Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain, Emergency Powers, and Trump's Wall

Can Trump really exploit emergency powers to use eminent domain to build his wall without additional congressional authorization? If he succeeds, conservatives are likely to regret the precedent he sets.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Creative Commons/Tony Webster

President Donald Trump claims he can use an "emergency" declaration to secure funding to use eminent domain to acquire land for his border wall, even without any additional congressional authorization. The validity of this claim is dubious at best. It is far from clear that emergency powers can be used to build the wall. Even if they can, it is questionable whether that would authorize the use of eminent domain to seize private property. And if the president succeeds in using an emergency declaration for such dubious purposes, it would set a precedent that conservative Republicans are likely to have reason to regret the next time a liberal Democrat occupies the White House.

In a recent New York Times op ed, Yale Law School Prof. Bruce Ackerman outlines some reasons why it would be illegal for Trump to use an emergency declaration to build the wall:

President Trump on Friday said that he was considering the declaration of a "national emergency" along the border with Mexico, which he apparently believes would allow him to divert funds from the military budget to pay for a wall, and to use military personnel to build it…

Begin with the basics. From the founding onward, the American constitutional tradition has profoundly opposed the president's use of the military to enforce domestic law. A key provision, rooted in an 1878 statute and added to the law in 1956, declares that whoever "willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force" to execute a law domestically "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years" — except when "expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress…."

In response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, Congress created an express exception to the rules, and authorized the military to play a backup role in "major public emergencies." But in 2008 Congress and President Bush repealed this sweeping exception. Is President Trump aware of this express repudiation of the power which he is threatening to invoke?

The statute books do contain a series of carefully crafted exceptions to the general rule. Most relevantly, Congress has granted the Coast Guard broad powers to enforce the law within the domestic waters of the United States. But there is no similar provision granting the other military services a comparable power to "search, seize and arrest" along the Mexican border.

Gerald Dickinson of the University of Pittsburgh (probably the leading academic expert on legal issues related to eminent domain and the wall) makes similar points here. On the other hand, Ackerman's Yale colleague John Fabian Witt argues that the issues are not as clear as the former suggests:

The truth is that the White House's emergency gambit reveals the full extent of Congress's dangerous delegation of emergency powers to the executive branch of the federal government. Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center has collected a daunting list of statutes authorizing emergency powers, which is super helpful on this point. (Liza summarizes the statutes in a recent article at The Atlantic.) The upshot? Declaring a national emergency to build the president's ridiculous wall would be a national embarrassment. It ought to be unlawful, too. But whether declaring a national emergency to build a wall actually is unlawful under current circumstances turns out to be much closer question than it should be. The key statutory provisions are 10 U.S.C. 2808 (authorizing emergency reallocation of certain military construction funds) and 33 U.S.C. 2293 (authorizing emergency reallocation of certain civil works project funds).

A closer look at the two laws cited by Witt suggests it is far from evident that they authorize the diversion of funds to build a border wall. Section 2808 states that, if the president declares a "national emergency" that "requires the use of the armed forces," he can use military construction funds to "undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces." It is far from clear whether any supposed emergency caused by undocumented immigration really "requires the use of the armed forces" or that a wall would be "necessary to support such use" of them. Indeed, as Ackerman points out, federal law actually forbids the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement within the United States (and immigration enforcement qualifies as such). Section 2293 also only applies to a declared war or emergency that "requires or may require use of the Armed Forces." Even then, it only allows diversion of funds to build "authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense" (emphasis added). In this context, "authorized" likely means "authorized" by Congress, not just by the executive branch.

It is also worth noting that nothing remotely resembling a national security "emergency" is actually occurring at the southern border, and that a border wall would do virtually nothing to protect the US against any kind of terrorism or security risk. It may well not even do much to reduce undocumented immigration.

Thus, I would tentatively conclude that Trump cannot use these provisions to appropriate funds for the construction of a border wall—even if he does declare a "national emergency." However, courts often give presidents undue deference on national security and immigration issues, and that problem could recur here. I would be lying if I said I could confidently predict the outcome of a legal battle over this issue. I should also emphasize that I am far from being an expert on the full range of dubious emergency powers Congress has delegated to the president. So it's possible I am overlooking some other possible source of wall-building authority.

Even if Trump can otherwise use an emergency declaration to transfer funds to build a border wall, it does not follow that he can seize property through the use of eminent domain. As the Supreme Court has long held, the power to use eminent domain has to be "expressly authorized" under the law. Such authorization cannot simply be assumed or inferred. None of the emergency delegations of power for construction projects discussed above "expressly" authorize the use of eminent domain for purposes that are not otherwise authorized by Congress. If it is not clear whether eminent domain is authorized or not, courts are generally required to conclude that it isn't. Congress could, of course, solve that problem by giving Trump the authorization he needs. But the whole reason why Trump is considering using an emergency declaration is because Congress refuses to do that.

Finally, as Gerald Dickinson points out in an insightful Washington Post column, under the original meaning of the Constitution, it is likely that the federal government does not even have the power to use eminent domain within states (as opposed to on federal territories) in the first place. Dickinson relies on an important Yale Law Journal article on this subject by my Volokh Conspiracy co-blogger Will Baude (I discussed the implications of Will's work on this here). As Dickinson recognizes, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn longstanding precedent granting the federal government that power (even if wrongly). Still, it is ironic that conservative Republicans who claim to be originalists are willing to endorse what would be a massive constitutionally dubious use of eminent domain by the federal government—one of the largest federal takings in all of American history.

As Dickinson has emphasized in previous works on this subject (see here and here), the federal government owns less than one third of the land needed to build the wall. The rest would have to be seized from numerous private owners, Native American tribes, and state governments. That is likely to be both costly and time-consuming. It would also open the door to serious abuses of the kind we have seen in many previous eminent domain cases, including those undertaken for past, much smaller border barriers, in which the Department of Homeland Security compiled an awful record of violating procedural rules and undercompensating owners.

If Trump is able to overcome legal obstacles and use an emergency declaration to secure funds for the wall without congressional authorization and use eminent domain to seize the land he needs, conservatives are likely to have good reason to regret the precedent it would set. The same powers could easily be used by the next Democratic president for purposes that the right would hate.

Consider a scenario where Elizabeth Warren wins the presidency in 2020, but Republicans in Congress refuse to allocate funds she claims are necessary to combat climate change and institute the gigantic "Green New Deal" program many progressives advocate. President Warren could then declare climate change to be a "national emergency" and start reallocating various military and civilian funds to build all kinds of "green" construction projects. She could declare that climate change is a threat to national security, and use the Army Corps of Engineers and other military agencies to participate in the project.

Indeed, the claim that climate change is a menace to national security is at least as plausible as the claim that undocumented immigrants on the Mexican border are. The Obama Administration Department of Defense even published a report on the subject in 2014. And, of course, if President Warren decides she needs to seize some private property to carry out her plans, she could cite the Trump precedent to use eminent domain for that purpose. This is just one of many ways in which liberal Democrats could exploit the sorts of powers Trump claims here. It would not be difficult to imagine others.

Both Democrats and Republicans often fail to consider the long-term effects of presidential power-grabs they support when their party occupies the White House. Many conservatives seem intent on repeating that mistake here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Appeals Court: USC Violated Due Process Rights of Male Student Expelled for Sexual Misconduct

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. it is ironic that conservative Republicans who claim to be originalists are willing to endorse what would be a massive constitutionally dubious use of eminent domain by the federal government

    Thanks Ilya.

    I needed a laugh.

    1. Many of these same people referred to are also prone to quote “states’ rights” as long as it is the states that want to do what they want to do, and the federal government that wants them to do something else. This same batch usually finds no objection to using the federal government to pound states that do something they don’t like. Republicans went after Oregon’s “Death with Dignity” assisted-suicide, and all the early states that offered medical MJ.

      1. It’s been that way ever thus. The great-great-grandfathers of today’s states rights crowd tore apart that era’s Democratic Party because Stephen Douglas insisted new states could decide their own position on slavery. Those “states rights” types demanded a strong federal government to force unwanted slavery into the territories and an increase in federal power to hunt fugitive slaves. But I’m sure there was still room to squeeze in some “states rights” otherwise…..

        1. And we see another contemporary example of both sides flipping on states’ rights, AKA “the 50 experiments”, in the net neutrality issue.

    2. It IS quite a laughable to listen to liberals fumble themselves over 5-feet of Mexico/United States land like it was positioned right on top of a privately owned gold mine. I’m pretty sure border patrol already has easement rights to the border and if not it darn well in every legitimate right SHOULD. That’s like a domestic law restricting our armed forces from crossing outside of our own “said” border.

      Frankly if I was Trump; I’d work on Mexico for a temporary easement on their side of the border. GOOD LORD people ITS 5-Feet!!!

      1. You actually believe it will take only five feet (deep, not long)? It often can’t be built directly on the border, other times that is impractical. Construction will require the use and destruction of significantly wider space than that for things such as farm land, golf courses, etc. (which Trump’s proposal actually does cut through in at least several instances). Etc., etc.

        Easement rights usually don’t extend to building a wall on someone else’s property.

        What do you think the chances of Mexico granting a “temporary” (is this a temporary wall?) easement for the purpose of building a Trump wall? Is Mexico gonna give that for free? Or is that another colossal waste of American tax payer money?

      2. No, it is not “5-Feet!!!” Assuming for the moment that the wall is 3-feet deep at the base, you’d need an access road along the entire thing which would be at least 12 feet deep itself. And that’s just the basic right-of-way needed. What that doesn’t take into account is the variance of the terrain which, as has been reported many times before, means the wall cannot actually run on the actual border, some of which is in the middle of a river. (How do you build a wall in a river and maintain it and what does that mean for the flow of water and water rights for both nations?) So the wall would have to build inside of these obstacles, some of which would cut off many acres of US territory and leave it, and the people who live on it, on the Mexico side. (There is some of that already with the existing run of fencing.)

        I notice no comment on the main point in the OP regarding how unprecedented this is as a government power-grab and how it could come back to haunt conservatives in the future.

        What’s laughable are folks like yourself who aren’t even familiar with the very basics of the issue. But congratulations on your knee-jerk outrage and contribution to “outrage culture.”

      3. I’m pretty sure border patrol already has easement rights to the border and if not it darn well in every legitimate right SHOULD.

        You would be completely wrong. The goverment does have *traversal* rights (or at least the CBP does when conducting law enforcement operations) over property within 10 miles of the border but there is no ‘building easement’ for border property.

        Even if there was its not ‘5 feet’. Significant portions of the border (for example, all along the Rio Grande) are completely unsuitable for building at the border. If you look at the sections of wall that have already been constructed, not a few property owners got their property cut, sometimes a mile or more north of the border. That renders the southern half of the land effectively useless since it can’t be accessed. There are even more than a few people who’s houses are now inside the United States but south of the wall – where they have to drive several miles to a border crossing checkpoint to ‘enter’ the country.

        The government, of course, using eminent domain, will not even attempt to purchase for those losses – the best you get is ‘fair market value’ for the little strip they build on even if multiple acres are then rendered useless.

        1. There have even been reports of the government building the fence through people’s yards with the border fence close to the house and the remainder of the yard being unavailable to them. And all they pay for is something like 5 to 10 feet for narrow portion on which the fence is built.

      4. I guess you don’t realize that they don’t plan on following the border. That would make the wall quite a bit longer if they had to following every twist and turn along the Rio Grande.

        Instead, they will cut across properties and may easily be a half mile, a mile, or even more than a mile from the line. Of course, they would take only a narrow part maybe five or ten feet wide for the wall, but the property owner would have a long trip to go through gates in the wall to get to their property on the other side. And there is no guarantee that they will have any kind of road on the other side of the wall to use to get to their property.

  2. In my mind’s eye I see this :

    Lawless: The Trump Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law
    by David E. Bernstein.

    After all, Professor Bernstein is famously non-partisan, right?

    1. Professor Bernstein is famously partisan as far as hoplophobes and anti-semites.

      1. I admit having to look it up, but am pleased gun nuts have a word all on their own. Heck, maybe it’ll help’em calm down and not be so prone to fear and hysteria. The poor dears are so excitable……

    2. He is such an ardent NeverTrumper that he’s been paralyzed with principled rage to offer any criticism of him the past couple years.

      1. Hook,
        Is this grammatically correct? “. . . he’s been paralyzed . . . to offer any criticism of . . .” ?????

        Wouldn’t it be something like, “…he’s been paralyzed . . . against offering any criticism of . . .”

        I don’t think one is paralyzed INTO action–that seems counter-intuitive to me.

        (You might, of course, want to make the opposite point, “. . . he reflexively criticizes . . .”)

        1. I could claim my sentence construction was itself some kind of overly clever sly joke about Bernstein’s silence despite proclamations of being anti-Trump, but you got me?my snark was poorly constructed. Rats.

    3. “Lawless: The Trump Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law
      by David E. Bernstein.”

      The whole point of “Lawless” was that Obama was creating a precedent for the expansion of executive power that other Presidents would use. It’s big of him not to gloat about how right he was.

      1. Under Obama, the lawless actions were not of a concern as much because Democrats assumed that they would have the presidency forever due to demographics (TM). All it took to undo that was Trump to get like 1% more of the white vote in key states.

  3. This wouldn’t even be a question if it weren’t for Chunky Schumer and his band of socialist idiots who think defending to border of a sovereign nation is “immoral” (which they plainly state without providing any type of argument on why it is immoral).

    Don’t blame Trump for the shutdown when there was a bill that Chunky filibustered that could have kept the government in working order. If you are stuck in a long line, can’t get a tax refund, or find a national park partially closed you know who to blame. Call up Chunky.

    1. “Don’t blame Trump for the shutdown when there was a bill that Chunky filibustered that could have kept the government in working order”

      You mean the one that passed both houses of Congress, and the President wouldn’t sign?

      1. One house passing something in 2017-2019 term and another in 2019-2021 term does not a passed bill make.

        The Senate of 2017-2019 no longer exists.

        1. “The Senate of 2017-2019 no longer exists.”

          Have the families been notified?

          1. No. But the Norwegian Blue has been taken back to the pet shop for a refund

        2. That’s true, but given the bill passed the Senate in the last term blaming it on Schumer rather than Trump or the House doesn’t make much sense.

      2. You work for CNN? That is a lot of fake facting you are doing here so if you don’t work for them I would suggest you apply as one of their political officers. It must be a pretty easy job in that you just make up fake things about Trump or copy and paste DNC press releases.

        1. If the job is that easy, I don’t think I better take it. I’ll go get one that requires the ability to reason critically, and that way, we can BOTH find work.

    2. Trump kept saying he’d own it – shut down the government, call it a Trump shutdown. And then the government shut down.

      You calling Trump a liar?

      1. Heh. (Except that the memory of Trump supporters re what words came out of his mouth is famously short. Life of a fruit fly, etc.)

        So, I think your observation will, alas, fly over the heads of the targets.

    3. “band of socialist idiots who think defending to border of a sovereign nation is ‘immoral'”. You could make the case that it is immoral to waste money on a non-solution to a real problem. You could also make the case that it is intellectually dishonest to misrepresent an argument. The “band of idiots” did not think the defending of the border is immoral, they think that insisting that spending money on the “wall” is useless and that there are far more efficient means to combat both human trafficking and the entrance of drugs. As far as I know the military never contemplated building a wall to defend the United States against external aggression. Ask the French how well they fared with their Maginot line in WWII. And “defend the border of a sovereign country” is bombastic bluster when it comes to the purported “humanitarian emergency” at the Mexican border.

      1. You gotta love the “humanitarian disaster” stuff. Since when do people consider criminals, drug cartels, and rapists victims of a “humanitarian disaster?”

        “They are not our friend, believe me. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

        The sort of person that would separate infants from mothers just to create a cruel deterrent is not one who gives a whit about humanitarian anything.

        Meanwhile, we’re supposed to spend 20+ billion dollars on a useless wall rather than on providing actual value to border security.

  4. If we’re going to use military resources to build this thing, why don’t we build it on Mexico’s side? I mean, since they’re going to pay for it, and all.

    1. Sounds good to me. I also don’t mind occupying some of their oil fields in Baja as collateral for the wall. Liberals like to always talk about “blood for oil” so it is about time we get some of that sweet crude oil for a change instead of just giving out American blood for nothing.

      1. “Sounds good to me. I also don’t mind occupying some of their oil fields in Baja as collateral for the wall. ”

        Right! And then we’ll need a wall around Baja, to keep the illegal Mexicans from entering…

    2. How about if we build it across Panama? It is a much shorter distance there.

      1. 1) it would be easier since we already occupied that land and took it from Colombia in the past.
        2) it probably wouldn’t help against any of the refugees coming from nations north of Panama, which is pretty much all of them. Which,
        3) makes it just as useful as the proposed new wall across the border with Mexico.

  5. It is also worth noting that nothing remotely resembling a national security “emergency” is actually occurring at the southern border, and that a border wall would do virtually nothing to protect the US against any kind of terrorism or security risk. It may well not even do much to reduce undocumented immigration.

    The problem is that “national emergency” isn’t exactly well defined in our laws. Like so much of what has been legistated and regulated, there are huge ambiguities in Federal law that, on one hand, can turn millions of innocents into felons, yet on the other hand, others continue to allow real criminals to remain in their seats of power in Washington. Nothing is quite as clear as laid out here by Prof. Somin, simply due to the complete rat’s nest that is Federal law.

    1. Once the term “undocumented immigration” is used, the argument is proven to be as phony as that moniker for illegal alien.
      A lot of this is a combination of “whistling through the graveyard” and scare tactics.
      Arguments against the wall are absolutely partisan and wholly disingenuous.
      The two real reasons are:
      1. The left doesn’t want the bad orange man to get a win.
      2. The effectiveness of a wall is not something that can, easily be stopped, as would all of the “other border security” methods.

      1. The “effectiveness” of the wall is rendered moot by nothing more complicated than a ladder or a rope. Drug dealers could use common and cheap drones to fly drugs over the wall. These are easy options. Given enough labor, tunnels are even more effective. Tunnels that already exist and require sensitive equipment to detect. I bet we could buy a good amount of equipment and the people needed to wield it for a lot less than the $5.7B down payment “the bad orange man” is demanding.

        Then, of course, there’s the fact that the percentage of illegal immigrants crossing the Southern border has steadily decreased since the early 2000s with net negative migration from Mexico. If anything, the wall might keep them from leaving.

  6. “In this context, “authorized” likely means “authorized” by Congress, not just by the executive branch.”

    Secure Fence Act of 2006

    1. Its scope is specifically limited by mileage.

      1. Not exactly…

        There are minimum requirements (section 3). But If you read the text of the actual bill (below), it authorizes general physical infrastructure enhancements.

        “IN GENERAL.?Not later than 18 months after the date
        of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
        shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire
        international land and maritime borders of the United States, to
        include the following?
        (1) systematic surveillance of the international land and
        maritime borders of the United States through more effective
        use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial
        vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and
        cameras; and
        (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the international land and maritime borders by United States
        Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints,
        all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers

        1. “Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act”

          18 months, 13 years… those are pretty much the same thing to the bureaucracy, right?

          1. We HAVE operational control over the southern border.

            The vast majority now of successful illegal entrants to the US are now coming via airport and overstaying their visa. The number who attempt to cross the southern border fluctuates depending on the circumstances in their home country – but those who do attempt get caught. And in fact we are so successful at catching them, that the REAL problem on our southern border is the judicial backlog to resolve the various legalistic stuff that those migrants know how to claim. That is why we have the detention and/or release problem. Cuz there’s a 1 year backlog and paying $20-40k for one year of detention for each detainee would be a $5+ billion/yr annual expense.

            It’s an easy as pie problem to solve – and cheap too. But solving it doesn’t meet the political needs of the DeRps. And that is far important than solving any actual illegal migrant problem.

          2. Since they were still building the original fence in 2011, and only supposedly “finished” the section 3 requirement in 2015… yes. The 18 months is a minimum time to get started. Not a maximum time that could be spent.

  7. “it is likely that the federal government does not even have the power to use eminent domain within states (as opposed to on federal territories) in the first place.”

    The 5th Amendment:

    “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    Don’t see any “within states” language.

    1. Agreed. Somin is trying to box out ED in the states, and federal enforcement of immigration law, both of which are ridiculous positions, in my opinion.

      As you point out, the constitution does not make this distinction; and if not in the states, then where? I don’t think there was such thing as federal land or territories when the constitution was ratified.

      And how on earth is immigration law domestic??? I’m puzzled by this assertion.

      1. Territories were definitely a thing when the Constitution was ratified.

        I don’t know if Somin is right in that assertion, but I think using an amendment designed to serve as a limit on the government’s power as justification that the government does have the power to do something not specifically prohibited by it is a poor argument without other supporting evidence.

      2. “And how on earth is immigration law domestic?” It’s only a crime when someone enters the U.S.. It is only a U.S. crime, and it only tried in U.S. courts. Query: how is it not domestic law enforcement? Can we send the army to collect those who have over-stayed their visas, or have the marines raid businesses who are hiring undocumented workers (e.g., Trump’s New Jersey golf club)?

        1. I suppose technically, if a bunch of heavily armed Mexican government employees wearing identical clothing crossed the US border, and started gunning people down and blowing stuff up, they’d be violating all kinds of domestic laws. They’d also be an invading army.

          So there’s a bit of an overlap between domestic law enforcement and the military’s job.

          This is an organized group of foreign nationals who have violently crossed two international borders already, and have attacked our border. All not being identically dressed government employees means is that they don’t have rights under the Geneva convention. It doesn’t stop them from being an invasion.

          If they’d just wanted to apply for asylum, they passed several perfectly good US consulates where they could have done so, without any rock throwing or tear gas. Sure, they’ll take asylum if they can get it, but what they want is entry into the US, and they want it whether or not we want to give it to them.

          1. The fact that you need to resort to extreme hypotheticals to reach your absurd result kinda shows how much you’re working to switch between extreme textual literalism and extreme purposivism to reach a result neither allows.

            This isn’t an invasion; an invasion would be treated differently.

            What this is is Trump trying to get around a legislature he doesn’t much like. And you’re abetting him.

      3. “And how on earth is immigration law domestic?” It’s only a crime when someone enters the U.S.. It is only a U.S. crime, and it only tried in U.S. courts. Query: how is it not domestic law enforcement? Can we send the army to collect those who have over-stayed their visas, or have the marines raid businesses who are hiring undocumented workers (e.g., Trump’s New Jersey golf club)?

      4. The Northwest and Southwest territories were federal lands in 1788. Immigration law is about offenses against the law of nations, one of which is entry across a national border without consent. “Domestic”? But not limited to U.S. territory.

      5. ” I don’t think there was such thing as federal land or territories when the constitution was ratified.”

        The creation of the D.C. is authorized specifically in the Constitution.

        “And how on earth is immigration law domestic?”

        How is it NOT domestic? Hint: Where to immigration lawyers keep their offices?

    2. Nor do you see anything in there that says anyone has the power to exercise eminent domain. The provision is expressly a limitation on eminent domain. Presumably, based on this, Congress would have the power to exercise eminent domain but they have to get this power from somewhere. Congress has the power to make needful regulations regarding its territories. That would presumably be valid for eminent domain in the territories. Now what about within states? The best argument would be the Necessary and Proper Clause. The originalist argument would be that “proper” limited the Federal government in this regard.

      I don’t necessarily buy it, but I’m also not necessarily an originalist.

  8. Are there Republicans/conservatives who support emergency military eminent domain for building the wall?

    1. Well, so far, there’s that one guy in Ohio.

      1. The Old Republic died a long time ago, what does it matter if its last remnants are swept away.

        Maybe Congress should not have passed those emergency powers in the first place?

        1. ‘It’s legal. It’s totally legal. And Good. Not that it matters that it’s legal; laws are dying anyway.’

          1. Nothing matters.

            1. You can’t argue with a nihilist.

            2. You can’t argue with a nihilist.

              1. Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism…

  9. “It is also worth noting that nothing remotely resembling a national security “emergency” is actually occurring at the southern border, and that a border wall would do virtually nothing to protect the US against any kind of terrorism or security risk. It may well not even do much to reduce undocumented immigration.”

    It is worth noting these are no facts, just subjective statements of opinion by an open borders fanatic.

    1. It’s hard to argue an emergency when the status quo has remained unchanged for quite a long time.

      1. I would say when huge invasion caravans of invaders are being allowed through Mexico without abatement by the government there and these illegals are making daily assaults at the border, passing children over barbed wire fences, then yes there is a clear emergency.

        1. The caravan was protesting for expanded asylum rights not to invade us.

          The rate of illegal immigration has actually gone down, and so have the illegals in the US. Source.

          So your emergency is more in your mind than in America.

          1. “The rate of illegal immigration has actually gone down, and so have the illegals in the US.”

            Not true, at least not recently:

            “…response to a record-setting crush of new arrivals that is overwhelming migrant shelters and government detention facilities.”

            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/us/-
            migrant-families-arizona-ice-motels.html

          2. Right, that’s why they violently crossed Guatemala and Mexico’s borders, and assaulted ours; Throwing stones is the traditional way to apply for asylum.

            1. Clearly joining a caravan that made international news headlines for weeks was part of a plot to sneak across the border and would be foiled by a wall. That’s like the last scenario where a wall would be helpful. The wall doesn’t change asylum law. You can cite a few assholes throwing rocks to paint the entire caravan or every immigrant as violent invaders but that doesn’t make it true.

              1. Clearly, migrants having passed through one country and petitioning for asylum in the next have no legitimate claim of asylum. According to international law.

                Read up on asylum, the justification is actually quite narrow and doesn’t include poverty or general lawlessness or general oppression by a despotic government. It is specific and individualized. It’s likely that virtually none of these migrants can make legitimate claims. Yet, they will petition, be released into the US with a court date, and disappear into the US, thanks to progressives. The vast majority of asylum seekers who are not detained prior to their court date fail to appear. Most never even formally file an asylum application.

                1. ” It’s likely that virtually none of these migrants can make legitimate claims. Yet, they will petition, be released into the US with a court date, and disappear into the US, thanks to progressives.”

                  Most likely true (won’t know until their claims are actually made). Now, how the hell is a decision to release them into the United States “thanks to progressives”? They don’t control any part of the federal government. Congress is split, and the President is… not favorably inclined towards progressives. In the last session, Congress wasn’t even split… it was controlled by Republicans.

                  1. “Now, how the hell is a decision to release them into the United States “thanks to progressives”? They don’t control any part of the federal government. ”

                    They control the courts. There are legions of progressives and democrats on benches around the country who support illegal immigration of all forms, and know full well when they release these people that they will never be seen again. They should be held, or deported pending a decision.

                    1. There are legions of progressives and democrats on benches around the country who support illegal immigration of all forms.

                      Paranoia strikes deep.

                    2. “Paranoia strikes deep.”

                      That’s all you got? Name calling? I tell you, Sarcasto, it’s not paranoia, it’s a matter of fact, and pretty well documented, too. That, coupled with municipalities that openly ignore illegal immigration enforcement – sanctuary cities – and even pass laws against helping those trying to enforce the immigration laws. You should read more, get out more, you might appreciate how bad this has become.

                    3. Not much I can say about someone who thinks the real enemy is legions of judges pushing for full open borders.

                      As can be seen by my commenting on this blog, I do cultivate a diverse set of media. You might want to look for a source for your judges thing.

                      Excuse my skepticism that you get out much, but ‘How bad it’s become’ has become the call of people who live in super white areas and read too much Daily Caller.

              2. The majority of “asylum seekers” are just illegal immigrants who’ve been coached to say that they’re seeking asylum if they get caught. This caravan of people who could have applied for asylum in Guatemala or Mexico if they were legitimately seeking asylum are no different. Unless you’re seeking asylum from Mexico or Canada, by the time you walk here, you’re just a migrant. Even if we found they had legitimate asylum claims, we’d be on solid ground telling them to seek it in Guatemala.

                This is not how you seek asylum, and it’s long since time we enforced that.

                1. The fact that you posit an unproven scenario that is already over doesn’t mean Trump gets to invoke dictatorial power and ignore Congress.

                  Asylum law doesn’t work like that, and even if it did, that’s not enough for Trump to just suspend due process.

                  1. No, actually asylum law does work like that. It’s just that for some time we’ve been allowing asylum applications by people whose claims we didn’t legally have to recognize. Part of the general tendency to under-enforce immigration laws.

                    But we’re not obligated to continue accepting such claims. By standard asylum law, if you walk here from Honduras, by the time you reach the US you’re no longer entitled to claim asylum, even if you’d have had a valid claim in, say, Guatemala. You have to apply in the first safe country you reach.

                    There isn’t anybody in these caravans who has a valid asylum claim against the US.

                    1. You’re assuming bad faith based on nothing. Due process can weed out bad faith.
                      We don’t have to do any asylum at all, it’s a policy of mercy not one of obligation.
                      But deciding a priori that a group is lying about it and using that to bootstrap your way months later into circumventing Congress isn’t about asylum policy, it’s barely a rhetorical fig leaf over nationalist authoritarianism.

                    2. “You’re assuming bad faith based on nothing.”

                      There are statements from the “asylum” seekers to that effect.

                    3. There are statements to the opposite effect as well.
                      The way to treat that is to make a finding, not to decide what to do based on scattered reports.

                      And certainly not invoking military powers and taking over citizens’ land without Congressional approval or authority.
                      This is like a summary judgement situation. Why even bother debating you when even under the facts as you posit, there is no justification for Trump’s plan.

                      Funny you keep switching the debate away from Trump contemplating acting like the dictator he keeps tweeting like.

          3. You work for CNN writing fake news, right?

            But I still think you are aware of your logical falsehood here. Just because something might be declining (which has not been the case now for the last two years) does not somehow mean that it is still not an emergency. That is like saying that there is no murder emergency is Chicago (which is run by dems) merely because the murder rate declined by 2 last year.

            1. There is no ‘murder emergency’ in Chicago. It’s safe; people aren’t leaving it.

              Not all problems are crises.

            2. Why are you so scared and terrified, Jimmy? What happened in your life to make you jump at shadows?

              1. There be brown people!

            3. “You work for CNN writing fake news, right?”

              You’ve got a massive hard-on for CNN, right?

        2. I agree. And they are not just the indigent of Central America, there are foreign nationals of all stripes among the throng.

      2. Not hard at all.

        For instance, lead paint has been gone for decades but its still a crisis or emergency in inner cities.

        Gun violence is often called a public health emergency by gun banners.

        1. Don’t think I didn’t see your slight of hand from crisis to emergency.

          Nope.

          1. Per Merriam-Webster:

            emergency noun, often attributive
            emer??gen??cy | \i-?m?r-j?n(t)-s? \
            plural emergencies
            Definition of emergency
            1 : an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action
            2 : an urgent need for assistance or relief
            the mayor declared a state of emergency after the flood

            Synonyms for emergency
            Synonyms

            boiling point, breaking point, clutch, conjuncture, crisis, crossroad(s), crunch, crunch time, Dunkirk, exigency, extremity, flash point, head, juncture, tinderbox, zero hour

            Definition of synonym
            1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

            Crisis = emergency

        2. There is still lead around.

          1. Right, its an emergency that has been around for decades.

            1. Clearly we need to use military power to resolve it!

            2. “its an emergency that has been around for decades.”

              If it’s been around for decades, it’s no longer emergent.

    2. Hey, I’d rather be a fanatic than a dupe. And isn’t that what we’re dealing with here? It’s the same story that has played out over and over in history: Your basic loathsome / sleazy politician sees a bump of gullible chumps – the type easily led by the nose – and soon convinces them aalllll of their problems are caused by some “Other”. Pretty soon he has his dupes shrieking in fear and rage – while he stands smirking in the background. Hell, you can probably convince them a ragtag bunch of people on foot is some “Invasion Caravan”, they’re that damn stupid. Back in the mid-1800s they were called Know Nothings, and their handlers told them to hate and fear Irish Catholics, so they did. When you’re easily manipulated you do what you’re told, eh?

      Meanwhile :

      In July 2017, the State Department said there was “no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States.” and that’s a fact.

      In November, a study, by the Pew Research Center on Tuesday, put the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States at 10.7 million in 2016, down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. Illegal immigration is declining, and that’s a fact.

      Authorities use the number of apprehensions to gauge changes in illegal immigration. Apprehensions on the Southwest border peaked in 2000 at 1.64 million – declining since to 303,916 in 2017, and that’s a fact.

      1. I think those are some of those “alternative facts” the Left likes to throw around.

        1. Yes, and the Soviet Union was right to invade Afghanistan. It was all those terrorists flooding across the border.

        2. Is this where you are now? Just calling posts you don’t like lies and then dropping the mic? Because that does not bespeak a position of strength.

          1. When all you have left are delusions, all you have left are delusions. Might as well make them sound grandiose!

    3. It’s not an emergency just because the president can’t get Congress to approve his desired wall. That so many of you people have pretended to be advocated of limited government and executive power and now cheerlead this is astounding.

    4. It’s not an emergency just because the president can’t get Congress to approve his desired wall. That so many of you people have pretended to be advocated of limited government and executive power and now cheerlead this is astounding.

      1. If only most libertarians understood that big government in the present is necessary to secure limited government in the future, then the obstructionists in Congress would let Trump have his wall and lay the groundwork for free and prosperous future that we all dream of. It is selfish to let the separation of powers and TDS get in the way of this important step in establishing a complete demolition of the welfare/warfare complex and a return to isolationism.

        1. I heard this one before. Where was it? Oh yeah: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is just a temporary necessity until things are set right. Thereafter, the state will simply wither away.”

        2. Love this post. Love this screenname. It is well crafted. May still be too subtle, even.

          1. Probably too subtle. The screen name is descriptive. I was “Stash” on the original VC blog, and had to change it due to the changes in hosting. Haven’t commented much since Trump because the use of rational discourse has fallen out of vogue here and elsewhere. As I said, you can’t argue with nihilists and their consequent amoral will to power. To them, discourse is not a shared tool, but a blunt instrument with which to bludgeon opposition. The best that can be done is to occasionally hold up a mirror (as you are so good at doing) to reveal what they are advocating.

    5. It’s worth noting that “open borders fanatic” is just a strawman whistling for dogs.

  10. Liberal: The government should step in to ban straws, force transgender bathrooms, confiscate guns…
    *10 hours later*
    ban private education, ban cooperation with immigration authorities, ban plastic bags. Sorry, not done but I gotta catch my breath!

    Conservative: I don’t think all that is necessary. The government should just stick to only stepping in for basic things like, maintaining our borders.

    Ilya and Liberals and Co: YOU SEE, WHAT A HYPOCRITE. YOURE ALL FOR GOVERNMENT INTRUSION JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!

    1. Takes a big government to maintain a big wall.

      Not to mention the intrusion on a bunch of people’s lives is a bit larger than faffing about with bags or straws.

      Your essential purpose seems to have swallowed your general small government theme.

      1. Border security is one of the legitimate powers of a Republican government. Obviously this is a straw man argument.

        1. ‘I’m for small government, as in huuuge and overreactive in the things I deem legitimate, but nothing else!’

          Can’t imagine why anyone could call you unprincipled.

        2. “Obviously this is a straw man argument.”

          There is a literal straw ban argument going on up thread, despite the fact that Prof. Somin has nowhere supported a federal ban on straws, and that attempts to do so have been at the local level. There’s been no attempt to “ban private education” either.

          Whether something is an, according to you, “legitimate powers of a Republican government” is of no moment in a discussion of big versus small government. A 99% marginal tax rate would be within the legitimate powers of the government, but still big government bullshit. Right?

        3. The Canadian border is far longer, and much more insecure. Canada has more terrorists, so I say we start there. Let’s build a wall and put an aircraft carrier in Lake Superior..

          See, e.g., “[the July 2017 State Department report] dwells much more on the northern neighbor, home to ‘Canada-based violent extremists inspired by terrorist groups such as ISIS and al-Qaida and their affiliates and adherents.’ Moreover, Canada has experienced episodes of terrorism at the hands of sympathizers of those organizations.” https://www.militarytimes.
          com/news/your-military/2018/12/13/trumps
          -10-terrorists-where-are-they

          It’s what any responsible president would do, and it should have been done long ago. In fact, several former presidents have stated that they wish they had done it.

          1. My favorite treaty, the Webster?Ashburton Treaty, signed August 9, 1842, prevents the US and Canada from militarizing the border.

            We even had to ask permission from Canada during WWII to build naval installations on the great lakes.

          2. “The Canadian border is far longer, and much more insecure.”

            The Alaskan seacoast is longer, too, and nearly completely unguarded.

      2. Straws are used by millions. What Americans are affected by the wall’s construction?

        Mexicans and Central Americans sure.

        1. Eminent domain. Plus, you know, anyone crossing the border legally. And then there is all the money.

          1. How does a wall built where there are no legal points of entry affect those crossing the border legally?

            1. It doesn’t. He is just reciting jargon.

              1. You’re arguing the taking of land and subsequent building and operation of a border-spanning wall is of minor burden compared to people not getting to use the kind of straws they like?

                Also: do you know what jargon is? What hard to understand terms did I use?

                1. I’m guessing he’s talking about the quantity of people affected. To the (several hundred million?) of us not situated on the border, the straw ban will be a much larger burden….

                  1. The one place I expect people get concepts like externalities and opportunity costs is a libertarian news site.

                    A multi-billion dollar wall is a massive opportunity cost, especially when other expenditures costing less would probably be more effective at improving border security. That opportunity cost is a “burden” to those that might have otherwise benefited from those tax dollars. It is certainly a burden to the hundreds of thousands of people who aren’t getting paid due to the government shutdown.

                    re: straws. Plastic straws are a huge problem when they end up in the oceans and contribute to the death of fish and mammals. The burden of using a paper straw versus the burden of losing access to your favorite sea food is a value judgement you’ll need to make for yourself. But given that there is an easy substitute for a plastic straw, perhaps we could do without them.

        2. “What Americans are affected by the wall’s construction?”

          $5 billion worth of taxpayers.

          Look, we know Trump wouldn’t put any of his OWN money into the boondoggle. But hows about the Trump fans take up a collection amongst themselves to pay for it, and leave everyone else out of it?

          1. This assumes that the argument is about the cost?

            1. I hate the no edit functionality..,

              So far the arguments against have ranged from “won’t work” to “It’s immoral” to “Trump is for it so I’m against it.” Cost seems to be an afterthought for most.

              1. The arguments in favor of the wall are largely based on racism (fear) so perhaps people resort to emotional arguments against the wall assuming the fearful aren’t going to be swayed by economic arguments.

                Also, the “won’t work” argument is fundamentally a cost argument. If cost wasn’t an issue (and ignoring the time value of money) I don’t think anyone would bother to care if it wouldn’t work. Spending many billions of tax dollars on something we objectively know is a boondoggle is crazy since there are better expenditures that would have more impact. (Like the equipment and personnel used to locate tunnels.)

                @JamesPollock: I think the $5.7B is the down payment for the project and not the total cost. The wall as Trump has proposed it will cost upwards of $20B by some estimates.

    2. LOL. Just start a conservative talking about how the government should regulate sex and you’re in for a good twenty hours, at the very least!

      1. What decade do you think we’re in? The eighties? The Left is the modern premier force behind regulation of sex nowadays. Think Sex trafficking hysteria, regulation of the actual way you have sex through ‘affirmative consent’, anti commercial sex, college tribunals, this aint your daddy’s party of free love anymore son.

        1. Think Sex trafficking hysteria But enough about pizzagate and Q-anon.

          You guys still rail at gay marriage and your side is working to kick transgenders out of the military. Don’t even try.

          1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
            But enough about pizzagate and Q-anon.
            >>>>>>>>>>>>>

            I’m talking about implemented policy, not internet rumours.

            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            You guys still rail at gay marriage and your side is working to kick transgenders out of the military. Don’t even try.
            >>>>>>>>>>>>

            Like I said I’m talking about implemented policy and policies with a serious chance of being implemented. You can find anybody ranting about anything, and find any idea floating around on the internet that you want. But when half of ‘my side’ lives in fear of not supporting your side’s wacky ideas and the other half actually supports it and your side’s ideas are the ones being actively implemented and funded through millions or billions of my unwillingly confiscated money and brainwashed into far more kids, its clear who’s the bigger problem.

            1. Though you guys are trying to make it into a wedge issue, what’s going on on campus and with sexual harassment policies etc. has not yet become widespread and the more radical policies you guys elevate are nowhere near fully embraced by our party.

              Sorry, Amos – between abortion, sexuality, and gender, your party is still the king of moral regulations on how we bang.

              1. >>>>>>>>>>>
                more radical policies you guys elevate are nowhere near fully embraced by our party.
                >>>>>>>>>>

                You clearly haven’t been speaking with younger people in your party.

                https://tinyurl.com/pdfqcx6

                Who knows, maybe they’ll grow out of it tho. (hopefully)

                >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                your party is still the king of moral regulations on how we bang.
                >>>>>>>>>>>

                As I said, The difference between our supposedly oppressive rules and your oppressive rules is that your rules are actually rules. Abortion, SSM, and being transsexual weren’t illegal last time I checked. Polite society will practically throw you a tickertape parade for breaking ‘conservative’ sexual mores. Wacky antimale laws on other other hand are gleefully enforced by both secular and feminist sharia law tribunals.

                1. Ahh yes, the younger people in our party are really the ones to listen to.

                  Your goal posts are a blur.

  11. “President Donald Trump claims he can use an “emergency” declaration to secure funding to use eminent domain to acquire land for his border wall, even without any additional congressional authorization. The validity of this claim is dubious at best.”

    Neat conjecture, Ilya.

  12. “I have a few reservations about Baude’s excellent analysis. Most important is that he fails to consider the possibility that, even if the federal government lacked a general eminent domain power, it is possible that Article I gives it the power to use eminent domain for a few narrowly specified purposes closely related to various enumerated powers. For example, the power to “raise and support” armies might be thought to allow the use of eminent domain to acquire land for military bases. Such a restricted eminent domain power is very different from one that would allow the federal government to condemn property for any purpose that might be beneficial in some way. It might be a genuinely “incidental” power, as opposed to a great and independent one.”

    Has either Baude or Somin (or anyone else) addressed Somin’s concern here?

    1. Source.

      I mean, the proof would be whether such a power was invoked in the founding era to acquire land for military use, right?

  13. “From the founding onward, the American constitutional tradition has profoundly opposed the president’s use of the military to enforce domestic law.”
    Yeah, right.
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine)

    Woodrow Wilson Mann, the mayor of Little Rock, asked President Eisenhower to send federal troops to enforce integration and protect the nine students. On September 24, the President ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army?without its black soldiers, who rejoined the division a month later?to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000-member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of Faubus’s control

    1. An inconvenient truth.

    2. An inconvenient truth.

  14. Speaking of precedent that those who espoused it have come to regret…

    ‘When Congress fails to act, the President must use his pen and his phone.”

    1. Is your point that it was wrong for Obama to do it, and so it is also wrong for Trump? Or is it that since Obama did it, then Trump can do it too? Or is it that we are all hypocrites who oppose actions from a President we hate when we support the same action from one we like. I guess if I ever get a president I like, I can join in the fun.

  15. “However, courts often give presidents undue deference on national security and immigration issues…” That’s funny. Hey Ilya. Ever heard of that one court out west? The Ninth Circuit? Since when have they deferred to Trump on anything? I hope you weren’t being serious. Unfortunately its a forlorn hope.

  16. Hmm.. is enforcing an International border really “domestic law enforcement”?
    Also, why are you so convinced (or why do you think the courts will be so convinced) that the situation at the border doesn’t constitute an emergency? They wouldn’t defer to the executive branch on such a designation?

  17. Speaking of constitutionality, how is RBG doing these days? Calling in sick?

    1. Not to wish ill on anybody, but she will be in that big courthouse in the sky before to long, and she won’t be the judge this time.

  18. “Indeed, as Ackerman points out, federal law actually forbids the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement within the United States (and immigration enforcement qualifies as such).”

    Immigration enforcement may qualify as domestic law enforcement, but building a wall on our southern border does not qualify as immigration enforcement. But I don’t even know why I am attempting to respond to the article, since Ilya famously never faces his critics.

  19. Just deckare a very long, somewhat narrow Army base. Build wall/fence around said base. Problem solved.

    1. Well, I think Congress has a say in the Defense spending bill, right? And there would be political consequences for opening a new military base on the Mexican border.

  20. I think Trump’s basic perspective is to regard illegal immigration as an invasion of the United States. If he can get this perspective to stick, or persuade the courts that they need to defer to his view of things on the matter, this opens the door to extraordinary emergency powers.

    Professor Somin speaks of using the military to “enforce domestic law.” But repelling invasions is not only a quintessentially military activity, it is a quintessentially extra-legal one. The ability to use military funds to build a wall is in many ways the least of the issues, and only a small start down the road we could potentially be going.

    In Duncan v. Kahanamoku, the Supreme Court held that President Roosevelt’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor, but that the invasion threat had subsided by 1944. It thus held that courts have the power to determine whether or not an invasion emergency exists and can override the President’s own conclusion on the matter even during an active war.

    It seems to me that this is the best line of legal argument here. Duncan authorizes the courts to make an independent determination of invasion threat without deferring to the President. And a wave of illegal immigrants is not the sort of invasion for which the constitution or stature authorized truly emergency measures.

    1. Any entry into a nation without consent is invasion. That goes back to the Law of nations. Illegal entry is an offense against the law of nations. Doesn’t have to be by an armed force. Overstaying a visa is not.

      1. But the president could repel such invaders using deadly force. It would help if there were actually a statute making it a felony or capital offense.

        So Trump could just close the border at other than ports of entry. Then authorize deadly force.

        1. Then Trump could give Pelosi and Schumer a choice: Fund the wall or watch the invaders get mown down.

          1. I’m pretty sure owing down unarmed civilians would be a war crime and an illegal order.

            1. It would be a war crime if they weren’t trying to force their way across the border at the time, certainly.

              1. Nope, still a war crime.

                Shooting to kill large unarmed groups is a war crime, no matter how much you don’t like where they’re going.

                1. Immoral, yes. War crime? Citation needed.

                  1. Directing attacks against civilians is against the Geneva convention.

                    1. I’m sure the people in Dresden, Tokyo, or Nagasaki, shouldn’t have been worried then. And the citizens of Aleppo, Yemen, and Tel Aviv will take heart. Any minute now somebody somewhere will do something about that.

                    2. People have committed war crimes in the past and gotten away with it. Others will do the same and probably get away with it in the future.

                      Your reaction to this is that it sounds like we should do some war crimes?!

                    3. I was wrongly assuming that you’d make the connection that there is no such thing as a war crime, per se, because for there to be such a thing, there has to be a power capable of holding someone accountable for the alleged wrongdoing. War crimes are in actuality just punishment for the defeated unless it is the victor punishing people on their own side for excesses.

                      For a simpler take, Israel has repeatedly shot and killed people at their border walls. Sometimes they are just throwing rocks, sometimes they don’t obey a command to stop and they look like suicide bombers, and sometimes it’s because of a mass movement to storm the border. War crimes?

                    4. Yeah…that was pretty clearly not your reasoning above when you tried to argue mowing down civilians wasn’t a war crime with your cute ‘citation needed.’ I’ve seen better saves than ‘I was trying to teach you that international criminal law doesn’t exist for America.’

                      Anyhow, even in domestic law, just because you can get away with breaking the law doesn’t mean there is no law.

                      And that goes for Israel as well.

                    5. Being “cute” and asking you back up your assertions, then showing you how your a priori assumptions are not shared by everyone, well, they are not mutually exclusive actions.

                      I suppose your nihilism was just a passing phase then, not allowing you to make the leap of logic necessary. Because if you believe there is such a thing as a “war crime” than you have to be blindingly optimistic to make the huge leap in assuming that the word “crime” in an international context has the same meaning as “crime” in the domestic context.

                    6. My nihilism?

                    7. If the US military leadership believed the order to be illegal they might feel justified in disobeying it. That would be a consequence that doesn’t depend on an external enforcer.

  21. Will Baude is correct at the WP article. The key case was Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), which asserted a federal power of eminent domain on state territory. Previously, the state legislature would have needed to cede the parcel to the federal government, then used its state power of eminent domain to acquire it. The fundamental principle is that states are sovereign over their own territory. That did not change in 1788. That is spelled out in Art I Sec, 8 Cl. 17: “Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be”.

  22. (Cont)

    Professor Somin goes much further than this. I think by going further he ends up with a worse argument. By not acknowledging President Trump’s position at all – by taking it as a given that immigration is merely a matter of domestic law enforcement, without even considering or having anything to say about the possibility it could be looked at differently – Professor Somin makes himself vulnerable. If a judge sees the Trump administration as potentially having a point, Somin loses.

    I think this is an important caution to advocates. Acknowledging the other side’s view – saying “it might be X and it might be Y, and here’s why Y is the better view.” – is often sounder than saying “it’s so obviously Y people who say it’s X are crazy,” even though the latter may feel more satisfying.

    The problem with the latter argument is that the minute a judge thinks people who say it’s X might not be crazy, the statement becomes false, so the argument loses. That’s what might happen here. Even though one may think the Administration’s position is crazy and not worthy of serious argument, it is better advocacy to take it seriously and explain why one thinks it’s wrong in a sober way.

  23. “President Warren could then declare climate change to be a ‘national emergency’ and start reallocating various military and civilian funds to build all kinds of ‘green’ construction projects.”

    I am a little skeptical that this would be a significant risk. This particular scenario is hard for me to imagine. What sort of construction projects are we talking here?

    1. Yuge ones. The best construction projects. She should know, these folks are friends of hers, she can vouch for them.

    2. Solar panel roads, solar panel buildings, wind farms, “clean-up” projects, more unnecessary parks, organic farms, species habitats, wetland areas, … And of course, supporting “green innovators” in “stagnant industries”.

      1. Trump should put solar panels and windmills on the wall.

        1. He did say it would pay for itself.

  24. In almost any other country but the USA in modern times, the border area IS the national security. What other time and country would the border and beaches not be subject to national security disaster orders?

    I agree you could make good arguments that in the USA, in the 21st century, it isn’t so. But what an oddity it would be in all of history.

    1. Since the invention of the missile, and especially nuclear warheads, it isn’t necessary to send forces across a border to attack your enemy’s home. Since the invention of the internet and its deep integration into our livelihoods, you can attack national infrastructure from a Starbucks on the other side of the planet.

      We know that immigrants, legal and illegal, commit fewer crimes than American citizens. So civilians walking across the border or overstaying their visas aren’t as big of a threat to our security as our fellow citizens or people with access to long-range missiles or even a laptop in a cafe.

      While there are good reasons to secure the border, it is the sort of thing you do as a balance of costs–expend just enough to keep order but not so much that the marginal cost of security outweighs the benefits. The cost of the wall is too high for the benefit it provides to national security.

  25. If Mexico started massing forces on the border, are you really saying the DoD could not deploy across private property on the border? Seriously? NK forces off the coast — the DoD couldn’t deploy across beach front properties?

  26. By statute, the PCA (posse comitatus act) applies to the Army and the Air Force (and, not the Navy and the Marine Corps). By DoD and Department of Navy Policy, the Navy and Marine Corps basically follow the prohibitions of the PCA. The President can, rather easily, modify this DON policy and, without statutory change, use the Marine Corps and the Navy to build a wall.

    Unfortunately for the President, this sidestep around the PCA does not remove barriers that may be in place under fiscal law rules. Nevertheless, it would avoid the issue of the PCA.

    1. The posse comitatus act is a Jim Crow law, passed after Reconstruction to prevent federal troops from helping Southern blacks.

      1. Correct, although it was also to stop military strikebreakers.
        Doesn’t matter. There are some pretty great political reasons why you don’t want to have the military acting on domestic soil.

        1. All of which go out the window if the “acting” is repelling an invasion, of course.

          Your position is just that we’re not allowed to repel an invasion so long as the invaders aren’t wearing uniforms and toting assault rifles.

          To coin a phrase, “The Camp of Saints isn’t an instruction manual.”

          1. “All of which go out the window if the “acting” is repelling an invasion, of course.”

            The 82nd Airborne at Little Rock is the “military acting on domestic soil” too.

            1. Bob,

              First, it was the 101st Airborne Division at Little Rock, not the 82nd Airborne Division.

              Second, the Posse Comitatus Act has a loophole.

              “From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress. . . .”

              Congress passed the Enforcement Acts after the Civil War which allowed the President to call up military forces when state authorities are unable or unwilling to suppress violence directed at the constitutional rights of the people – as was happening in Little Rock at that time.

          2. None of which go out the window; they all still apply.

            It’s not an invasion by any but your own twisted definition. Past precedent shows that there is no urgency here, no reason why the concerns about domestic use of the military are attenuated. No reason to waive the normal process of attaining the buy-in of the American People in this republic of ours.

            Just your own zealotry looking for excused to circumvent law and policy.

            Holy crap dude, Camp of the Saints? Why not just cite the Protocols?!

          3. Your position is just that we’re not allowed to repel an invasion so long as the invaders aren’t wearing uniforms and toting assault rifles.

            1. It’s not an invasion
            2. It’s a civil matter, not a military matter

          4. Brett, if you believe illegal immigration really does constitute an “invasion”, then wouldn’t it necessarily be an act of war? Should the US declare war on Mexico and Guatemala – after all, haven’t they already “declared war” on us via their “invasions”?

        2. Sarcasto: I love Jim Crow now

          PCA being based on racism is “structural” racism. Which is bad.

          Right?

          1. This is some pretty lame race card playing. It doesn’t work for gun control, and it doesn’t work here.

            You evaluate policies based on current effect, not long past intent. Otherwise our Constitution wouldn’t fare too well either.

  27. I am surprised that nobody, not even the OP, has mentioned Truman’s seizing of the steel mills during the Korean conflict, which is the closest historical parallel. Truman was found by the Courts to be overreaching, and the Courts were dominated by Democrat appointees at the time. I suspect any seizure of land to build a border wall would have a similar result.

    1. Someone mentioned the parallel on Rachel Maddow last night, it may have been Rachel herself (I wasn’t paying much attention, the TV was just on for background while I was doing something else, but it was definitely mentioned on her show.)

      1. Admittedly, that’s a show I would never watch unless strapped in like the fellow in A Clockwork Orange, but it’s nice to know that someone else drew the same parallel.

  28. Ackerman’s piece said that any military personnel who participate in enforcing “military eminent domain” will be violating Federal law. OK. But so what? Trump will just pardon them for violating it.

    1. To be pardoned, you must be judged guilty and the crime must be Federal. Guilty of a crime is still guilt, even if you don’t have to go to jail. A felony can remove your right to vote or own guns, for example. And this assumes they haven’t also committed a crime in Texas, Arizona, or California for which Trump has no authority to pardon.

  29. So what again is this moral argument about a border wall and protecting our borders just like every other sovereign nation in the world does? I’ll I have heard from the Left is Chunky Schumer saying it is “immoral” and Grossi Pelosi parrot the same thing. Some countries shoot illegals who attempt to cross the border. Would seem to me a wall and increased security would be one of the more humane ways to protect our sovereign land.

    1. Every other country has a wall?

      Our border policy is about the same as other countries.

      It’s immoral because it’s demonizing a group that we rely on under the table for our industrial productivity. It’s immoral because it’s a symbol of not welcoming immigrants even as we love being immigrants. It’s immoral because it’s insular and surly in a world that needs more mercy. It’s immoral because Trump wants to do it without Congress. It’s immoral because it’s just a populist shibboleth designed more to decide the country than accomplish anything concrete. It’s immoral because it’s a waste of money. It’s immoral because it relies on abrogating property rights for partisan grandstanding.

      1. None of what you say is “immoral”. Build a wall to enforce our laws is hardly an act of immorality. What is immoral is allowing a identifiable class of people to blatantly flaunt of laws and do nothing about it.

        If you really cared about the government “wasting” money there are a whole lot of better examples you could be chasing after then a border wall. How about just closing down the EPA and Dept of Education. Those are perhaps the biggest wastes of taxpayer money in the federal government.

        Also it is not the job of the USA to provide the world “mercy”. It is the job of our country to provide for its citizens first and foremost. That is what is moral. Keeping out those who are just leaches is moral. And if it involves taking a few strips of desert land which is provided for in the Constitution (with just compensation) you can’t get any more legal and moral then that.

        1. Your baffling misunderstanding of morality aside…

          The border wall is a waste of money because it won’t do what it’s proponents say they want it to do: keep out illegal immigrants and drugs. This is because the vast majority of drugs coming into this country come in through legal ports of entry and not across our wilderness border. The largest source of illegal immigrants aren’t people crossing the Southern wilderness but people who enter legally on visitor visas and never leave. The third largest group of illegal immigrants are from China. When was the last Chinese “invasion” at our Southern border? Never. They buy plane tickets and come for Mickey Mouse and never leave. What’s a wall going to do to stop a plane? And let’s face it, the Chinese have a lot of experience with walls that don’t work.

  30. I do not like Trump. I think the wall is foolish. But I don’t even see why Trump is acting constitutionally suspect by using eminent domain to take land for a border wall. It ain’t Kelo or a regulatory taking.

    How it is paid for? can become a constitutional issue.

    We can debate the efficacy, but it seems his ability to use it is pretty lawful.

    I put in the disclaimer because I don’t want folks calling my opinion biased.

    1. Why is the wall “foolish”? Seems to me plenty of people call it lots of bad descriptors but never expound upon their reasoning. Could that be simply because they have no good reason to oppose it?

      1. This dialogue is about its lawfulness. Whether it is great or horrible do not impact that question.

        I think it is foolish, because I believe it’s impact?given its cost?will only be negligible. Apart from weed, almost all drugs come through lawful ports of entry. The majority of illegal immigrants are visa overstays. Then border crossing card overstays. There has been a huge net decrease in illegal immigration over the last 30 years.

        But again? this has nothing to do with a taking in my opinion.

      2. “Why is the wall ‘foolish’? Seems to me plenty of people call it lots of bad descriptors but never expound upon their reasoning.”

        The wall is foolish because it would cost a lot of money, and accomplish little to nothing. This is desirable only to a fool, or a person who stands to benefit because they are in the wall-contracting business.

        Are you in the wall-contracting business?

  31. There’s a reason that the every recent Congress and President has built walls along the southern border. There’s a reason these Democrats were for it before they were against it.

    Walls, it turns out, are very effective at achieving their purpose, in conjunction with appropriate laws. So the wall is a no-brainer. To name just a few reasons:

    1. Illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers $115 billion per year. This amounts to in round figures $900 per household.
    2. Illegal alien women gave birth ? in round figures ? to nearly 300,000 infants in 2014, costing nearly $2.5 billion. Thus, two years without illegals giving birth on U.S. soil would alone pay in full the estimated $5 billion cost of the barrier.
    3. In 2015 illegal aliens cost the state of California alone $30B ? 18 percent of the Golden State’s $171B budget.
    4. Nationwide, 63 percent ? five out of eight ? illegal aliens receive at least one form of public welfare subsidy.
    5. Nationwide, 80 percent of the opioid fentanyl (used in medical procedures) is smuggled across the Mexican border.
    6. More than 60,000 illegals ? each month? cross our Mexican border into California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. This is nearly 750,000 per year. Many of these are illegals were previously deported multiple times; many of them are violent criminals convicted of serious felonies. They keep trying until they succeed, and then disappear into America’s vast interior.

    1. Nope. There have been months where 60k border crossers were apprehended. Not crossed and made it to the vast interior.

      1. They crossed, and then were apprehended. That’s just the ones who were caught. Most aren’t.

        1. Most aren’t
          Unsupported speculative claptrap.

          And you cite that 60K because it’s a real number, even if as it’s pointed out by Per Son and even your own speculative fantasies that it’s not a relevant one.

          Unbelievably lame attempt at propaganda.

          1. Man, you are so delusional. The number of people apprehended crossing the border illegally isn’t relevant? You’ve lost it.

            1. You tried to use that number as if it were the number of illegals actually crossing the border, and somehow relate that number to how many are disappearing into America’s vast interior.

              Sorry dude, that’s bullshit.

              1. Well, it’s pretty obviously related, and it’s perhaps the most concrete verified figure we have that is related. If you have some other relevant facts or estimated figures to offer, that would be fine.

    2. Listing disputed facts does not make them less in dispute. Whether illegals are a net cost is very much unclear. And illegal’s children? We call those Americans, so I don’t know why those costs matter.

      The fact that you’re digging to Fentanyl is pretty telling about drugs and the border, no?

      And Per Son noted how your #6 is just a lie.

      1. All these facts are basically indisputable, sorry.

        1. Nothing says correct like being too sure of your facts to engage.

          1. Sorry, you can make as many posts as you want hysterically labeling any fact you don’t like as a lie, without evidence. That seems to be the only thing you do any more. And then complain about others not “engaging” — funny!

            What you can’t do, though, is refute any of these facts I’ve listed. Which by the way is just a very small partial list of relevant facts. Very funny how you try to minimize by saying “digging” to fentanyl- only the most deadly drug in America according to the CDC. By the way did you know that 95% of heroin comes across the southern border?

            1. Whether illegals are a net cost is very much unclear.
              And illegal’s children? We call those Americans, so I don’t know why those costs matter.

              Don’t try and pretend I’m just blustering. I brought substance, you brought dismissive condescension.

              I’ve heard the Admin trying to argue heroin and cocaine except they were shot down because the State Department said those come by in airplanes. Hence your need to go digging. It’s textbook cherrypicking.

              1. I don’t like the illegal alien situation. I don’t like how we exploit them and their fear to treat them like peasants working well below what we consider the minimum standards for workers.

                This demonizing of them is authoritarian populism, with the wall as proxy. And it contains the usual levels of bullshit you get whenever a wanna be dictators and their followers gives it a try.

                The mask is off with this shutdown and emergency measures and all Trump’s antics now that he has just a hint of resistance from Congress. As predicted even by some on this blog.

                1. No, this isn’t demonizing, and it’s not authoritarian populism. It’s just sound immigration policy, actually looking at the numbers and weighing costs and benefits.

                  And of course, that’s why it’s opposed so vehemently. Close public scrutiny of the real numbers and costs and benefits of immigration policies is the very last thing that our political and media establishments want.

              2. Ok, sure- buried among your nonsequiturs and baseless accusations of lying was a very remote semblance of a talking point.

                “Whether illegals are a net cost is very much unclear” – Not really. If you want to look at GDP and multinational corporate profits and so on, and pretend that every dollar there is just as important as middle and working class wages for the vast majority of Americans, then sure.

        2. “indisputable”

          That word means something different from what you seem to think it means. It doesn’t mean “things I believe are true, and don’t want to hear differently”.

  32. ” From the founding onward, the American constitutional tradition has profoundly opposed the president’s use of the military to enforce domestic law. A key provision, rooted in an 1878 statute and added to the law in 1956, declares that whoever “willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force” to execute a law domestically “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years” ? except when “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress….””

    You realize this is complete nonsense, right?

    For one thing, the very first President rode out at the head of a regular military force in order to enforce taxation laws. So all that “from the founding onward” stuff is total garbage. It’s ahistoric nonsense.

    Second, that 1878 statute was enacted because the Democrat-dominated Congress decided to protect former slave states from the Federal government actually enforcing laws intended to protect the civil rights of black people. And now it’s held up as some kind of noble idea?

    You should be embarrassed.

  33. Rampant illegal border crossings are obviously a matter of national security and defense, not just “domestic law.”

    You don’t have to wait until there’s an actual army invading the country for that to be true. Just the fact that 3/4 of a million people stroll across the border illegally every year is a national security problem.

    1. Obviously. And rampant, although decreasing steadily.

      Preemtive strikes have served us so well in the past.

      Why even ask Congress for permission – it’s national security, baby! Anything goes!

      1. I’m not sure about the use of emergency powers. Mostly, I just wish our leaders cared about doing the right thing.

        1. Everyone wants our leaders to do the right thing, we all disagree about what that is. Democracy is messy. Which is why Trump and many on this here blog kinda wants to abrogate it.

          1. You are wrong. Not everyone wants our leaders to do the right thing by the American people. In fact, the primary motivation at the donor class level is to do precisely the opposite of that: to keep wages low.

            Beyond that, sure, some people are just uninformed and mistaken. But mostly they just hate Trump, and would rather see America fail to bring down Trump, as we’ve seen them pining for various things including: an economic crash and recession, raised nuclear threats, failed peace talks with North Korea, failed trade negotiations, etc. to bring down Trump. So what’s right by Americans is not remotely part of the calculus for these people.

            1. You’re right and objective, and everyone else is either wrong or bad faith elites. (But not Trump – he’s in good faith!)

              Speculative telepathy about why those you disagree with are irrational is the last refuge of the partisan. It allows you not to engage, and just back in how right you are. It’s masturbatory, only it eats into your essence since it allows you to disregard challenges to your ideology.

              All those disastrous things you believe people are pining for? For the most part those sound more like predictions, no one wants those things to happen. Just like when everyone was predicting Obama would wreck our economy or take over America with his civilian army or whatever other BS was about.

              1. Well, when you have two contradictory truth claims, only one of them can be right. That’s simple logic. So, yes, one side is right and the other is wrong, or they’re both wrong, or they’re not actually contradictory. In this case, given the available information, the only reasonable conclusion is that the most beneficial thing for Americans is to build a wall and end illegal immigration with a few simple fixes. Sorry if reality & logic is a bit too black and white for your tastes.

                “For the most part those sound more like predictions” Yes, there are predictions, but I’m expressly not talking about that. You may be uninformed about instances such as Bill Maher actively hoping for and desiring economic and other disasters in order to bring down Trump. Sorry, but this is a real thing and there are many examples to cite. Donor-level support for mass immigration to keep wages down is also a real thing. I’m more than willing to assume the good faith of the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans who might disagree on anything, so long as you’ll acknowledge there is also substantial amounts of bad faith and conflicting interests among the very small category of influential people in the media & politics & donors/special interest lobbies.

                1. ” the only reasonable conclusion is that the most beneficial thing for Americans is to build a wall and end illegal immigration with a few simple fixes.”

                  If you think it’s reasonable that illegal immigration could be ended with “a few simple fixes”, logic is not your forte.

                  An honest plan to decrease illegal immigration starts with one of two things: A blanket amnesty that makes the term “illegal immigration” a non-entity, or raising the cap on the number of people who can hear deportation cases, and follows then with hiring announcements and appropriations for training the new hearings officers. Any plan that starts with anything else is just a waste of time and likely money.

                2. It is empty and boring to just post ‘my side is right and the other side is wrong.’

                  Sorry if reality & logic is a bit too black and white for your tastes.
                  Speaking of empty and boring. What is this, fourth grade?

                  Citing Bill Maher as a prototypical liberal is a great sign you’re not dealing with a full understanding of the other side.
                  One side’s donors are for low labor costs via easy immigration, and it’s not the Dems.

                  1. I think we actually mostly agree here. Immigration policy has pronounced effects on the distribution of wealth among Americans. There are differences between admitting 250,000; 500,000; 1MM; 1.5MM; 3MM; 6MM and so on number of immigrants annually. There are also differences depending on the skills, abilities, and backgrounds of the individuals composing these groups of aliens.

                    So, it would seem that a policy which is fairly neutral as to its distributional effects on American citizens would be most fair and also most politically preferred. Currently, Borjas and others have calculated that immigration is a wash as to the net wealth gain to Americans when discounting for taxpayer burdens. This means that while the benefits of immigration accrue to a relatively small group, the burdens fall to the taxpayer. This is a familiar pattern referred to as privatized gains, socialized losses.

                    But the much more significant economic effect that remains is $500 billion in annual redistribution of wealth among Americans as a result of immigration (generally, from poorer Americans to very rich Americans). So, the reality is a very unfair and skewed policy preference by the U.S. government and its politicians and donors, which is entirely at odds with the policy preference of the American people.

            2. “Beyond that, sure, some people are just uninformed and mistaken. But mostly they just hate Trump, and would rather see America fail to bring down Trump, as we’ve seen them pining for various things including: an economic crash and recession, raised nuclear threats, failed peace talks with North Korea, failed trade negotiations, etc. to bring down Trump. So what’s right by Americans is not remotely part of the calculus for these people.”

              This paragraph is equally true if you replace “Trump” with “Obama”.

    2. We already have an invading army at our gates. What else do you think the caravans are? And they are organized by Soros paid organizations. Hmmm….makes one wonder, right?

  34. Politicians:

    “Trump’s wall is a joke, walls don’t even work. And they’re immoral

    Also, we already built 654 miles of barriers, 1/3 of the border. Yeah, that was different.”

    How do they expect anyone to take them seriously?

    1. Because a case-by-case wall based on operational requirements is not the same as a huge monument to Trump’s partisanship and ego.

      The case for a requirement here is scare stories and calling illegals invaders. Which is textbook fascistic outgroup targeting, not actually operational analysis.

      1. Huge monument? We are talking about $5 billion, a drop in the bucket to shore up existing barriers and build a small amount of new lengths.

        Oh, right, fascism. Ok buddy. *pats you on head*

        1. It is huge.

          And calling illegal immigrants invaders sure has some echoes of some very bad men.

          1. So does the President ignoring Congress. That’s bad news, and you know it.

            1. It’s only bad when THEIR guy does it. When OUR guy does it, it’s peachy keen.

            2. I’m sure if Obongodrums was doing something similar the Left would be all for it…much like they were for the hundreds of times he issued unconstitutional executive orders….but we all know that the Left plays by a different rule book.

        2. It wouldn’t be surprising if building the entire wall costs well over $100 billion.

          Trump wants the wall so bad that it wouldn’t be surprising if he agreed to enormous pet projects for the Democrats in order to get his pet project. The cost of the wall then becomes what it cost to build and maintain the wall as well as the cost of any programs the Democrats get in order to agree to the wall.

  35. “federal law actually forbids the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement within the United States”

    Our military forces have been overseas for so long that some people, such as Ilya Somin, have apparently forgotten that enforcing a border is NOT “domestic law enforcement”, in fact, defending the borders of one’s own nation is actually the prime reason the armed forces exist in the first place!

  36. Those of you pushing for this wall should still react with alarm at this method of clearing political obstacles. This is not something that will be used once for the thing you want and then shelved. Eventually a Democrat will be in office – and they will turn the ratchet tighter. Even if you’re young you’ve lived through Clinton, Bush, and Obama – not a single one of those Presidents undid or repudiated anything done by their predecessors once in office and every single one of them doubled down on their predecessors policies.

    1. The Democrats will do what they want regardless.

  37. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you …….

    http://www.geosalary.com

  38. I shudder to think of the gun grabbers declaring a national emergency in order to suspend our rights and confiscate everyone’s firearms.

    1. You probably wouldn’t know the difference between a cow and a camel would you?

      1. What kind of nonsense response is that?

  39. If we really wanted to reduce the number of immigrants coming here to get Federal money, we could do so simply by ending the practice of giving government benefits to non-US citizens. It wouldn’t do much to slow down those coming here to work hard and make a better life for them and their family (the ones we could actually use), but it would make staying in Mexico a whole lot more attractive to those who just want to get government money from us.

    1. I think you were too subtle in your sarcasm. As you likely know, undocumented residents (aka: illegal immigrants) can’t get most Federal benefits (there are a few exceptions but by and large, these benefits are for legal residents only.) Which means your plan is already in place and we’re only getting the ones willing to work hard and be exploited by American employers who make bank by paying them illegally low wages in unhealthy working conditions.

      [Benefits]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.