SoylentNews

Donald Trump Vetoes Attempt to Block his Declaration of a National Emergency

posted by martyb on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:12AM   
from the at-least-the-House-and-Senate-agreed-on-something dept.

realDonaldTrump writes:

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.

---

Original Submission

• Re:Asylum only? Re:Asylum only? (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:00PM (4 children)

  by Runaway1956 (2926) on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:00PM (#815978) Homepage Journal

  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.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Informative=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Re:Asylum only? (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @08:09PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @08:09PM (#816072)

  I was talking about law, actually.

  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!!

  Parent

• Re:Asylum only? Re:Asylum only? (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday March 18 2019, @02:52PM (1 child)

  by Nobuddy (1626) on Monday March 18 2019, @02:52PM (#816411)

  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.

  Parent

  • Re:Asylum only? (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 18 2019, @03:40PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) on Monday March 18 2019, @03:40PM (#816439) Homepage Journal

    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:

    Section 11
    The concept of first country of asylum
    Introduction: International Standards
    The concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD:
    A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant
    for asylum if:
    (a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail
    him/herself of that protection; or
    (b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting
    from the principle of non-refoulement;
    provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country.
    In applying the concept of first country of asylum to the particular circumstances of an
    applicant for asylum Member States may take into account Article 27 (1).
    It should be noted that Member States are not required to apply the concept of first
    country of asylum, as Article 26 is a permissive provision.1
      However, in accordance with
    the APD, those Member States which apply the concept are not required to examine
    whether an applicant qualifies as a refugee or for subsidiary protection status, where a
    country which not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the
    applicant pursuant to Article 26.2
      In other words, the Member State may consider such
    applications as inadmissible.
    Destination countries may have interests in reducing irregular movements. As such, the
    concept of first country of asylum may be seen as a potential deterrent to irregular
    movements by refugees. However, UNHCR notes that the causes of secondary
    movements are manifold and include, among other things, a lack of durable solutions,
    limited capacity to host refugees and a failure to provide effective protection in some
    third countries. Therefore, the assessment of whether a third country does constitute a
    first country of asylum requires a careful and individualised case-by-case examination.

    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.

    Parent

• Re:Asylum only? (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @01:58PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @01:58PM (#816946)

  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.

  Parent