Donald Trump

Trump's Emergency Action on the Border Wall Stinks All the Way Down

There is no good justification for what the president is doing. Republicans and conservatives need to call him out on it.

|

President Trump has just announced he is invoking national-emergency powers to fund building of a wall on the Southern border. In a rambling talk at the White House, he cited repeatedly "virtual invasion" of the country by drugs and people as the reason to do this.

When he first became president, there was a lot of talk about not "normalizing" his actions and attitudes. As Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) notes, those concerns now extend to the president's expected declaration of a national emergency to facilitate building a wall along the Southern border:

Paul is protesting both the budget deal that was passed yesterday and the president's declaration of a national emergency, and his protest needs to repeated again and again. (For more background on the history of national emergencies, read Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Joe Seyton.)

Polaris/Newscom

It also needs to repeated again and again that there is no national "emergency" on the border, and certainly none that requires Trump to route around Congress. The president's partisans can come up with arguments that this is all just politics as usual, but his behavior is an affront to beliefs in rational discourse and limited government.

Trump's discourse about what's happening on the border is completely unsupported by facts. Border apphrehensions are one-quarter of what they were in 2000; illegal drugs and asylum seekers mostly enter the country through ports of entry, not vast stretches of empty, unguarded land; his claims about epidemic human trafficking are made up out of thin air; and places such as El Paso show that walls don't lead to reductions in crime in border cities (which are remarkably safe). The president and his champions are fear-mongering as a way of trying to shut down rational debate.

In this, they have been helped by many Democrats and moderate Republicans who insist the key issue is "border security" rather than facilitating people's ability to migrate peacefully and legally.

Regardless of how the inevitable court cases play out, using national emergency powers for something like this is exactly the sort of abuse of executive authority that used to make conservatives go bananas. (Remember all the anger at Barack Obama over his immigration orders?) It stinks all the way down, too: Some of the money that will be rerouted to pay for the wall will come from asset forfeiture, much of which has simply been stolen from people haven't even been charged with crimes. Beyond trying to stop people from entering the country, Trump repeatedly stressed a major reason for the wall is to perpetuate the war on drugs, which is a failure from every reasonable perspective.

It's good to see Rand Paul call out his own party's leader for failing to adhere to principles more important than partisanship or momentary political advantage. It will be better yet to see large number of Republicans and conservatives doing this. The failure to do so won't "normalize" Trump but it will work to normalize presidential overreach.

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.

336 responses to “Trump's Emergency Action on the Border Wall Stinks All the Way Down

  1. Congress won’t LET him do what he WANTS, so he MUST take matters into his own hands – it’s the ONLY way to CLOSE our borders and STOP the flow of guns, drugs, and violence that are RUINING this once great nation!

    1. Amen! And now we now how the ‘Green New Deal’ will be rammed down our throats eventually also…assuming he’s ultimately successful.

        1. We should be thankful that our leader is building a Great Wall of America… I’m only surprised that he said nothing about the Trolls flooding our country, rank criminals who have to be stopped from crossing the digital line… Law enforcement needs billions to handle what’s happening through the Internet, as clearly seen in our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case, documented at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          Just that one case must have cost around a million taxpayer dollars. At least, now that we finally have a truly unpresidented emergency, our leader can watch more closely over America’s electronic traffic, so we can reduce the numbers of anyone crossing the lines separating appropriate speech from illegally twisting words to stir up controversy.

          1. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

            c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k —->> http://www.Aprocoin.com

        2. Right – Like DACA (the very cause of the problem) wasn’t rammed down our throats 5-years ago. Just go on and keep pretending that the left will “follow the rules” because the right does. Just go on pretending that the left hasn’t become an Invading Terrorist group who wants to turn our U.S. Republic into a Democratic Revolution by invading the governmental powers and dismissing the Constitution.

          Pretending — That’s all it is.

      1. I’ve got news for all of you. The democrats were ramming their unconstitutional shit down our throats just fine before Trump, and are going to try it again no matter what he does or doesn’t do now.

        Plus the Green Deal and the border situation are hardly analogous.

        1. If Trump is successful, they won’t even have to try.

    2. His idiot “wall” won’t do anything to curb the flow of illegals and drugs into this country.

      1. You lost. Get over it.

        1. Tulpa advocates for dictatorship!

          1. A judge on California literally said Trump couldnt rescind an executive order made by Obama. Where exactly is this dictatorship odiots keep telling about?

            1. I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now so what the hell is your point?

      2. Sure it will. Otherwise, why the opposition?

        If I recall correctly, Caesar built a wall to keep the Helvetian illegal immigrants out, and it sure worked then.

        Anyway, we need more of our drugs to be grown and cooked up in the USA. The Mexicans are done using NAFTA to take advantage of our illegal drug trade. Jobs! MAGA!

        1. “If I recall correctly, Caesar built a wall to keep the Helvetian illegal immigrants out, and it sure worked then.”

          Yea, I mean, technology and the world hasn’t really changed that much since then.

          1. But I’m all in favor of chefin up some bathtub meth.

      3. The human trafficking Trump kept emphasizing is a myth as Reason has pointed out on many occasions. That being the case, one has to wonder how much else of Trumps paranoia is real.

        1. Oh, Reason pointed it out. Well then, it must be gospel.

          [Laugh]

      4. Than why not build it? Government always waste money so this is a drop in the bucket.

    3. I agree, and here’s the problems with Welch’s article.

      First Congress gave the president authority to declare emergencies, and the powers he gets when he does. So why blame Trump when it’s Congress that gave away their power?

      Second, if Welch supports open borders, then he should also tell us why we should provide welfare to anyone who crosses the border, when they’ve paid no taxes yet. That’s an emergency affecting my wallet. If he has prefaced this with “If we abolished federal welfare and redistribution first, then….” I’d be OK with his position.

      Third, why should people be free to cross our border, unlike products that must pay a tariff tax?

      Fourth, how is the government protecting me and my liberties by allowing criminals to enter the US?

      The reality is the establishment wants more people to tax, they don’t want to follow the laws they’ve written, and prefer to allow the government to not enforce the law for the benefit of some, but not all.

      I say all this, as someone whose brother was killed by an illegal alien breaking the law. It is an emergency when any illegal harms a citizen, and I don’t care if they are overall less likely to commit crimes than citizens. How many times has a politician said “One death is one too many.”?

      1. MoreFreedom gets it.

      2. Very good comment, MoreFreedom. Thank you.

        1. “MoreFreedom gets it.” No he doesn’t. He doesn’t even know who wrote the article.

          1. All open border idiots merge together.

      3. Sorry for your loss.
        I agree with welfare for those who deserve it but not to illegal immigrants. Other than that I don;t agree much with you.
        I’m not seeing much in the way of credible statistics to support Trump.

        1. I’ll make it simple. We have a highly porous border with Mexico. Millions of people are here illegally as a direct result of that. Along with cartel and other criminal problems that include heinous activities such as human trafficking. A border barrier system, which most people don’t appear to understand, is a viable option to help fix the problem.

          That isn’t complicated, and I’m not sure what statistics don’t support the case for a wall. I understand it’s not the plan some people would like, but there is nothing illegitimate about it.

        2. Of course, illegal immigrants don’t qualify for federal welfare programs anyway so that point is redundant.

          1. And somehow the left managed to push a bill with $21B to cuddle/subsidize them and only $1B for security. Pelosi has already publicly stated the lefts stance on the bill, “Humanitarian” (i.e. Humane) funding is what they want to call it and it’s nothing short of $21B to encourage MORE invasion.

          2. Thank goodness for that, since there’s little to no welfare fraud in this country…
            And little to no ID theft…

      4. > I don’t care if they are overall less likely to commit crimes than citizens.

        They’re not. The open borders crowd arrives at that falsehood by conflating legal immigrants with illegal aliens. Legal immigrants work hard to become citizens and don’t want to screw that up. So they commit fewer crimes than citizens. Illegal aliens (they’re not immigrants) commit far more crimes per person than US citizens. The legal ones bring the average down.

        The left lives in its ideology. When reality conflicts with that (almost always), it’s reality that has to go.

        1. “commit fewer crimes than citizens” — I cannot even find where this is coming from unless they’re using the Criminal head-count without taking into consideration the immigrant-to-population mak-up ratio.

          From all the sources I query White Natives run the lowest crime rate of all other categories. Although it seems a lot of data just wasn’t collected since UCR/NCVS threw Hispanics in as “white”.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Race_and_ crime_in_the_ United_States

          I’ll say one thing – locally in my area (rural area) – Immigrants from a hip-bounced number would represent just about 98% of ALL break-ins and robberies around here and a good 70% of violent crime.

          That said, I also personally know a Hispanic family that is better than most white folk. Every person no matter their origin is different BUT statistically speaking around here the is no debate most criminal activity comes from the outside/immigrants.

          1. “White Natives”

            Doesn’t exist. Sorry Kemosabe.

    4. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour.
      visit this site right here……..>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

    5. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

      So I started….>>>>>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  2. Obama Wishes Washington Really Was Like ‘House of Cards’

    “I wish things were that ruthlessly efficient,” Obama said in his first public remarks on the show. “It’s true. It’s like Kevin Spacey, man this guy’s getting a lot of stuff done.”

    Oh, the irony.

    1. Kevin spacey? The guy accused of raping people?

      1. He was doing research for his role as a politician.

    2. He thinks he’s being cute but Spacey’s character was a psychopath. That snivelling fuck Trudeau said as much when he said he admired China’s authoritarianism because they can do things quickly.

      What proof do people need that these morons are totalitarians at heart?

      Ah how virtues of the republic are long gone.

    3. “I wish I could kill my enemies, and a random dog too”

  3. What Trump is doing is wrong and inappropriate–regardless of whether it’s legal–and I call him out on it.

    If there are some law or laws that allows the president to do this, then Congress should take the necessary steps to reclaim their constitutional authority over such matters.

    What Trump is doing on this is also wrong and inappropriate regardless of whether it’s popular.

    1. Congress should take the necessary steps to reclaim their constitutional authority

      “There you go again….”

      1. Congress shouldn’t be lobbying AGAINST the U.S. Constitution and promoting SOCIALISM!

    2. One of Trump’s and the Federal Government’s primary duties is to protect our borders. If Congress won’t give the President the money needed to build a wall, which has the backing of those who risk their lives every day patrolling it, the Border Patrol, then he has every right to declare an emergency and build it. While no wall will prevent all illegal crossings, it will definitely slow down the rate.

      1. If Trump reprogramed the money to build an airfield for CPB planes to land, would anyone give a shit? Hell no. They only are angry about this because they don’t want the wall and need an excuse to object to it.

        1. I’ll break it down further. They’re angry because this is a win for Trump and they lose one of their favorite talking points.

          1. I’ll break it down even further. They’re angry because it’s a waste of money that accomplishes nothing except enrich a few border-wall-contractors. They want the government to waste money in a way that shows up in more people’s wallets.

            Here’s a helpful guide: Republicans want to take YOUR money and give it to people who have more money that you do (did). Democrats want to take YOUR money and give it to people who have less money than you do (did).

            Meanwhile, airplane tickets from Mexican cities to Vancouver and Toronto are going to get more expensive.


            1. I’ll break it down even further. They’re angry because it’s a waste of money that accomplishes nothing except enrich a few border-wall-contractors.

              Excuse us all while we break down into uncontrollable fits of laughter. Both parties give literally no fucks about spending, guy. None at all. Maybe a handful of Republicans give a fuck about spending, but that’s maybe five reps, tops.

            2. > I’ll break it down even further. They’re angry because it’s a waste of money that accomplishes nothing except enrich a few border-wall-contractors.

              Wrong. The Democrats are angry because they’ve moved so far to the left, they’ve lost the working people in this country. They’ve tarred them as racists and other horseshit perjoratives. Now, they need as many illegals as possible to give them a poverty class who will vote for big government. And the border has to stay open because 2nd and 3rd generation Latinos aren’t reliable democrat voters.

              In anticipation of some half-wit telling me illegals can’t vote, therefore my point is incorrect, the Democrats have every intention of giving the vote to them as soon as possible. I’m not convinced it isn’t already happening in California and other basket case blue states.

              Open borders libertarians seem oblivious to the rather obvious fact that an open border will ensure libertarians never get elected from now until the end of time.

            3. Last I saw Republicans gave tax breaks so they want you to keep more of your money.

              Yeah a waste of money, not like it’s a high speed rail that goes no-where or studying the 33 types of gender. It’s not even a .1 % of the budget. It’s like a rounding error.

              What do airplane tickets have to do with anything?

      2. Congress has the power both to declare war and the power of the purse. Trump running around that, regardless of whether it’s being done legally, is wrong.

        I happen to support both securing the border and wide open legal immigration, but I’m not willing to pretend that it’s appropriate for the president to run roughshod over the division of powers to do it–regardless of whether he’s doing it legally.

        I condemned Obama when he did such things I was against, and I’ll condemn Trump for doing the same thing–even if he’s doing it for something that I support.

        1. I agree with you, in principle, Ken Shultz. However, when it’s clear that Congress is unwilling to enforce, over many decades, immigration laws that they themselves passed, the President has been granted the power to declare an emergency and begin enforcing them as he believes necessary. I personally want him to build the wall and don’t give a damn how it gets built or who pays for it.

          1. ” the President has been granted the power to declare an emergency and begin enforcing them as he believes necessary.”

            We’ll see. Pretty sure the supreme court will shoot this down as an overreach of executive power. If not, the gloves are off and God help us all.

            “I personally want him to build the wall and don’t give a damn how it gets built or who pays for it.”

            That’s because you’re an idiot.

          2. “the President has been granted the power to declare an emergency and begin enforcing them as he believes necessary.”

            Except he all but got on national TV, during his announcement of the national emergency, and went on to describe how it actually isn’t an emergency and he, “didn’t need to” declare it…his words. This guy is supposed to be able to sell a ketchup popsicle to a woman in white gloves. I think he could talk a pan handler out of taking a hundo from him at this point honestly. A middle school debate team could have given him a run for his money with that bumbling self-contradictory press conference.

            “I personally want him to build the wall and don’t give a damn how it gets built or who pays for it.”

            The democrats want to stomp their feet and get their way, too. I suppose when they get power back you will support their chosen authoritarian instituting DACA 2.0, and declaring CO2 levels a national emergency and danger to public health to fund their bullshit green deal of the month.

            1. I agree. It was a bizarre press conference. I’m not even sure he even believed the argument he was advancing. It like he almost knew he was stepping on his dick…..and then did it anyway.

      3. Where is that in the Constitution?

        1. Some form of “national defense” might be the most oft used phrase in the entire constitution

          1. Right, those Mexicans that want to come here to cut your lawn are a crafty bunch.

            1. Mcgoo, you have never made an intelligent comment.
              Here, you go non-sequiter straight into irrelevant stereotype.
              Full progressive.
              May your life end before the end of spring.

              1. Bwahahahaha…. Fuck off.

                1. Great demonstration of intellect, mcgoo.
                  You’ve really hit your peak.

      4. “If Congress won’t give the President the money needed to build a wall, which has the backing of those who risk their lives every day patrolling it, the Border Patrol, then he has every right to declare an emergency and build it.”

        Legislatures have been withholding funds as a way to influence the executive since before the American Revolution. The crown gave legislatures the authority over finance–even to help keep their own royal governors in line.

        Does the term “No taxation without representation” mean nothing to you? Democracy has its proper place, and declaring war, setting the rules of naturalization, and deciding what to spend money and what not to spend money on are all among them.

        That is true regardless of whether you like what the president is doing, and it is true regardless of why he’s doing it. If you imagine that Congress’ appropriate role in the separation of powers should only be respected so long as they agree with the president, then why not just argue against the separation of powers?

    3. Article IV, Section 4
      “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”

      The Constitution obligates the federal government to prevent invasion.

      They have to go back.

    4. Ken I have to disagree. If we wait around for congress to fix this sort of thing nothing will get solved. The border is an ongoing problem and should be dealt with before we end up with some chamber of congress RINO or a progressive.

      1. Now just replace ‘border’ with any left buzzword du jour and you might get some idea of what road you are walking down…….but probably not.

      2. “If we wait around for congress to fix this sort of thing nothing will get solved.”

        If nothing is being “solved”, isn’t it because that’s the way congress wants it to be?

        Make an issue of this and elect a different House. There’s another election in less than two years.

        Using loaded terms like “invasion” doesn’t change the fact that we’re under no more of a security threat now than we’ve been over last 40 years. The separation of powers remains what it is regardless of whether we like what congress is doing with its legitimate powers to declare war, spend (or not spend), and set the rules of naturalization. If you don’t like what congress is doing, persuade your fellow Americans to elect a different congress.

        1. “Loaded terms like “invasion””

          People forcing entry into a territory contrary to the laws, regulations, and wishes prescribed for accessing that territory is absolutely an invasion.
          Fuck off with that “loaded term” bullshit.

  4. National emergencies are declared every other week. When the topic isn’t controversial, no one seems to notice.

    1. That’s not true. The problem is a corruption of the definition of “national emergency”.

      1. To some degree yes. But at the same time, the emergency is only half of the equation. The other half is the authority to reprogram the funds. He could have the authority to reprogram the funds under some other law. There is nothing special about the emergency. And the emergency law doesn’t necessarily have to give him the authority. It does but that could be changed.

  5. By all means, let’s import more illegals and give them voting rights so they can elect more leaders like AOC to save us from our own greed and incompetence.

    1. Remember this post in 3 years when you get a Climate Change Emergency Declaration rammed up your ass.

      1. Wow, I’m impressed that you actually think the world will last another 3 years. Isn’t climate change supposed to have us all dead by then?

      2. Hell, he can’t remember the stink from his last bowel movement, whether it was in or out; you expect him to remember something three years later?

        1. What the fuck are you two talking about? I don’t think climate change is a crisis. I think the world is going to last for thousands of years.

          The point is your guy is opening the door to the next Dem president doing something like this on climate change. Or healthcare. Hell, maybe both.

          Of course, then you’ll be outraged, which won’t matter at all.

          1. The fact that your comment went over his head shows how shallow these Trump humpers are. Disagree with them on anything and they immediately assume that you’re an AOC supporter who embraces Sharia Law.

            1. … and wants to take all their gunz away.

          2. That you think democrats give a single fuck about the constitution is hilarious. They think that the world’s going to end in a decade unless we destroy our economy.

            But sure, blame Trump for the absurd level of fear and ignorance spouted by democrats

          3. > The point is your guy is opening the door to the next Dem president doing something like this on climate change. Or healthcare. Hell, maybe both.

            As if the Democrats need any doors opened to consider doing that. Building a relatively cheap wall is not really infringing on any American’s rights, as far as I’m concerned. Taking guns away or redistributing trillions based on a climate change hoax absolutely would be an infringement.

            1. Democrats ALREADY opened that door with DACA

              1. No they didn’t. An executive order does not have nearly the powers of emergency actions…..although they are also circumventions of checks and balances and terrible.

          4. How did trump open a door that has already been open for decades?

            There honestly seems to be a lack of ignorance here.

            1. Not sure how lot got turned into lack… thanks autocorrect

              1. It was a freudian slip, but nice recovery.

      3. Bevis, they will do it anyway. Do you really think once they’re back in office that they give two fucks what Trump does or doesn’t do right now? Do you think if he takes ‘the high road’ that it will curtail them from pulling their green deal bullshit?

        Seven years before Trump they rammed Obamacare down our throats. I promise you that rules and lrinciples mean nothing to these people.

        1. They are going to throw gas on the dumpster fire that is the democratic agenda and dirty political tricks. The fire was going to be there, but they are filling up on fuel.

          Almost guaranteed steps they will be taking in response to recent R tactics:

          – Pulling a reverse Merrick Garland (when they have the power to do so in the Senate) as they want blood for that, but honestly, I bet they up the ante and go further
          – Using national emergencies for their bad legislative ideas they can’t get to pass
          – Stepping up the “nuclear option”…which D’s started with lower judges, and R’s retaliated with supreme court. Trump has repeatedly asked for a repeal of the filibuster for legislation so he can pass things with a slim majority, I wouldn’t put that past the D’s to actually go through with that in an attempt to pass some expensive boondoggle the public doesn’t want (even worse than the last one).

          The dangerous extreme liberals (who clamor for the govt to control everything) will get power at some point, and they will be waiting to swing the pendulum further for every step captain pants-shitter takes. A wall that he can’t even defend as a national emergency in his own speech announcing the emergency, will not prove to be worth it.

          1. All of that was going to happen no matter what.
            Do you honestly think that the progressive reaction to Trump was anything but fanatical totalitarians going supernova because they’d thought they were so close to total control with Obama, and were shown that they didn’t already have it locked up?
            THEY TRIED TO PULL OFF A FUCKING COUP.
            Read that again.
            THEY TRIED, AND ARE STILL TRYING, TO PULL OFF A COUP TO TOPPLE THE RIGHTFULLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT.
            But yes, THIS is going to be the decisive feul they wouldn’t have otherwise had…

      4. “Remember this post in 3 years when you get a Climate Change Emergency Declaration rammed up your ass”.

        I remember 6 years ago when gun control was declared an “Emergency” by Governor Cuomo and the blatantly unconstitutional NY SAFE Act was rammed thru at 3AM w/o the required 3 day discussion.

      5. We already got DACA “rammed up our ass” by executive over-reach and I assure you Pres. Trump TODAY filing for national emergency had absolutely NO effect on that PAST-TENSE and VERY root cause of the reason for the “national emergency” over-reach today.

        1. So, since Obozo did it, El Trumpo can do it better and take even more power? There’s only one way a situation like this ends and it’s not good for my country. But I’m increasingly believing that’s your goal. Eh, comrade?

  6. I thought that stink was from the DC swamp.

    1. The swamp!

      One thing to learn from this: Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats don’t give a shit about the Dreamers.

      Pelosi flushed the Dreamers down the toilet when she spurned Trump’s offer to give them a three year reprieve. Pelosi doesn’t seem to have gotten anything for them in negotiations to avoid another shut down, and the Democrats don’t even seem to have bothered to ask for more.

      Anyone who thinks that the Democrats care about illegal immigrants and Dreamers at this point is making a fool of themselves. Trump may care more about the Dreamers than the Democrats.

      1. “Pelosi flushed the Dreamers down the toilet when she spurned Trump’s offer to give them a three year reprieve.”

        They won’t get deported. The line for deportation hearings is already two years long, so by the time the DREAMers come up for deportation, someone else will be President.

        1. > by the time the DREAMers come up for deportation, someone else will be President

          You assume Trump’s desire to enforce out EXISTING immigration laws is a one-off. Given the unpopularity of open borders, key Republicans might start to tar the Democrats with it, much in the same way the Democrats use race.

          The longer the border stays open, the angrier people get. Eventually it’ll end in violence. Europe might end up like Rwanda if migrant rapes and violence continue. They may not have guns like we do, but Rwanda was carried out with machetes.

        2. A three year reprieve for the Dreamers is better than nothing for the Dreamers, and what Pelosi got them for the Dreamers is absolutely nothing.

          She wasn’t even trying to brag about having done something for them when she hadn’t because she doesn’t give a shit about them–or any other immigrants.

          1. P.S. If the line for a court date is two years long, and the Dreamer in question was given a court date two years ago, then their hearing is coming up today.

            If Trump had given them a three year reprieve, it would make a big difference to any Dreamer who’s about to be ordered out of the country over the next three years.

  7. not like this is breaking new ground or redefining national or emergency.

  8. Dopehat as he occasionally reminds people is a 1st Amendment lawyer. He is not a government fiscal lawyer. So, like with most things, he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.

    Whatever Trump is doing, it is not circumventing Congress in any meanginful way. If Congress as a body wants to reject his declaration or his reprograming of DOD Construction funds, they can. It just takes a majority vote by both houses within 15 days of the notification. They don’t need Trump’s signature. They just need to pass a resolution that says “no this isn’t an emergency or no you can’t reprogram those funds” and that is it. Trump can’t do it.

    So, it is hard to see how Trump is circumventing Congress when Congress is free to stop him by a majority vote but is choosing not to do so.

    And lets not forget that Dopehat and Gillespie were totally supportive of Obama enacting DACA. So, when they claim they are so worried about the power of the President to go around Congress they are as they often are lying. Neither Dopehate nor Gillespie give a flying fuck about Presidential overreach. If they did, they would have had a problem with DACA. They just want to get their way and will make any argument that is convient to that cause.

    1. “Dopehat as he occasionally reminds people is a 1st Amendment lawyer. He is not a government fiscal lawyer. So, like with most things, he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.”

      He didn’t make a legal argument. He asked for an explanation of how it could be considered “conservative”. And he’s right, there’s no way that this action can be considered conservative.

      1. no person believes T is a conservative? if conservative is a thing anymore

        1. No it isn’t. Conservative died when it came to mean open borders and endlesss wars in the name of world peace.

      2. It is “conservative” because defending the border is a core national defense function. So using DOD construction funds to secure the border is hardly out of left field.

        Beyond that, Dopehat thought DACA was legal. So, however “conservative” this is, it is a hell of a lot more conservative than that. Given that Dopehat was totally okay with Obama unilaterally refusing to enforce entire sections of the federal code, he can go fuck himself if he thinks anyone should give a shit about his newly discovered concern about limited Presidential power. He doesn’t give a flying fuck about anything other than gettting his way.

        1. “It is “conservative” because defending the border is a core national defense function.”

          So if he suspended habeas corpus within, say, 50 miles of the border and announced that anyone caught in that zone was subject to indefinite imprisonment, would that be conservative? If people caught crossing the border were summarily executed, would that be conservative? Defending the border no matter the process is conservative?

          1. “Defending the border no matter the process”

            John said that? Was it in another post somewhere else? Can I have a link?

            1. A good chunk of the funds he’s repurposing are forfeiture funds. So conservatives are cool with civil asset forfeiture now?

              1. So he didn’t say it. Got it.

          2. You know Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus. Sp it is kind of a conservative thing.

            But seeing as how declaring emergency actions is pretty common at this point, it too is considered a normal procedure.

            Why are so many people acting like this action has never been done before?

          3. If if if….Trump’s not suspending habeas corpus.

    2. Mr Consistency here, redefining terms and words as he needs to.

      1. Where am I redefining words? I just explained to you the law and how it works. Where have I defined any term I just used any differently than I am here?

        1. Alphabet asshole rants and raves John. Just ignore him.

    3. “And lets not forget that Dopehat and Gillespie were totally supportive of Obama enacting DACA. So, when they claim they are so worried about the power of the President to go around Congress they are as they often are lying.”

      DACA was simple recognition of a fact: Congress didn’t authorize the President to deport all the illegals. Since everyone gets a hearing before they can be deported, and the number of hearings is effectively capped, Congress authorized the President to deport some, but not all, of the illegals present in the country. Every President since Reagan used to the same approach… recent arrivals, illegals convicted of crimes, and repeat deportees get shown to the head of the line, everyone else goes to the back, and the back of the line doesn’t get a hearing, and doesn’t get deported. All DACA did is recognize that the people at the end of the line aren’t going to get a deportation hearing unless Congress allows more deportation hearings, and puts the people brought here as children in the very end of the line. They can get jobs legally, and support themselves and pay taxes without resorting to identity theft.

      1. Why do you thread shit? You know and have been explained to how DACA gave positive rights and wasnt just discretion.

  9. Here’s taking money from drug interdiction funds that probably have an impact on cartel trafficking and ‘reprogramming” it to pay for a useless wall for purposes of drug interdiction. But dear leader knows best. I really trust his judgment.

    1. Considering how ineffective the drug war is, it is hard to see how building the wall is going to be less effective. It can only go up.

      1. Except all you need to get drugs over a wall is a water balloon launcher….or one them new fangled flying gizmos the kids are all playing with these days.

        1. That seems a bit harder and more obvious than just walking across. Also, I don’t think that will work well for launching people.

          1. “Considering how ineffective the drug war is, it is hard to see how building the wall is going to be less effective. It can only go up.”

            Probably easier. You were talking about having an impact on the drug war, not the girls with ‘tape over their mouths’ being trafficked into the country.

        2. It isn’t a single layer wall in the barrier systems I’ve seen. Your vision of a simple concrete wall isn’t accurate.

          1. From what I’ve seen the fortifications on the front line itself have moats, walls, ditches, ramparts, overhangs, enfilades, pillboxes, razor wire, and anti-tank hedgehogs.

            Behind that in-depth are the elements that will ensure Mexico pays for the wall. Minefields, video games, miniature golf, mazes, vending machines that sell made-in-America-by-Americans water at premium prices, ferris wheels, etc. All sorts of fun for the family that is designed to be particular diverting for brown people in order to drain their wallets.

            Behind that is the true defense-in-depth. CBP barracks and launch pads and internal connecting road systems and machine gun posts and pre-deployed fighting posts connected by underground tunnels.

    2. “Here’s taking money from drug interdiction funds”

      Great! This is a libertarian website, you forget yourself.

  10. He’s

  11. Congress was pretty useless anyway.

    1. Tony, I honestly wish that people here weren’t so mean to you. Even though you’re a godless baby-murdering psychopath, you do so brighten my day.

      1. I agree.
        Tony’s posts are a joy to read.

      2. Sorry. I can’t help but counsel Tony towards drinking Drano. Yet he persists.

  12. “It also needs to repeated again and again that there is no national “emergency” on the border, and certainly none that requires Trump to route around Congress.”

    It needs to be repeated again and again that the Emergency act Congress stupidly enacted assigns that decision to the President, not Reason staff.

    I don’t have to defend the idea that there really is an emergency on the border. All I have to say is, if Congress doesn’t like it, they should repeal the Emergency act.

    And until they do, Trump is as entitled as any President to abuse it.

    I’m tired of this stupid talk of “not normalizing” Trump. He got all the “normalizing” he could ever need on election day back in 2016. All the talk about him not being a “normal” President is just griping by people who didn’t have an election turn out the way they wanted.

    1. What does “national emergency” mean? The President has the power to decide that. Congress has the power to overrule him. I fail to see why their opinion on the matter matters less than Nick’s.

      The larger question is why does Nick not think there is an emergency other than because he wants to end all border controls and doesn’t like the result here. Is there any situation on the border that Nick would consider an emergency? I am sure he would claim so in the abstract but I doubt he could ever explain the specifics of what they would be and certainly would never admit the current conditions were one.

      1. “Congress has the power to overrule him.”

        Is this actually true? Doesn’t congress also need the president’s signature on a joint resolution to terminate?

        1. No. The law is written such that the President has the power to reprogram previously appropriated funds provided he informs Congress and Congress doesn’t object. The President isn’t spending new money here. He is spending money that has already been appropriated by Congress in a new way. The law says he can do that provided Congress doesn’t object.

          The other thing no one seems to mention is that Congress could have put a rider on the spending bill that said “no funds may be reprogramed during this fiscal year to build any wall or barrior on the border” and Trump would have been out of luck. The fact that Congress didn’t do that further puts lie to the claim that Trump is doing this over and around the objection of Congress.

          1. Way to not answer the question.

            1. I did answer the question. No they don’t need the President’s signature. They only need to pass a resolution that says “sure we appropriated that money but you don’t agree to you reprograming it this way” and that is it. Reprograming funds is somethign that happens all of the time. This is a very well established process. And Congress objects and tells the exectutive it can’t reprogram funds all of the time.

              So, what about this do you not understand?

              1. Yea…first you claim congress can override him, then they can re-program funds away from him. But I don’t think even that holds water.

                33 U.S. Code ? 2293 – Reprogramming during national emergencies
                (a) Termination or deferment of civil works projects; application of resources to national defense projects

                In the event of a declaration of war or a declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] that requires or may require use of the Armed Forces, the Secretary, without regard to any other provision of law, may (1) terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense, and (2) apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.

                1. “But I don’t think even that holds water.”

                  Well you don’t think ” No” is an aswer to your question so we can see how much what you thimk is worth.

                2. Thank you for the references.
                  All the journalism at Reason happens in the comments.

                  Here are the links:

                  33 U.S. Code ? 2293 – Reprogramming during national emergencies
                  http://bit.ly/2Gu5SPT

                  50 U.S. Code Chapter 34 – NATIONAL EMERGENCIES
                  http://bit.ly/2Gtkdfu

              2. They don’t need the President’s signature if they’ve got enough votes to overcome a veto. But this resolution IS subject to the veto power.

                1. That’s how it appears to me to. This seems to be an absolute executive power grab and a complete circumvention of checks and balances….or in other words, the road to hell. Hope I’m wrong.

                  1. Mcgoo not known for being farsighted.

                  2. Did you raise objections when Obama used his pen to issue executive orders, effectively making immigration law over and above those that Congress had passed? DACA was Obama’s Executive Order response to Congress failure to pass the “DREAM” act. Also, how about his last-minute executive order opening up sensitive information gathered by the NSA on millions of Americans to other federal agencies?

                    1. “Did you raise objections when Obama used his pen to issue executive orders, effectively making immigration law over and above those that Congress had passed? DACA was Obama’s Executive Order response to Congress failure to pass the “DREAM” act. Also, how about his last-minute executive order opening up sensitive information gathered by the NSA on millions of Americans to other federal agencies?”

                      Yep. It’s bullshit all the way around.

          2. John, you make a good point. The lack of a preventative rider may be a feature, not a bug. The de ocrats cans are face with their wacko base, and Trump gets most/all of the money he’s currently,looking for.

            Don’t know if that’s the case or not, but it would make sense. I k ow a number of democrats were ready to vote for the funds, but wanted some cover against the blowback from their base.

    2. >>>All the talk about him not being a “normal” President is just griping by people who didn’t have an election turn out the way they wanted.

      this ^^

    3. He might be entitled to it, but he’s still an idiot for doing it and Reason can say so.

      1. “Orange Man Idiot!”

        Happy now?

        1. I have to agree with you.

      2. Nope.

        Build the wall

        No more illegals

        1. They have to go back.

          1. +10000

    4. ” if Congress doesn’t like it, they should repeal the Emergency act.”

      Sure, Trump’ll sign an act that takes power away from Trump. He’s KNOWN for his humility. It’s why he doesn’t cheat at golf.

      1. “Sure, Trump’ll sign an act that takes power away from Trump.”

        Good grief….. That is EXACTLY what his De-Regulation PATH IS. Get a Clue.

        If this “WALL” was Administered by Obama the Executive Order would’ve been signed before the news even heard about it!!! DACA ring a bell.

        1. Then why he didn’t just sign an executive order to do it?

  13. Pelosi complaining about unconstitutional actions is rather laughable.

    1. Almost as laughable as Dopehat and Nick complaing about it.

  14. Is there any chance at all that either party will address the real issue, i.e. the danger of handing the President on the proverbial silver platter an easy way to circumvent Congress?

    No.

    Will the American people finally figure out that the politicians are not “noble public servants” and are really just self-serving grifters?

    No.

  15. Open borders is one of those libertarian ideas that just does not make sense. Open border theory is incompatible with the rise of modern civilization, the West never would have survived. Also look at the various cesspools of open border cities in Europe. No thanks, once all cultures are equally libertarian it will not work.

    1. Back when I was an LP activist, open borders was one of those things we proposed to do after basically everything else was done, and the world was full of libertarian night watchman states. It was never intended to be implemented FIRST, by a liberal welfare state that shared a border with a 3rd world country. That would be obvious insanity, and we knew it.

      But the left has taken over the institutional LP, and especially places like Reason, so all the rational details got tossed aside, because the left needs lots of immigrants from poor countries to keep our income inequality high.

      1. I actually really appreciate that distinction Brett, and I absolutely agree. Open borders is a fine idea if it occurs last. If it occurs first, it’s monumentally destructive to any state such as ours. That people put it forward first, to me, indicates that their intention is destruction instead of out of ideological preference to libertarian thought.

        1. Open borders as in no government power to control borders, is not Libertarian.

          Libertarians are fine with rule of law and tiny and limited government regulating who enters a nation and who becomes citizens.

          1. “Libertarians are fine with rule of law and tiny and limited government regulating who enters a nation and who becomes citizens.”

            And since lc1789 wrote and maintains the Libertarian charter, he would now.

  16. A lot of people are suggesting that Trump’s action makes Democrats more likely to use “emergency” rationale to do something like a gun ban or The Green New Deal.

    I disagree.

    Democrats were just as likely to declare an emergency to get those things before Trump’s action.

    One of the most important lessons of the Trump era is to stop imagining that one can reason with, deal with, negotiate with, or keep score with the Left. They don’t have rules.

    1. The emergency declaration only gets the President a set of powers. It doesn’t mean he can do anything. So, if the Demcorats want to “declare an emergency on guns”, okay, what emergency authority do they plan to use then and exactly what are they going to do?

      1. Guns control will not be easy because it’s codified. Think harder John, there’s a myriad of horrific possibilities that can come out of this if Trump is successful.

        1. I am thinking and I am not seeing it. If they are there, you tell me. What, a national gay emergency and then reprogram defense money to build a wall around San Fransisco? If these possibilities are so horrible and obvious, name a few.

          1. Naw. If you lack creativity, it’s not my fault.

            1. So you can’t answer his questions, got it.

              1. “The appalling number of Americans without healthcare constitute a national emergency. Effective immediately we’re taking over the healthcare system”

                “Climate Change is a national emergency. I hereby declare that we will take immediate action to insure that American carbon emissions will be zero in seven years”.

                They could also try something with guns as well, but as others have pointed out there’s at least some chance to make an argument against that one based on the Bill of Rights.

                1. If that’s your worst case scenario then that’s some pretty thin gruel. Both of your scenarios require wholesale takeover of entire industries. I’m not particularly worried about that ever happening. If it could, Obama would have done it with Obamacare

                  1. “If that’s your worst case scenario then that’s some pretty thin gruel. Both of your scenarios require wholesale takeover of entire industries.”

                    All of the declared Democratic 2020 presidential candidates have indicated their approval of the idiotic Green New Deal – the one that demands the complete takeover of at least three major industries.

                    1. I like how you dodged the actual point.

                    2. That’s true, but what that tells me is that they plan to do the takeovers anyway. Trump really doesn’t have anything to do with it. I’m as opposed to the “emergency” declaration as they are, but I actually mean it. They don’t.

                    3. “If that’s your worst case scenario then that’s some pretty thin gruel. Both of your scenarios require wholesale takeover of entire industries”

                      Naw, just enough meddling to complete ruin them. The rest is easy.

                    4. They do that NOW.

                    5. Now they don’t even need to get congressional approval to do it!

                    6. Neither did President Pen and a Phone.

                    7. True. Too bad he didn’t think to push for expanding executive powers to encompass emergency powers as well. Not very creative. Sad.

                    8. *executive orders

                  2. ” Both of your scenarios require wholesale takeover of entire industries. I’m not particularly worried about that ever happening.”

                    Ah. Obama did the trick when you weren’t looking, then. (Hint: student loans)

                    1. Weird, I received private student loans. I guess I imagined those loan payments, huh?

                2. They will do it no matter what. Obamacare proves this.

                  1. No Obamacare was constitutional. Shitty, but well within the laws. The constitutionality of this maneuver will be decided by the supreme court most likely. Trump couldn’t even get the wall through Congress when his party controlled both chambers. I don’t think the supreme court will find in his favor because the implications and the precedent it will set are disastrous for our country.

                    1. Excuse me… Obamacare has just recently been RULED by a FEDERAL Judge as being “entirely” UN-Constitutional. I’m pretty sure anyone who actually read the Constitution knows that it is.

                    2. Your excused.

        2. “No President has ever used executive power before! This is totally unprecedented!”

    2. If anything, this will help. Tricking the Dems into committing some horrific overreach that the press can’t cover up is one of the only ways Americans will learn what the left truly is.

      1. And it might get the people ready to really hit back hard against progressives. Which needs to happen.

      2. Now just replace ‘dems’ with Republicans and maybe you’ll understand what just happened today…..but probably not.

        1. If ‘dems’ were about defending the USA as described in the U.S. Constitution and Republicans were lobbying for SOCIALISM… You can bet your *ss I’d be fully supporting the D-Team.

          1. So in order to prevent Tyranny we must become the Tyrant. You’re even dumber than I thought.

            1. Absolutely! When it comes to upholding the Supreme Law (The very definition of what makes the USA the USA and not Venezuela) being Tyrannical about it is exactly what is needed.

              Except the word ‘Tyrant’ doesn’t fit there since its definition is an oppression by government. The Supreme Law is exactly what was written to prevent Tyranny from Happening and instills individual rights and a limited government.

              Inferring we need to be ‘dismissive’ about it by calling the support and enforcement of it Tyrannical – Is a double negative.

              Don’t you recall the Civil War in which the U.S. Constitution became dismissive and actually High-Jacked and Re-Written by the Confederacy States?

    3. “Democrats were just as likely to declare an emergency to get those things before Trump’s action.

      One of the most important lessons of the Trump era is to stop imagining that one can reason with, deal with, negotiate with, or keep score with the Left. They don’t have rules.”

      ^this

      It might give them a better talking point for it, but the Left will wield power in their quest for totalitarian rule any chance they get.
      Trump’s precedent doesn’t change their intent and willingness to use those means, but it just might impede them a bit through slowing illegal immigration

      1. Note that the Build a Wall movement is a *reaction* to the federal government refusing to actually enforce immigration law for decades.

        The Constitution obligates the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, including immigration laws.

        Article IV, Section 4
        “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”

        Trump is the first President in *decades* to even *attempt* to uphold the constitution with regards to immigration.

        They have to go back.

        1. All you Black folks, you must go
          All you Mexicans, you must go
          And all you poor folks, you must go
          Muslims and gays
          Boy, we hate your ways
          So all you bad folks, you must go.

          Sums it bout up.

          1. racebaiter mcgoo racebaits

          2. ALL you SOCIALISTS; you must go….
            ALL you COMMUNISTS; you must go…
            ALL you FASCISTS; you must go…

            AN if Invaders are MOSTLY of any of the 3-above then that spigot needs plugged.

            Making all forms of defense taboo by empathy calls is exactly what the left will do to DESTROY this country. The fact is “defense” isn’t an empathy project.

            1. That’s a terrible song but the lyrics aren’t bad….. It would truly be a shame to let the left do what you so desperately want to do. It’s a race to the bottom. Good luck.

              1. That’s kind of the problem. If the “left” wants Venezuela, Mexico, USSR (Heavy Socialism) they should MOVE there. Yet somehow it seems they keep wanting to move HERE in order to escape THERE but then want to change HERE into THERE not realizing their own “beliefs” is what made THERE – THERE.

    4. “One of the most important lessons of the Trump era is to stop imagining that one can reason with, deal with, negotiate with, or keep score with the Left. They don’t have rules.”

      How does Trump doing whatever he feels like tell you anything at all about “the Left”?

      1. Well, at least one reason would be because Trump is a lifelong Democrat who only converted to Republican because Democrats have skewed so far to the left that unless you’re in favor of a ‘Green New Deal’ that abolishes capitalism you’re now considered a ‘centrist’.

      2. Trump is the first President in *decades* to even *attempt* to uphold the constitution with regards to immigration.

        They have to go back.

        1. Trump is utilizing laws already on the books.

          Democrats okayed these laws or never repealed them when they had a majority.

          MAGA!

          1. Except the Supreme Court will shoot him down, most likely. Even he probably realizes the odds of him succeeding at this are tragically slim. You could almost hear it in his voice at the press conference…..MAGA

      3. He isn’t, and can’t do ‘whatever he likes’. This has been explained to you above.

        Are you just being pointlessly contrary, or are you actually this obtuse?

        1. Emergency powers encompass (nearly?) the same powers given to the president in times of war. Yea, he can pretty much do whatever he wants.

  17. I’m not surprised, but congress really should get off their ass and assert the power designated to them by the constitution and impeach the president for usurping their power of the purse instead of fantasizing about Russian crimes and eco-emergencies.

    1. You’re probably right — but since Obama didn’t get impeached for his executive pen before causing this mess at the border……….. I (and probably some of Congress) doesn’t see any real basis to impeach this president for trying to FIX it.

  18. The failure to do so won’t “normalize” Trump but it will work to normalize presidential overreach.

    Yeah, I think that ship sailed a long time ago. Our constitution is pretty much, “If you get away with it, it’s Constitutional!”. I’m not going to get too exercised over Trump advancing his agenda the same way everyone else does.

    1. ^This. The Constitution has been dead for a long time, and it didn’t even get a decent burial.

      1. The Left has been increasingly lawless for a century. A Living Constitution means whatever you want it to mean.

        Trump is the first President in *decades* to even *attempt* to uphold his constitutional obligations with regards to immigration, and attempting to uphold the law is declared “lawlessness” by the lawless ruling class.

        Fuck them with a rusty pipe.

    2. ” Our constitution is pretty much, ‘If you get away with it, it’s Constitutional!'”

      True. Which is why it’s important to not let “them” get away with it, whatever “it” is and whoever “they” are this week.

      1. Uhh…they already got away with it a long, long time ago. RE: Living constitution, positive rights.

        Now you’re just talking about holding one party to the prior notion of constitutional limits. Specifically, the party that isn’t in favor of abolishing capitalism and installing a socialist utopia. Seems like a great plan, yeah?

        I’m not saying either is a great option, but I know which option is worse.

  19. I’m always amazed at how many Trump morons have polluted the Reason comments.

    1. I’m always amazed at how many never before seen sockpuppets show up to cry about it.

      1. You would know something about that wouldn’y you asshole. Come here to shit up this thread too, turrd-chugger?

        1. Cry more Cathy.

          1. Bwahahahahaha

              1. Foiled again. Nice work inspector.

                1. You never come out on top. It has never once happened.

                  1. I’m afraid you’re confusing me with your dog.

                    1. No, you’ve defintiely come out on top of my dog.

      2. I don’t often comment, Trump moron, but I’ve been commenting on Reason articles for a long time.

        1. Don’t engage it…or try to reason with it. It’s only programmed to fling shit. Which it will do….

          1. Stop talking to yourself.

          2. Poor trolls. They are programmed to hate Lobertarianism and the USA.

            1. Libertarianism too.

        2. “but I’ve been commenting on Reason articles for a long time.”

          Nah, all you lying socks always say this then vanish again when confronted.

      3. Business is booming in the paid troll industry, Tulpa.

        1. You mean I’ve been doing it all these years for free?!?!?!?

          How do I plug in to this lucrative industry?

        2. “Business is booming in the paid troll industry, Tulpa.”

          But the pay is all in rubles.

    2. Well, all the ISPs shut down their white nationalist sites so the Trump-humping squatters have to hang out somewhere.

      1. race-baiter (someone else used this above; works great!)

  20. Remember how much Reason was complaining when Block Yomomma was using executive power to try to shut down coal mines and offshore oil drilling and such? Oh right, they didn’t complain at all because they venerate their Obamessiah and agreed with most of what he was doing.

    I imagine so much enraged spittle is flying around Obamaville (Reason’s DC Headquarters) this morning that you need an umbrella to safely move about!

    1. Seriously? Reason never said anything about Obama’s abuse of executive power??

      Obviously you just troll the comments.

      1. Reason did make many, many cases against Obama’s abuse of executive power and I appreciated them for it. That said, Reason was selective in which particular abuses they took umbrage with.

  21. Suspect in ‘brutal’ murder spree in Nevada is an illegal alien
    TheBlaze.com-January 21, 2019

    36 Members Of 2 Violent LA Gangs Swept Up In FBI-LAPD Raid
    CBS Los Angeles-02/13/19

    California governor, legislative leaders allocate $30 million for …
    Los Angeles Times-6 hours ago

    The Total Fiscal Cost Of Illegal Immigration Is A Staggering $135 …
    The Daily Caller-Sep 28, 2017

    1. A Staggering $135?

    2. Facts so racist!

  22. If Republicans and Conservatives “call Trump out” they’ll get credibility. Then later, they can use that credibility for….

    Yeah, just kidding. No one gives a shit about credibility or consistency. And they’re right not to. Those concepts are for a different kind of society.

    The banana republic that Reason’s imported voters will create won’t reward credibility or consistency either.

  23. Look, I’ve been saying for years (right here on Reason, no less) that we live in a post-constitutional era. It’s written all over the wall, and yet people want to claim otherwise. Congress had no constitutional authrority to do what they did regarding Obamacare, so if you are just now shitting your pants over Trump declaring an ’emergency’ regarding literally tens of millions of illegal immigrants working under the radar in the United States, well, I have a fucking bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    Face it, people, constitutional rule is already dead and has been for years, if not decades or a century, so please tell us more about how Trump is especially evil for doing this when quite frankly Obama and Bush did exactly the same thing, just not on our southern border.

    To pretend that illegal immigration isn’t a crisis is to have your head willingly buried up your own ass. It’s not a crisis for all the reasons that your typical talking heads say, not even close, but if you have even half a brain and took microeconomics the reasons should be clear as fucking day.

    It disgusts me that so many ‘libertarians’ here at Reason are fully in favor of black market labor being used to prop up the inflated wage bubble of Americans. I’ll give them the benefit of a doubt and say they’re simply too stupid to really get what they’re shilling for since their ‘logic’ amounts to emoting, which really makes them no different from Progressives in my view.

    1. Not enforcing the rules does not change them. Just because others have done similar and disturbing things, does not make them equivocal or “exactly the same thing”. This grab of power is not backed by the law, the people, or their representatives. Asserting the constitution of this country is dead and to be ignored is treasonous.

      1. No, asserting that the constitution of this country is dead and is already being ignored is called being observant. It might be treason, but so was splitting with Great Britain you might recall.

        1. So we’re living in the new country of Trump now?

          1. Negative, simply pointing out that since it’s a given that we’re in a post-constitutional society that shitting the bed over Trump’s abuses is indicative of partisan politics rather than any real problem with the extra-constitutional wielding of power.

            Or, in short, I have no dog in that hunt.

            1. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

            2. “Or, in short, I have no dog in that hunt.”

              Bullshit

              1. Your decrepit old lady lost, and the tide is turning against you totalitarian socialist bitches

                1. You don’t even know who your enemy is dipshit.

                  1. Another incisive rebuttal…

  24. “To pretend that illegal immigration isn’t a crisis is to have your head willingly buried up your own ass.”

    Temporarily accepting this without comment, the problem is that there isn’t an easy solution, despite the number of people who wish there was.
    If there WAS an easy solution, one of the parties would have taken the easy solution when they ran the government.

    So… building a wall along a part of the border won’t magically keep people out. It won’t keep drugs out. It won’t keep bad people out. It won’t solve anything except for cash-flow shortages amongst border-wall-contractors.

    Here is a solution, that, unlike Mr. Trump’s plan, would actually work.
    Give the government the ability to track any change in possession of $10 or more. We already have this for cash transactions of $10,000, but that leaves most cash transactions untracked. Get the limit down to $10, and you can now use data mining to find all the people who are paying illegals under-the-table, arrest both halves of that transaction, and deport the illegal half. As a side bonus, you can find the drug dealers and hookers, too.

    Sure, the abject lack of freedom is profoundly unAmerican. But at least we can toss out the illegals while we fill out all the paperwork and answer all the questions from the government cash police.

    1. So, you too are a fool. Right up front I’ll point out I’m not in favor of any wall, but pretending it will have zero effect is pretty laughable even while it’s clearly a massive spending boondoggle.

      You know what would be more reasonable than you’re carefully constructed ‘not reasonable at all’ solution? Abolishing the minimum wage. Abolishing welfare programs. Abolishing Federal labor laws. I agree there’s zero appetite for that, but you’d have to admit that’s a lot ‘simpler’ of a solution than handing more power to centralized government which, as even you point out in your laughable example, would not work.

      Until people get serious about deregulation, I’m afraid they can’t have their free immigration system. It’s anathema to our entire modern way of life in the United States. I find that to be a sad truth, but it’s a fact that shallow thinkers like yourself are unable to grapple with.

    2. No. Building a wall won’t magically keep people out. Walls don’t work by magic.

      1. Previous wall-built effectiveness rates 92%, 95%, 92%, 96% in illegal traffic drops.

        1. Are those the effectiveness percentages of the walls you built in Civilization? Nice work.

    3. “Temporarily accepting this without comment, the problem is that there isn’t an easy solution, despite the number of people who wish there was.”

      There is a solution. It’s not easy, but it’s a hell of a lot easier than dealing with the US turning into Mexico Norte.

      Enforce immigration law. Deport Illegals. Prosecute those who knowingly hire them. Prosecute those who aid, abet, and shield them from detection. All the laws are there. The only thing lacking is the will to enforce them.

      They have to go back.

  25. It isn’t news that most politicians are phonies, but sometimes something comes along that illustrates the fact so obviously no one should fail to see it. We saw it with Republicans and property rights when they did nothing about Kelo, and see with Democrats as they bleat about caring for poor children but refuse to cross the teachers’ unions and do anything about helping poor kids to get the leg up decent instruction in school can provide. We now will have a chance to see another example if self-styled conservatives and constitutionalists in politics and the media do not join Senator Paul in opposing Trump on this but instead fall in line.

    1. This is a perfect example of why the Republican party is so stupid. They can never look in the mirror and see that they are the ones to blame for rampant unconstitutionality just as much as the Democrats.

      And yes this is definitely unconstitutional. Congress is explicitly given all legislative power, and any attempt of executive usurpation upon this is totally unwarrented by the Constitution.

      This would set a frightening precedent, one that could lead to something far worse than a border wall. The Democrats know this, and THEY ARE WAITING!!!!


      1. And yes this is definitely unconstitutional. Congress is explicitly given all legislative power, and any attempt of executive usurpation upon this is totally unwarrented by the Constitution.

        Wrong question, although I appreciate your point. The question you need to answer is this: can Congress give away it’s authority via legislation, because that is exactly what they have done over the past 120 years or so. Thus the answer as far as the government is concerned is ‘yes, they can’ which therefore means this is not an usurpation of power as far as the U.S. Federal Government is concerned.

        This is no more an usurpation than dozens of other things that occur every day, and no one bats an eye over it, so I must ask what makes this particular case special.

        1. Side note: If you answer ‘No, Congress can not give away their authority via legislation’ than congrats you have just disbanded 95% of the United States federal government in one fell swoop. So think carefully.

          1. Well, yes, when you look at Article I, granting legislative authority to another body, whether it is the executive or anyone else, appears unconstitutional, as does most of the stuff the federal government does. If 95% of what the government does really falls into this category, it doesn’t mean that it all has to be dropped. Congress would just need to wake up and re-assume these responsibilities, though I hope not all of them.

            The larger problem, though, is, I think, that the government as a whole has taken on too much, far too much, authority. As its responsibilities become more numerous, they become increasingly difficult to pass in a legislative body where many must agree on a common course of action. Predictably, then, the easy way out is to allow one man (ie. the President) to take on these responsibilities. So, the first way to address executive overreach is to drastically reduce the governments assumed power.

            1. “The larger problem, though, is, I think, that the government as a whole has taken on too much, far too much, authority.”

              That is some damn fine comma usage.
              Seriously, I’m impressed.

              As to the rest of your post…
              Absolutely correct.

  26. It’s a barrier, we’ve built them for decades, and funding would already be in place if it were anyone other than Trump. It’s silly posturing in this absurd reality.

    1. It’s notable that the government has vowed to build this exact wall since, what, the Reagan administration? The fact they never do might cause some eyebrows to raise about how serious they really are about those prior amnesty deals.

      It also should give people pause about how serious any negotiations on immigration really are, when every prior deal that gets made is immediately broken by Democrats in particular.

  27. But he’s declaring a NATIONAL EMERGENCY!

  28. Declaring a national emergency certainly sets a bad precedent, because a democrat president can do the exact same to push gun control and “green” legislation. OF course, going around congress to do his own thing was Obama’s specialty.

    But the country was hit by migrant surges twice in the last 4 years, and the latest one involved 7 thousand people. Yes, only a few people actually tried to breach the border, but keep in mind that many in the media laughed at that very notion. The hundreds of people who surrendered to the border patrol overwhelmed the resources even before Trump’s zero tolerance policy.

    Look at the migrant crisis that’s occurring all over the world. “Just do nothing because individual border crossing is so much lower compared to 1999” is willing blindness. The wall is just a physical barrier on our side and aside from eminent domain concerns, it violates no one’s rights. It won’t stop anyone from applying for asylum or citizenship legally. A wall plus border patrol action pushed back maybe hundred migrants who reached that point.

  29. Pelosi said she hoped that a Democratic President would declare a national emergency in response to gun violence. But thanks to the second amendment, wouldn’t that, whatever it means, technically be unconstitutional in an even more obvious way? Even if national emergencies are simply unconstitutional, building a wall isn’t. Taking away guns, however, most definitely is.

    1. It all depends on the Supreme Court. Right now, conservatives have a majority, but if the progressives make good on their threat to pack the court with liberals, anything goes.

    2. Presidents appropriating money for large infrastructure projects that Congress didn’t authorize is pretty unconstitutional, while restrictions on guns are not.

      1. Article IV, Section 4
        “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”

        The Constitution obligates the federal government to prevent invasion.

        The Constitution obligates Trump to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, including immigration laws.

        Trump is the first President in *decades* to actually even *attempt* to uphold the constitution with regards to immigration.

        1. There’s no invasion though.

          1. LMAO!!! No Invasion.
            Hispanics represented 5% of the US population in 1970
            Hispanics represent 20% of the US Population Today.

            That’s 48,750,000 new Mexican Residents over 48-Years. If Russia sent in 48,750,000 troops over 48-Years would you call that an “Invasion”?

            1. I shouldn’t make that sound so fascist :)… So… Russians that MOSTLY vote for SOCIALISM.

              1. “I shouldn’t make that sound so fascist :).”

                That’s gonna continue to be difficult for you, I’m afraid.

                1. Its not my fault the FACTS look racist.. Why immigrants massively vote for the exact same 3rd-World politics they ended up RUNNING from goes beyond any logical sense but that is the FACTS of the matter.

                  Just like how Detroit turned consistency Democrat; filed bankruptcy, turned into Hood-USA and STILL voted for more Democrats. Or how California citizens are now running from their cursed state yet still INSIST on their ideology to every place they’ve run to.

                  Guess it just all goes back to the saying, “Stupid is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.” In summary, statistically speaking, Immigrants are Stupid politically.

                  1. Actually; The correct way to address that is — Its not my fault Immigrants are MOSTLY of the same race but race isn’t the underlining factor here; FOREIGN political ideology is.

                    Good grief, Leftist race-baiting propaganda is even affecting me!

  30. Just make Trump a hereditary dictator and we won’t have to worry about what President Ocasio-Cortez will do. Then when he dies, Don Jr. can inevitably make us slightly nostalgic for his father, as I’m sure the North Koreans experience every time they trade in a lesser model.

    1. Don Jr is basically Fredo.

      The line of succession goes:
      -Ivanka
      -Eric
      …we’ll see what happens with Baron – he might be a mommas boy

  31. The NATIONAL EMERGENCY IS… Our country is UNDER invasion and has been UNDER invasion for SO LONG the invaders “ideology” has taken over congress! Today the left ACTUALLY wants to subsidize (fund) the invasion thus fund America’s DESTRUCTION.

    13% of congressmen are Immigrants – almost 100% of the DNC platform goals are UN-Constitutional. We’ve got a majority in the House RIGHT NOW; pushing and parroting for SOCIALISM (By definition this is exactly lobbying for the destruction of the USA).

    Maybe it’s not the BEST most HONORABLE route for any President to claim a “National Emergency” without foreign guns and physical war…. But make NO mistake (as quipped by ISIS once) being attacked from the inside is still an ATTACK/INVASION the only problem is it won’t go through Congress when more of Congress wants to VOTE and SUBSIDIZE the take-over than actually DEFEND the USA.

    1. Chill Out TJ. You have no grip on reality.

      1. Says one pot-soaking frog to the other.

        1. Hispanic Immigration MADE Democratic Counties (Just compare these two maps)

          https://commons.wikimedia.org /wiki/File: 2016_Nationwide_ US_presidential_county_map_ shaded_by_vote_share.svg
          https://4.bp.blogspot.com /-BcLMNzILiSE/ VsSkrgoMrrI/ AAAAAAAAwnA/ Wr3C-m1sG6w/s1600/ Hispanic.png

  32. Oops, somebody just heard the door slamming shut.

  33. I don’t always agree with you Nick but this time, Yes I do.

  34. Depends on how you feel about MS13, illegal drugs, border jumpers, overcrowed schools, etc.

    1. Bad, good, neutral, bad.

  35. Without an effective physical barrier at the border, about all that can be expected from ‘enhanced border security’ is a more accurate count of border jumpers.

  36. This guy and his friends see Constitution as a “loophole”. He might have found a way to get rid of it.

  37. Nah. Who needs to go to all the trouble of that? It’s not like any one in congress or SCOTUS care if you just ignore it.

    Here’s my question. Is it even Constitutional for the President to have the ability to declare a national emergency, regardless of if there actually is one or not?

  38. ‘It also needs to repeated again and again that there is no national “emergency” on the border,’

    The invasion of the US by millions of illegal aliens has been a national emergency for decades.

    Conspicuously lacking in Nick’s pants shitting hysteria is any analysis of the *law* on declarations of national emergencies, and assertion that Trump’s actions violate those laws, and comparisons to previously declared national emergencies by other Presidents.

    It’s all “Wah! Trump exercises power! How dare he? Orange Man Bad!”

    1. If anyone, anywhere actually makes a *legal* argument that Trump’s actions are illegal, please share.

      Here are the relevant laws.

      33 U.S. Code ? 2293 – Reprogramming during national emergencies http://bit.ly/2Gu5SPT

      50 U.S. Code Chapter 34 – NATIONAL EMERGENCIES http://bit.ly/2Gtkdfu

      1. But are these laws constitutional themselves. The President is not given the power to legislate. Building a wall is a big project that will cost billions to complete. If that doesn’t require legislation, I dont know what does. Congress, for whatever reason, did not pass this, so how can the executive branch just decide to do it anyway?

        Because congress has shirked its duty of legislation for the past few decades, it now just authorizes the President to take action. Laws like 50 U.S. Code 34 blur the separation of powers.

        1. There are 30 current “national emergencies” under this legislation, 59 total since the National Emergencies Act in 1976.

          But when Trump declares one, all of a sudden the legislation itself is unconstitutional.

          1. Bet your gonna lose your boner pretty quick when team blue pulls the same shtick. But enjoy your win now because you’re too short sighted how this will turn on you if he’s successful…..which I’m pretty sure he wont be anyway. I’m actually starting to think Pelosi is not as stupid as I had previously thought.

            1. Pelosi…… summarized, “Its not humane to try and stop an invasion. We need to subsidize them so they can take over this country someday.”

              1. #ForeignersFirst

            2. Are you under the impression the Left has been constraining themselves to the law for the last half century?

          2. Actually, this is Trump’s 4th declared national emergency. The reason it’s such a big deal now is because this one authorizes military action, something that hasn’t happened since Bush’s declaration after 9/11.

            Seeing this type of national emergency simply draws attention to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of national emergencies and makes me wonder if they should even be allowed at all.

            1. “Seeing this type of national emergency simply draws attention to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of national emergencies and makes me wonder if they should even be allowed at all.”

              When they’re used to wield absolute power and circumvent Congress, as in this case, no. It is going to cause a constitutional crisis, imo. We’ll see how the judicial branch responds since the legislative branch has been castrated (self-imposed).

              1. Trump is upholding the constitution with regards to immigration.

                Article IV, Section 4
                “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”

                The Constitution obligates the federal government to prevent invasion.

                The Constitution obligates Trump to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, including immigration laws.

  39. At least there actually *was* a fire at the Reichstag.

  40. Ahh, so refreshing to see the hypocrite Paul. Signs a “tax bill” in the middle of the night and has the audacity to call this out. What a twit (and that’s being kind.)

  41. I’m amazed at all the fake, cretin “libertarians” who come here. When did total Presidential power become a libertarian position? Those supporting his position need to go to some other site and start wearing brown shirts.

    1. I like Ron Paul well enough, but he brought them here.

      1. “I like Ron Paul well enough, but he brought them here.”

        No he didn’t. Ron Paul actually supports many libertarian positions unlike the folks he is referring to. Many of them are here only to support Trump and to try to shoehorn his actions into libertarian-ism. If you are critical, in any way of any things he does and support libertarian principles you will immediately be labeled “lefty” “progressive” “anarchist” “open-border” without any evidence.

        1. The impotent cry of the charlatan.
          Mcgoo, your posts reveal your ideological leanings quite clearly.
          You pop up only to decry notions such as border control or the idea of “Americans” while praising progressives politicians and positions.
          In another thread, you deny the idea that one born on American soil to American parents is native, as there are no white natives.
          The moment you stop speaking from a progressive perspective and stop objecting to any attempt to control entry into the US, that moment you’ll stop being accurately labeled as open borders and progressive.
          You are what you show yourself to be, and no amount of neurotic or psychotic delusion is enough to overcome the fact that reality is the opposite of your projections.

          1. Bullshit. I have never once praised a progressive politician or progressive goals. I have, and will continue, to criticize Trump on issues I oppose and I feel are un-libertarian i.e. tarrifs, erecting a massive wall across our southern border, lack of fiscal discipline, enormous overreach of executive power. I think he has done good things e.g. reduce the corporate income tax, cut regulations, gives it to the media. I am also sick of all the stupid bullshit you and your boot-lickers are trying to push through the commentariat as libertarian. Half of it has merit, the rest is pure xenophobic, racist, sexist bullshit and devoid of critical thinking. I guess that’s what you mean by “progressive” projection.

            “In another thread, you deny the idea that one born on American soil to American parents is native, as there are no white natives.”

            Yea, the guy made some sort of race based generalization claiming “white natives” are better in some way (don’t remember, but I think it’s in this very thread). The only “natives” I know are not white. You have a problem when Fauxahontas claims native ancestry but not when your buddy does and also proceeds to claim racial superiority? If you and the fuckwits that would agree with you feel that this is a “progressive” perspective, then so be it. I call it not being a racist prick. You gotta do better than that.

  42. MAGA!

    1. Do you make the ‘Oh’ face when you type that? I bet you do.

  43. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour.
    visit this site right here……..>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  44. After reading just the headline, I was expecting this to be some kind of shikhatastrophe, but – hey, that rhymed!

  45. It’s too bad shit lib politicking has brought it to this point… But the dirty commies have been playing dirty pool for decades, all that trying to be “better” than them has accomplished is allowing the country to go to shit. Anybody with a brain should realize we’re past the point of being able to take the high road.

    At this point the abuses will be small prices to be paid for doing something that should have been decades ago when illegal immigration started spiking, if not before even that just on principle.

    For those that say it’s not an issue: nearly 16% of the US population is now comprised of people that came here almost completely illegally… US was only 1-2% Hispanic before the wave of illegal immigration started. That kind if shit IS NOT the rule of law. Also, illegal immigrants have killed more people than the US lost in Pearl Harbor, or indeed in some of our lesser wars throughout their whole duration.

    So I call bullshit on it’s nothing to worry about. Not even to mention the cost to tax payers for all the services, and the discord the whole damn thing has brought on the country.

    BUILD THE WALL!

  46. Jesus fucking christ reason! Go get obama back and stop with your libertarian facade. You are smart people so I won’t try to point out the obvious that you are purposely overlooking. I advise your lower-downs to take over reason and chuck the leftists out that have infiltrated your little bastion of sophistry.
    And fuck a wall, get some Apache attack helicopters out there at night. A few invaders shredded by M230 chainguns will be “Do Not Enter” warnings to the next batch of the “No Passport People”.

  47. Open-borders idiot Gillespie’s at it again. What part of “IF YOU CAN’T CONTROL YOUR BORDERS, YOU DON’T HAVE A SOVEREIGN NATION” does that cretin not understand?

    I don’t give a flying frog’s ass about the damned drugs. What I care about is NOT HAVING thousands of ignorant turds from banana republics south of our border pouring into America and eventually voting democrat/communist shits into office.

    What’s really a shame is that we can’t build TWO WALLS with a death corridor ibetween tham protected by .50 BMGs and M60s.

    1. Gillespie: “muh anarchy”

    2. Seriously!

      You just mow down a couple dozen people, and say attack helicopters will be deployed anytime anybody approaches in 100% of cases going forward and the people killed… And nobody would try anymore. Ever.

  48. 22-30 million illegal immigrants, of which, 1/2 to 3/4 (according to NY Times and SSA) commit Social Security fraud or identity theft (both felonies) and on average each criminal alien costs US taxpayers $200,000 during the time they are tresspassing.

    As a taxpayer, fuck Reason, it’s left-wing staff, and it’s pro-illegal propaganda.
    Build the wall and throw them all out!

    1. They have to go back.

  49. If the wall is stopped via judicial fiat or congressional overthrow, if invasion via illegal immigration isn’t stopped or significantly slowed… then we will soon have a dictatorship.
    The question then is: whose dictator will it be?
    – An authoritarian, put into power by the fed up Americans, tired of a government that doesn’t prioritize their nation’s and The People’s interests (and seems increasingly corrupt, greedy, and incompetent), who elected Trump as a means of non-violent, civil revolution?
    Or
    – A totalitarian borne to power by resentment that demands progress and ideological conformity, intolerant of individual thought and independent spirit, that demands arbitrary and unlimited sacrifice for The Good of the collective?
    That is, will we get a Pinochet/Yew or a Hitler/Stalin?

    1. Yup.

      A guy I follow a bit said in a YouTube video a few weeks back:

      Authoritarian populism IS THE FUTURE. It is unavoidable at this point.

      The only question is will it be left wing socialist populism, or right wing nationalist populism.

      I think he’s pretty much spot on. Every governmental system eventually reaches a point of no longer being functional. We’re there. Europe is there. They just are not working. So you need a reset. It’s just who is doing the resetting to be decided.

      I have every faith that if the leftists seem to scam their way into power in the USA, that it won’t last. There are too many Americans who would rather die than put up with that shit here. And we have more guns than the rest of the worlds civilian population combined. Hell, American civilians ALMOST have more guns than the rest of the worlds MILITARY combined. Anybody who thinks they’re taking out that militia is dreamin’.

    2. “The question then is: whose dictator will it be?”

      The answer, dumbfuck, is nobody’s. You’re a fucking fool if you think you’ll be spared from lining up against the wall or thrown into a re-ducation camp/stadium what have you. Seriously, you are so fucking over the top stupid that I have to think you’re some kind of Russian Troll trying to sow discord.

      “An authoritarian, put into power by the fed up Americans, tired of a government that doesn’t prioritize their nation’s and The People’s interests (and seems increasingly corrupt, greedy, and incompetent), who elected Trump as a means of non-violent, civil revolution?”

      How is your authoritarian hero gonna know who the fuck you are? By reading the comments at Reason.com?

      1. Your first sentence was also a lesson in stupidity.

      2. He’s actually not that dumb… If anybody is it is you.

        We are at a very sketchy time historically. Due to horrible choices made by elites across the western world, the people are PISSED. They’ve been completely ignored on MAJOR issues, like immigration, giving up national sovereignty to the EU, etc. There are lots of other issues like globalization causing massive economic disruptions, social things being shoved down peoples throats against their will. On and on.

        Democracies often DO NOT handle situations this tumultuous well… So some form of authoritarianism is very probably in the west. It’s just which brand. Also, will this hard line approach simply be a Sulla or Pinochet situation where they deal with the problem at hand, and then restore more democratic systems, or will it be a would be Caesar?

        All legit questions. As for being lined up on the wall… Nardz would be the kind of guy a right wing dictator would recruit to be doing the lining up of commies if it comes to that! Not the other way around. And I suspect he’d at least cap a few commies before they drug him away to be shot if they came to power too. Anybody who thinks America is going down quietly is a fool. A right wing takeover here might actually go fairly smoothly, but a left wing one will create a massive guerilla war situation, if the military itself doesn’t split. Modern armies don’t do well in guerilla wars with determined foes. See Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

  50. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k
    ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.Geosalary.com ? ? ? ? ? ?

  51. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k —->> http://www.payshd.com

  52. In the end this is not all that much money, considering the size of the budget, and it is unlikely to get spent, so I would not get too worried. There will be plenty of lawsuits from the states, tribes and local landowners to oppose President Trumps declaration. If I were the Democrats I would leave this alone and instead focus on the statute that allows presidents to make emergency declarations. Work with conservative Republicans and clean this statute up so these kinds of declaration don’ happen in the future. Hopefully both parties can agree that only real emergencies should be addressed.

  53. The emergency is not the lack of a border wall, or illegal immigrants. The emergency is the deliberate flouting of federal law by larger portions of US citizens. The rule of large requires the respect and cooperation of the citizens of the country. I personally and not in favor of current immigration laws. Still they need to be enforced and supported by individual citizens until they are changed. The border wall will have little effect. It will cost more than it is worth. Still, it is not a problem to have one. The flouting of current law will remain whether the wall is built or not, and that really is the problem. If no one hired the illegals or cooperated with them, they would not be here. That is the problem.

    1. Rule of law, not rule of large, sorry.

      1. That’s ok, sometimes I can’t really tell the difference.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.