
2. Trump gave Congress a chance to fund the border wall. Now that he has found out the exact amount of money he can extract from Congress, he is getting the rest from places like the overfunded military.
3. If Congress is peeved about the use of the national emergency, they can pass new legislation limiting the power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:23AM (35 children)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:34AM (34 children)
You've forgotten that the wall pays for itself by stopping illegals, drugs, and crime.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Friday February 15 2019, @05:36AM (5 children)
Except, of course, when it doesn't stop those things.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday February 15 2019, @05:42AM
I think you forgot "employees for Trump properties".
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @03:50PM (3 children)
If walls don't stop crimes, why do all the liberals in congress, and Hollywierd have walls around their homes? Why do Hillary and Barrack both walls around their homes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @03:58PM
for the same reason i have a privacy lock on my hello kitty diary. it wont keep out anyone determined, but might prevent a crime of convenience. its harder to escape via rescaling that wall with a bag of heavy loot than it is from a house where you're just going to go out the same window you broke in through, and no further obstructions.
youre better than the argument you wrote runaway, dont be lazy
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday February 15 2019, @04:16PM
Yeah, because those folks certainly haven't committed any crimes. Those walls are working great!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:27AM
You are missing something important: *scale.* A nation is not a single house. There is far more that goes on inside a country than inside a single residence. Single residences do not have, for example, immigration programs, to begin with. Fewer than 10 people (I hope...) live in a given normal-size house.
This comparison is not only not right, "das ist nacht einmal falsch" as the saying goes...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday February 15 2019, @05:45AM (25 children)
And, if you believe those, you've forgotten how to think rationally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Troll) by physicsmajor on Friday February 15 2019, @10:00AM (20 children)
Says the person who presents no supporting evidence whatsoever for their position.
Physical barriers demonstrably reduce illegal crossings. Like a lock on your home, everything is at some level delay and/or illusion - social engineering, lockpicking, breaking a window instead - someone determined can gain entry.
So do you lock your doors at night, or leave them wide open?
Oh, and do you have an issue with the huge number of illegal aliens creating massive drains on our welfare, education, medical, and social systems who are paying nothing in return? You know, the services which won't exist when you get to be a senior citizen at current rates? The rate of influx of this population will be most reduced by a physical barrier, even if imperfect.
Bring evidence if you want to contest these facts.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday February 15 2019, @10:33AM (3 children)
As it happens, nowadays (summertime) at night, my front door is closed but not locked, my back door is only a plastic fly screen with a hole for the cat to get out when she pleases.
No, I don't own any gun, no need for it.
Nope. None what so ever.
If you don't like it, choose a country with less powerful corporations and more social protection. Your choice.
I can't be bothered. You'll have all the time in the world to ponder on the mystery why the hell your crime rate is still high and drugs are plenty and illegal (cheap labour) immigrants are still plenty in spite of that wall expensive wall
Not that I wish you all these things, but they'll happen anyway (hint: follow the money, you'll figure out why. Or not)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:03PM (2 children)
Says the guy who DOES NOT LIVE in El Paso or San Diego.
(Score: 2) by tekk on Friday February 15 2019, @07:33PM (1 child)
Of the top 30 largest cities in the country, San Diego is the safest both in terms of murders and violent crime in general: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/2018_09_CrimeUpdate_V2.pdf [brennancenter.org]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @11:42PM
Don't confuse physicsmajor with facts! He's got a raging Republican paranoia going! Don't kill the buzz!
Seriously, that stuff with the amygdala brain seems to be correct: Trump supporters seem to get a rush of endorphins from being scared shitless, worrying about foreigners or Shriners coming to rape and kill them, though not necessarily in that order.
(Score: 2) by hoeferbe on Friday February 15 2019, @01:58PM (2 children)
Yes, but how how effective would Trump's wall be versus the cost?
Watch: 110 migrants use ladder to scale border wall in Arizona [tucson.com]
And is illegal boarder crossings ("entries without inspection" [EWI]) really the source of the USA's number of illegal immigrants?
Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings, Trend Expected to Continue [nbcnews.com]
In fairness, I must note that despite the NBC News article's headline, I don't really see the proof in its text of the assertion that visa overstays outnumber EWIs. They just parrot the ~40% visa overstay number and never give a percentage for EWIs. The same is true of other online news reports that I found. Still, I assume EWIs must be less than 40% or it wouldn't have made the news.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:18AM (1 child)
That 110 migrants story doesn't make the point that the wall is useless, quite the contrary in fact. They caught the 110 because of the wall.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by hoeferbe on Sunday February 17 2019, @03:20PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Friday February 15 2019, @03:05PM (10 children)
How about you first? All you've posted are suppositions, and even those are wrong.
If you had truly done your research as you claim you've supposedly done, you would have known that passive security measures only "keep honest people honest". They are completely useless against anyone who is determined to bypass them. There is a MASSIVE difference between petty crooks looking to score easy loot, and someone trying to escape a country. For these people, the wall is worse than useless because it wastes a lot of money that could have been spent on far more effective measures.
This is, of course, assuming your argument of "huge numbers of illegal aliens" is even true. The right is extremely fond of blowing up numbers to many many orders of magnitude in order to create easy-to-knockdown strawmen and keep the conservative outrage engine running. And if facts arn't easy to come by or manipulate, they will make them up completely (low hanging fruit: the child prostitution ring run out of a pizzaria).
So yeah, how about YOU bring up the facts first, since literally the most basic of google searches refute your "argument".
Oh, and if you're so concerned about social services, maybe you should spend less time worried about walls and more time worried about how the Republicans are doing everything they can to destroy those services without help from anyone else.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @03:42PM (1 child)
Didn't congress just approve sending Israel $2 billion (~$200 million/yr for 10 years) for their own wall? https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Trumps-2019-budget-request-includes-200-millon-increase-to-Israel-542467 [jpost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @06:42AM
There goes you social security at the senior age, to be buried into a concrete wall that does nothing for you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @03:52PM (7 children)
True, passive security measures don't actually "do" anythingl. But, if we do like Israel, and put armed troops along the wall, then the wall becomes far more meaningful.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Friday February 15 2019, @07:15PM (6 children)
That is true. Of course, that border is pretty darn big so it will take a lot of guards to cover the whole distance. I don't even want to know how expensive THAT would be.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @07:34PM (5 children)
There are already more than enough guards in Texas to do the job. We don't make the guards trudge the length of the border, wearing out their boot soles, though. Choppers and jeeps, SUV's, maybe even some ATV's. Fort Hood has it all, ready to rock and roll.
That argument against using troops for police action? Not applicable. We are being invaded, so the army can legitimately be used to defend against the invasion.
Cost? No one counts the cost when they want to send those troops overseas to bomb brown people's homes. I think maybe we could save some money using those troops to patrol the wall. No bombs necessary, just small arms. It's highly unlikely that we would ever see an incident that required a heavy machine gun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:18PM (1 child)
bullshit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @11:45PM
Nah, just Runaway's craven cowardice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:40PM (1 child)
...by people seeking jobs and a better future for their kids. Everybody run for your lives!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @07:49PM
And their very first act in the USA is to commit a crime. Off to a good start.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:42AM
I'm more partial to the Rawkit Lawn Chair than the Heavy Machine Gun myself, but to each their own...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @04:21PM
Says the person who presents no supporting evidence whatsoever for their position.
Bring evidence if you want to contest these facts.
And your evidence is where, exactly?
(Score: 5, Informative) by urza9814 on Friday February 15 2019, @04:27PM
How about you bring some evidence of your own for these fairy tales you're spewing?
Undocumented immigrants generally do pay taxes. Firstly because they're afraid of getting deported if they don't, and secondly because for many taxes they have no choice -- you can't just refuse sales tax, you can't refuse payroll tax (your employer can, but that's the employer committing the crime, not the employee.) These same immigrants who DO pay taxes also tend to underutilized public services, because they're afraid to give out their information because they're afraid of getting deported.
According to a report from the Congressional Budget Office, "immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.":
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-immigration [nap.edu]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @03:51PM
Does Billary Clinton have a wall around it's home?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 15 2019, @04:28PM (2 children)
Israel has a wall that would put the Black Gate of Mordor to shame. They claim it has done all kinds of good for their security [wikipedia.org].
Why is it OK for Israel to have a such a barrier, but not for the United States? Why is it racist for the United States to build one, but not for Israel to build one? If people oppose spending American money on an American wall, then why do they not also oppose sending American money to a foreign country that uses it to build its wall? If walls must be torn down, then why aren't the American media screaming high, far, and loud for the state of Israel to tear down its wall? They have, after all, had 25 years since the Israeli wall was begun to do so; yet, they haven't.
I don't personally care about building walls, myself. I was there when the Berlin Wall came down, and that was a very good thing. But the double standard between this wall Trump wants and the wall Israel has built with American money and has had for a generation is quite stark.
Either put Israel through the ringer and force it to tear down its wall and stop being racist and immoral (because walls are racist and immoral), or stop fighting the wall Trump wants.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:39PM
Well, for one thing, Mexicans aren't coming into the USA to blow themselves up and take out as many gringos as possible with them. Mostly, they are looking for a job to put food on the table for them and their families. I am quite literally gobsmacked that you haven't (yet) noticed that difference. Note that this should not necessarily be construed as support for a wall at the Israeli-Palestinian border.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 15 2019, @08:15PM
1) The Israeli wall is 440 mi, not 2000.
2) A lot of people don't think their wall is okay either. Just because (some of) the political establishment loves Israel doesn't mean that a large percentage of the population isn't pissed as hell at them.
You already know the answers to all these questions you pose so I assume you're being rhetorical.
I bet about 30-40% of the entire U.S. population does indeed want both walls gone.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Funny) by PiMuNu on Friday February 15 2019, @04:57PM (1 child)
> You've forgotten that the wall pays for itself by stopping illegals, drugs, and crime.
and sharks! Projected 100 % rate at stopping sharks.
==
BUILD A WALL & SHARKS WILL FALL
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 15 2019, @11:51PM
Not if the sharks have fricking lasers on their heads!! Or, for that matter, if they are carried over the wall, at altitude, by a Sharknado! And I have M****Ferkin had it up to here with all these m***fracking sharks on this mu***gerkin plane! Yea, a Wall. Sure. If it makes you feel better. Think of it kind of like a racist Maginot Line.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @05:28AM (10 children)
1. There is nothing wrong or evil about building a border wall.
Wasting a bunch of money on something the relevant experts in DHS, ICE, etc., say is pointless is wrong. I don't usually ascribe 'evil' to people I disagree with but doing so just to save your own ass or assuage your ego might be getting close.
2. Trump gave Congress a chance to fund the border wall.
And, during the two years both chambers were overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans, they declined.
3. If Congress is peeved about the use of the national emergency, they can pass new legislation limiting the power.
If Republicans were smart, they would pass a bipartisan bill to this effect right now. As a Democrat, I'm glad they're not very smart.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:43AM (3 children)
And if the wall drops illegal immigration by half, you’ll eat crow, right? Or will you just start crying “muh Russia”.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Friday February 15 2019, @06:21PM (2 children)
Hell, you might have to. You'll sure be eating fewer — and more expensive — fruits and vegetables.
--
What I if told you
you read the previous line wrong
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @06:47PM (1 child)
So weird to see people supporting slave labor, not just this about also regarding China.
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Friday February 15 2019, @07:45PM
WRT the general wash of immigration from the south:
WRT the drug issues that are attributed to border porosity:
--
You don't have to be crazy to work here
We'll train you
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @12:54PM
Well, the benefit of a wall is that it will suck up billions of dollars that would otherwise be used to build bombs to drop on brown people. Is that why you don't want a wall? Why do you hate brown people?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @03:56PM (4 children)
There are zero experts in DHS, ICE, or in the progressive party. Zero. Just like the Roman Legions, if I am tasked with defending an area, the first thing I want to do, is to erect a barrier, with fighting positions on the barrier. Virtually all armies have done the same ever since Rome. Virtually all armies (except French armies) know that the wall isn't the entire answer - you also extend your presence beyond the walls. But, doing so in this case would be an act of war, a de facto declaration of war on Mexico. So, we build the wall, because we're nice guys. We don't really want a war with Mexico, so we build the wall.
Of course, if Mexico knocks hard enough on the wall, we would be obliged to give them a war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @04:03PM
Wheels don't work either unless there is someone to turn it.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday February 15 2019, @04:31PM (2 children)
So all armies build walls when they go to war, but we don't want war, so we're going to act like we're at war and build a wall?
What the fuck are you smoking and where can I get some because that stuff must be GREAT....
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @04:41PM (1 child)
No, you can't have any. I'm Bogarding my stash.
The idea is walls keep criminals out of places you don't want criminals. Put the wall up, and MS13 will have to work a whole lot harder to get in. If we put some armed guards behind the wall, they'll have to work even harder. And, if they do work that hard, then we can defend ourselves more actively by sending troops to the other side of the wall. Remember Pancho? No, not that skinny kid mowing your lawn - I mean Pancho Villa.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @06:40AM
MS-13 is a US-based gang, so I don’t think a wall is going to help. But thanks for the thought.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Friday February 15 2019, @05:33AM (6 children)
I don't really buy that, but even if we grant what you're claiming, there's no point to it. And why should we do something merely because it's not "wrong or evil"? Being incredibly dumb is not any better.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @12:50PM (5 children)
Ok, who hacked the khallow account?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 15 2019, @01:06PM (4 children)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @01:23PM
"People who agree with me are smart, those who disagree are batshit insane". That is the level of thought process you are dealing with.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 15 2019, @04:33PM (2 children)
No, I'm with the AC on this one. Either somebody hacked the khallow account, or khallow was abducted and forced into re-education.
What's next, frojack declares his undying love for Hillary Clinton or Azuma starts parroting Joel Osteen?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:06PM
You insensitive clod! Did you think to ask khallow if he had a brain tumor remission, or if someone removed the gun from his head? Did you? No. I thought not.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 15 2019, @11:08PM
I've made fun of Osteen before, if that helps. Though...you know that Spongebob meme where he's strutting around like a chicken or something, and whatever quote you want to mock you put under it in aLtErNaTiNg CaPs LiKe ThIs? Yeah, parroting like that.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:17AM (1 child)
>I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
She did tell me to watch out for trannies. They're just the worst. Why they have to infest even Soylent News of all places is beyond me.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 15 2019, @11:31PM
Be fair now, Kurenai has settled down a lot over the last couple of months.
But seriously what is with this little fan club (of just one person I suspect) who NEEDS me to be a transsexual? It's got to be either you can't handle a woman refusing to shut up about important subjects, or you want me to pound you like a caffeinated jackhammer but aren't content with a strapon. Sorry, but neither is happening :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday February 15 2019, @05:22AM (13 children)
That's no surprise. If the GOP machinery had any say in who became president in 2016, it'd be someone like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. For example, Clinton versus Bush would be the safe election no matter who won. Trump wouldn't have entered the picture in the first place.
Needless to say, that didn't happen.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @07:25AM (12 children)
If the Democrat Party machinery had NO influence in who became president in 2016, Bernie Sanders might be President today. Alas, the party knows better than its members. That's sort of the theme of the left. Trust us. We know better than you. We should make your choices for you.
Needless to say, it didn't work out for Bernie either.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @03:30PM
"We are educated and smart. Being female is a qualification of supreme importance. It is settled science. Are you a denier?"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @04:00PM (1 child)
That is a part of the proof that you're dumb for being a democrat. The party doesn't give a small rat's ass for what you need, what you want, or what you would like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @11:56PM
Whereas no proof at all is need to prove that you're dumb if you are Runaway1956. You're an idiot, Runaway. Please be quiet and let the adults discuss policy.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 15 2019, @08:06PM (8 children)
Why the hell is this modded Flamebait? Superdelegates were absolutely a thing, and them (almost) all going to Hillary is why she got nominated.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by J053 on Friday February 15 2019, @10:12PM (7 children)
Well, that and the fact that she won every Democratic primary...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 15 2019, @10:21PM (6 children)
Uh no? It was 34-22.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 15 2019, @10:28PM (1 child)
*34-23
Although I'm still wondering why this adds up to a total of 57 and not 50...maybe suspect Wikipedia math. But still.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 15 2019, @10:31PM
Oh. Territories vote in the primaries? LOLWUT. Considering they have no electoral votes, that's interesting.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by J053 on Friday February 15 2019, @11:19PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by J053 on Friday February 15 2019, @11:21PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @06:45AM
Also, Bernie did well in the caucus states, and that’s a completely non-democratic process. The idea that he was the people’s choice and they were betrayed by the DNC and evil Killary is complete BS.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday February 18 2019, @04:34PM
It's a far cry from winning "every" Democratic primary, though.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @01:04PM
I think that is insulting to wet farts. Especially old ones.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @03:47PM (1 child)
You know I don't like the orange monkey. But, I approve of his tenacity in this respect. Build the fucking wall. I donated. El Chapo even donated, to the tune of fourteen billion dollars. You should donate too.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:03AM
I knew it! Runaway's a Mexican!
The logic is irrefudiatable. Our syllogism.
-------
Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall.
Runaway helped pay for the wall.
Ergo: Runaway is a Mexican!
--------
(I fear he may be on the wrong side of the wall. ICE? Can you check this out?)