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This discussion has been archived.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.
No self-made man ever did such a good job that some woman didn't
want to make some alterations.
-- Kim Hubbard
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @08:04AM (17 children)
question: why are the caravans failures the US lawmakers? what I see is a bunch of people don't like where they live, and they see another place where they believe they could live better, hence they want to go there. how is this the lawmakers' fault?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Sunday March 17 2019, @08:23AM (3 children)
This is the really crappy thing about our immigration policy. It's not that it's overly restrictive, or overly lax. Some see it as one or the other, certainly, but that's what you expect with any political compromise. But beyond that, it's just not sensible. "Byzantine" and not in a good way. Because, as stated previously, it's been left mostly to executive order and when that fails to cover it it becomes one of bureaucratic precedent and interpretation and inertia.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:51AM (1 child)
Bingo. For various reasons, many or even most of our lawmakers actually WANT poor, hungry, miserable people banging at the doors, trying to get in. Many of them exploit those poor hunger people, directly, by employing them as housekeepers, groundskeepers, and other menial labor types. A lot more employ them less directly, in factories, warehouses, and other businesses that they have ownership and/or stock in. The left side of the aisle exploits them for their votes. But, it's probably safe to say that every politico in Washington exploits the hungry bastards in some form or another.
You can't be angry with those people at the border. Some idiot politician gets on the news today, and promises them that they have some kind of a "right" to work in America. Another gets on television tomorrow and begs them to come here, and vote the other party down. Yet another politicians mouths off about a universal income, and those people who have never held a hundred dollar bill in their lives want some of that. Another runs their head about a fifteen dollar minimum wage, naturally people who work hard for a month to make twenty dollars wants in on it.
All the politicos send signals, in one form or another.
I'll go out on a limb here, and say that almost every country south of us would be better off if Americans just STFU, and got on with life. Stop exploiting them, stop interfering in THEIR politics, and a bunch of them would go about the business of making their own countries nicer.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @11:34PM
It has mostly been Republicans (since all the small/medium business owners I've met out here are conservative) but for all their ranting against immigration, they seem to have the most immigrant labor at below market pay, including indentured servitude scams like charging them for lunch in order to cut down their bill for the day.
I've seen mexicans, russians, and not-illegal tweakers all treated like this.
For all the talk about not wanting immigration, they seem to like it just fine if they can get cheap slave-like labor to cut their own costs.
Honestly I might have most respect for them if they just pushed for flat tax rates without exemptions to show they were serious, because the ones I have known are also likely to double-book their income for tax purposes and try and avoid paying anything to the state they don't need to, usually not by legal means.
Honestly if half of the businesses I've gotten backend views of were to be running everything aboveboard, I am curious how financially well off they would really be, and what effects it might have on what laws they were willing to push to other's detriment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @02:54PM
It is Byzantine, but there's no reason to change it. I've seen people put up with the uncertainty, capricious process and financial hardship the US immigration process throws at them to get US citizenship.
Were I trying to get first world citizenship and educated like them, I would try for Canadian citizenship instead. From what I hear the process is well-defined, and educated people are wanted. Plus you probably have the best access to the US out of any other country.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:02AM (11 children)
To address your question more directly than I did in response to Arik:
Right now, any poor person who has no legitimate claims on the US or anyone within the US, can pack up a hobo knapsack, walk to the border, knock at the door, and he runs something like a 20 or 25% chance of being let in. It all depends on how he answers questions, how pitiful he looks, who listens to his tale of woe, and whether he captures the attention of some bleeding heart liberal media twerp.
What SHOULD BE happening is, only people with legitimate and obvious asylum claims get in. End of story.
Oh, you know how many poeple with legitimate asylum claims walk across Mexico, to knock at our doors? ZERO. If they have a legitimate claim, they are required to seek asylum in THE FIRST COUNTRY THAT THEY COME TO.
If they have some legitimate claim to asylum, and they can't or won't seek asylum in Mexico, then they can just as easily go the other way. The trek to Brazil or *choke* Venezuela works just as well. Alright, forget I mentioned Commiezuela, that's pretty much out of the question. But, Columbia, Bolivia, Ecuador - the list goes on.
Fact is, there are very close to zero asylum claimants at the border - they are all there for economic reasons.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:27PM (10 children)
That's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but I don't agree with you at all.
I see no problem with people coming here to better themselves, and (hopefully) better our country in the process.
We had a really good Mexican restaurant here in town up to about a month ago, when government immigration authorities descended upon them (green cards expired? Never had them? No idea...) and that was the end of that. They were hurting no one — there wasn't a Mexican restaurant here before, and now there isn't one again. They weren't taking anyone's jobs. The government, however, definitely took the restaurant away from the community, the taxes the workers paid away from the fed, state and town, the income they put back into the economy away from same, etc.
So who's really the ones causing a problem here? It sure wasn't the Mexicans operating that restaurant, I can tell you that.
Wait... I can hear some people thinking "but they were competing with the other restaurants" — yeah, they were, and the other restaurants were competing with each other, too. And still are. Nothing wrong with competition on a level playing field, is there? Was there anything stopping those other restaurants from offering great Mexican (or other) food? No. So no, that's not something you can reasonably lay at the feet of these people. It's also probably somewhat relevant that this wasn't a cheap eatery: the SO and I had ~$100 meals there from time to time (rarely, we're very conservative as far as eating out goes), and found it well worth the money. Great food. It's not like they were a threat to the McDonalds or Subway, or even the (really pretty good) pizza place we have. The fact is, the town lost something really good here. As you say, "End of story."
One of the things that hardline anti-immigration types never seem to grasp is that things may be much worse for prospective immigrants where they came from, even if the circumstance doesn't rise to "needs asylum."
Another thing is when they are willing, and able, to do jobs that good 'ol Americans simply refuse to do, one example being picking produce in the fields and orchards. You may want very expensive / rare produce, but I sure don't. They're willing to start at the bottom, or even to stay there to give their kids a chance. I'm perfectly okay with that. Are your kids going to go pick produce if Trump manages to lock down that border to asylum seekers only, as you advocate? Just curious.
Another thing is that you, and I, and everyone else here is "different" from these people only in that we were born on the "correct" side of an imaginary line in the (literal, in the case of Mexico and the US) sand. It's pretty awful when that gets someone so high up on their horse that they can then write every person on the other side of that imaginary line as not worthy of being given a chance.
Another thing: I'm descended from immigrants. My ancestors got off a boat from England. No one stopped them and said "you can't come here." That was in 1634, BTW. It's only relatively recently that the whole "only legit asylum seekers" attitude has arisen. Perhaps you might actually look at the history of the country and figure out why you think that's an actual legit stance to take. Unless you're an actual native American (and those folks also immigrated here, though quite some time ago), you're descended from relatively recent immigrants as well. Pot, kettle, black, you know?
--
If I could have saved all the money I've
spent on pizza, I'd spend it on pizza.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:00PM (4 children)
I was talking about law, actually. International and US law agree about how those "asylum seekers" are supposed to act. They are not, however, actually asylum seekers, but economically disadvantaged people. The US is not legally obligated to help them economically - and I'm not going into morality or ethics here, or we would be pulling in every philosopher and every pretend philosopher recorded in history.
You disagree with me, which is cool.
I'm going to try to explain something once again here. I don't dislike, certainly don't hate, Mexicans, or any other Latin/South Americans. As a matter of fact, I like a fair number of them. That, however, is not the point. This is supposed to be a "nation of laws" (I won't go into my contempt for that notion here.) Every lawmaker in Washington, almost all law enforcement, and more than half the civilians in this nation make that claim. A nation of laws. But, the law is openly violated - nay, flagrantly violated, and all those law makers, half of law enforcement, and more than half of the civilians just wink at the violations.
And, to repeat myself once more, on another theme. All those failed lawmakers who have failed to reform immigration. If the SOB's would do their jobs, and REFORM IMMIGRATION, most of this discussion would be ended. The laws they finally passed may be to my liking, they may be to your liking, they may not be to either your or my liking. But, once the laws were enacted, and put into place, and PROPERLY ENFORCED, the discussion would be over. We wouldn't be arguing about what is legal, who is legal, or why someone should be legal. Our failed politicians are responsible for this current discussion.
Now, let's back away from the political issue for a moment. Let me ask - do you think that the United States can actually make a dent in the world's poverty, by accepting all the immigrants who wish to enter the United States? Maybe this will change your perspective a little bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM1YU-Ni_84 [youtube.com] 9 minutes long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE [youtube.com] 6 minutes long
They are both just cold, hard looks at the numbers, with minimal politics or opinion injected.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @08:09PM
Not this, again! Runaway the lawyer? Ha! What law school did you graduate from Atticus Finch of Arkansaws? What bar were you admitted to, besides the "Dew Drop Inn"? You are just being a racist, Runaway, a Fox News brainwashed racist who denies he's a racist, because of, boarders!!
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday March 18 2019, @02:52PM (1 child)
Can you show us the clause in US law that requires them to stop at the first country they come to? Since we ARE talking about US law here.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 18 2019, @03:40PM
You understand that the US is a signatory to a variety of treaties. In effect, if not in fact, those treaties become US law - that is, they guide the US legal system in the disposition of cases involving non-US citizens. https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2 [refworld.org]
Excerpt:
Bottom line is, Mexico should be bearing a lot of this burden. Mexico instead chooses to use these "refugees" against us.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @01:58PM
These are not easy laws to enforce. If you do the calculations, what costs more; enforcing the laws to the fullest extend and catch every single illigal immigrant or letting some immigrants pass the border? I think Trumps budget is going to be a disaster if he want to catch all the illegal immigrants. It's easier and better for the economy to let them get a job and pay taxes.
Below is not a reply to something Runaway1956 said, but a generic reply to the people who are concerned about culture:
I simply don't understand the people who talked about these immigrants somehow destroying american culture. American culture is a plural of the cultures of the world as a country build on migration from the rest of the world. In my country people have the same complaint, but when I ask them what our culture is, they don't even know. If you want to protect your culture, it is not going to help much to be dismissive of strangers. They are not the problem. The problem is that people don't live out their cultural heritage anymore. If you don't care for your own culture by living the traditions, rituals and values. You don't need a stranger to destroy your culture.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:24PM (1 child)
Your immigration didn't work out too well for the locals. You destroyed their culture.
Not being a leftist, I won't say you need to feel guilty for that. Conquering and destroying is fair game. I will however say that US citizens are now on the receiving end of that kind of thing, with a culture about to be destroyed. You could say it already is destroyed within about 50 miles of the border, give or take dozens of miles and many anomalies.
It is dumb to just accept the destruction of American culture, even if having slaves again (in your words, jobs "Americans simply refuse to do") would be convenient.
American culture is clearly superior in most ways. We shouldn't be ashamed to declare that. You are welcome to leave if you disagree. It is not superior from an evolutionary perspective if we just voluntarily roll over and die in the face of invaders.
We need to fight this a lot harder. Americans caught illegally in Mexico face a decade in prison... that is, in a Mexican prison. Mexico even has an explicitly racist constitution to keep us out. They are fighting, but we are not. They are pushing invaders over the border while rejecting us when we invade. When we catch them, at best it's "oopsies, you should maybe go back we think, pretty please?". We need to instead be making examples out of people. That includes the illegals, anybody to hires them, anybody who rents to them, anybody who fails to report them, any school with them, and so on. Punishments need to be reliably certain to happen. Punishments need to be severe. Here is an idea, since we don't have Mexican prisons and Haiti needs money: outsource imprisonment of these invaders to Haiti.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday March 18 2019, @09:14PM
See, here's the thing about history.
The bad things, we need to remember so we don't do them, or things like them, again. Such as taking everything from a weaker group, or giving them infected blankets to kill them off, or interning everyone of a particular ancestry, or letting the superstitious infect the legal system, or arbitrarily separating children from their parents, or putting people into involuntary slavery. Etc.
The good things, we also need to remember so we can do things like them, or better than them, again. Such as having mostly open borders, taking care of the sick and infirm, preventing corporations from dominating an entire market through repressive methods, or not providing for education, or shooting unarmed college students. Etc.
Having said that, the whole "you should embrace guilt consequent to the sins of your ancestors / parents" thing is utter bullshit. As is the whole "you should claim accomplishment because of the positive actions of your ancestors / parents." We are what we are, not what our ancestors or parents were: that is the entire depth of both our credits, and our demerits.
TL;DR: I didn't destroy anyone's culture. You may absolutely count on it. However — unlike some — I am cognizant of a pretty good range of history's important lessons.
--
The three Functional Retardations:
traditional, jingoistic, and religious.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:15PM
That's a pretty shitty argument, but then again, I live in Southern California so I don't have to worry about the hypothetical single burrito joint disappearing anytime soon.
My ancestors, like yours, got off the boat centuries ago (or were native to the continent) but today is a very different reality than 1634.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:18PM
> Another thing: I'm descended from immigrants. My ancestors got off a boat from England. No one stopped them and said "you can't come here." That was in 1634, BTW. It's only relatively recently that the whole "only legit asylum seekers" attitude has arisen.
Times change. "Well, back in the day" is a pretty shitty argument.
> They were hurting no one — there wasn't a Mexican restaurant here before, and now there isn't one again. They weren't taking anyone's jobs.
I don't think any one individual is qualified to make such an assessment. Even if we were able to assess that this was in fact the case, we simply can't assess every single case of "unlawful presence" and hand out exemptions. There is a process. The process may be flawed. But if you're violating the process and you get caught, of course you're getting deported. Them's the breaks.
> I see no problem with people coming here to better themselves, and (hopefully) better our country in the process.
As someone whose parents immigrated here and naturalized legally under merit, I have no problem with this either. Except by anecdotal accounts, many illegal immigrants and so-called asylum seekers are coming strictly to better themselves with zero care about the county. I try to stay out of polarized political arguments since they are just "he says, she says" and even the cited studies on both sides tend to be biased, but from anecdotal evidence through everyday conversation, legal immigrants are the biggest opponents against illegal immigration. They did the hard work to earn their citizenship, so they detest the people who think they can just waltz in and get naturalized through what is effectively pity.
I wasn't at all surprised that Trump got elected. If you found it surprising, you're part of the reason why Trump got elected. There is a huge proportion of US citizenry who feel like they aren't being heard. Whether or not they're correct, they feel like they are being neglected in favor of immigrants, and they are pissed that as American citizens they are somehow being treated as less important than non-American citizens. I won't talk about whether or not voting for Trump was the right decision for those people, but that's the reason Trump won.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday March 18 2019, @02:28AM
Being required to claim asylum in the first country you come to isn't anyone's opinion; it's a matter of international law. You can look it up.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 19 2019, @09:58AM
> what I see is a bunch of people don't like where they live, and they see another place where they believe they could live better
That is what is happening in Venezuela, desperate people fleeing across the border with nothing. The caravans organization, the NGO who own ships that turn off the transponders to pick up migrants in Libya and take them to Italy, the migrants who get saved and given a roof to stay fleeing after a week for a different EU country, the arabs not taking refugees, all those things point at "yugoslavia 2.0, the world is our balkans" instead. The people who should see through this planning, the left, who routinely see globalist conspiracies, fail to see the biggest one, which will give the financial system a good excuse to crash and not give back your money and a good excuse to jail you if you protest, no matter if Islam (another big enemy of the left, literally hitler, if you consider its behavior when dominant) wins or not.
Account abandoned.