MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Plans To Sign Border Deal and Declare National Emergency. Here’s What That Could Mean.

Trump won't rely on Congress to fund his 200 miles of border wall.

Polaris/NewscomPolaris/NewscomPresident Donald Trump plans to sign a bipartisan budget deal and then declare a national emergency to obtain money for his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday.

McConnell's Senate floor announcement came the day before funding for parts of the federal government was set to lapse. Congressional leaders from both parties reached a deal to avoid a shutdown earlier in the week, but it was unclear if Trump would sign it. The president has demanded $5.7 billion for his border wall, but the deal in question includes just $1.375 billion for the wall.

Trump "has indicated he's prepared to sign the bill," McConnell said. "He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. And I've indicated to him that I'm going to support the national emergency declaration."

The White House quickly confirmed the news. "President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action—including a national emergency—to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border," Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

Trump's use of a national emergency declaration to secure border wall funding should trouble anyone who understands and appreciates separation of powers. According to a 2007 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the 1976 National Emergencies Act entitles the president to "statutory delegations from Congress" that let him "seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

We don't know what limits there are on a president's ability to declare a national emergency. There is definitely potential for civil liberties abuses, particularly in regard to eminent domain, which is the process by which the government forces a property owner to sell. David Bier, an immigration policy analyst for the Cato Institute, told Reason last month his "biggest concern" is that Trump will use the declaration of a national emergency to "seize private property for the wall without following the normal, albeit, minimal procedures."

Bier has previously noted for Reason that the federal government owns less than a third of the land on the southern border. The rest belongs to other entities, including states, Native American tribes, and private individuals. Most of the border land in Texas, in fact, is private property. In order for the wall to get built, the federal government will need to confiscate quite a bit of privately owned land.

What's less clear is whether Trump can seize land without congressional authorization. Title 42 of the U.S. Code says that when a federal program or project (like the border wall) requires an individual to relocate, that individual must be given "a reasonable opportunity to relocate to a comparable replacement dwelling." But there are three exceptions, including "a national emergency declared by the President."

Trump, for his part, has already suggested using the "military version of eminent domain" to build the wall. And federal law does allow for military department secretaries to seize land "in the interest of national defense." But in the face of one or more inevitable legal challenges, Trump would still have to convince the courts that building a wall is necessary for national defense.

It remains to be seen if Trump can legally seize land for the wall. The same goes for whether declaring a national emergency will help him secure border wall funding. Trump has a few options regarding the latter, as noted by Margaret Taylor, a governance fellow at the Brookings Institute and a senior editor at Lawfare.

Title 10 of the U.S. Code, for instance, says that when the president declares a national emergency "that requires use of the armed forces," the secretary of defense can authorize "military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces." The necessary money would come from un-obligated funds that have already been allocated for military construction.

Title 33 of the U.S. Code applies to similar situations: namely, a national emergency declaration "that requires use of the armed forces." It says that in such cases, the secretary of the Army can "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," then "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."

Trump has already deployed troops to the southern border, which could come in quite handy.

But does the situation at the border really require military intervention, and thus warrant a national emergency declaration allowing Trump to bypass Congress and build the wall? Short answer: no.

"There is absolutely and without question no crisis at our southern border," Kristie De Peña, director of immigration and senior counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Reason last month. Politicians should "stop framing this as if it's some sort of national security crisis," she added.

Peña also points to the fact that net migration flows to the U.S. are going down. As Reason's Shikha Dalmia explained in January, net migration flows between the U.S. and Mexico have actually reversed in recent years, meaning more Mexicans are attempting to leave the U.S. than are attempting to enter.

"The facts could not possibly justify a state of emergency declaration," said Bier, who noted that Border Patrol agents are actually apprehending less people now than they were in the early 2000s. "I cannot imagine what case the president could make that the challenges this administration faces are unique or unprecedented."

But just because Trump shouldn't declare a national emergency doesn't mean he's legally in the wrong. "It will probably hold up in court," Peña said of Trump's declaration. "There's a strong case to be made that presidents need to have the authority to declare a national emergency. And that's been upheld in court a number of times."

Bier expressed similar sentiments, predicting that just as the Supreme Court upheld Trump's travel ban on a handful of largely Muslim-majority countries, it will uphold his use of a national emergency declaration to secure border wall funds.

Bier put it bluntly: "My belief is that the president can get away with doing almost anything he wants in the name of national security."

This post has been updated with a statement to The New York Times from White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Photo Credit: Polaris/Newscom

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.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "My belief is that the president can get away with doing almost anything he wants in the name of national security."

    I approve only if it benefits my team.

  • ElvisIsReal||

    Gee, if only somebody had predicted this would occur. Oh well!

  • Quixote||

    Hopefully our great leader will also include illegal-internet-speech prevention funds for the "digital" wall in the emergency package, as our nation's law enforcement agencies continue to desperately need resources to confront the wave of intruding online "critics." See the documentation of America's leading criminal "satire" case at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Is this a Democrat Pen and phone or Republican pen and phone?

    Fuck the Libertarian pen and phone.

  • LiborCon||

    "My belief is that the president can get away with doing almost anything he wants in the name of national security."

    Anything? Could he round up all the anti-gun Democrats and put them in labor camps? Not that I'd support that of course, but it he's going to abuse the fuck out of his authority, he might as well do some good too.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Your betters do it the right way. They improve society and watch the culturally vanquished obey liberal-libertarian preferences every day of the malcontents' miserable lives.

  • LiborCon||

    Do you just insert random comments that lack context, for attention, or are you just another one of the weird people that populate the internet?

  • gclancy51||

    What an awful precedent this mope is setting; guess we'll be watching Cortex using the same thing for her Green Leap Forward in a decade from now.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I heard he's going to build the whole thing out of discarded phones and pens.

  • Ecoli||

    The concrete for the wall will prepared from cement, gravel and progressives' tears, and paid for by El Chapo.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Cement made from the ground bones of refugee children.

  • Butler||

    Or plastic straws?

  • Tu­lpa||

    Wouldn't that be wonderful.

  • some guy||

    Chinese imports.

  • Tu­lpa||

    Can we make the imports toys with lead paint?

  • LiborCon||

    He wanted to build it out of Hillary's deleted emails. Can you imagine being the guy who had to explain to him why that wouldn't work?

  • Ecoli||

    I am planning to build a fence around my yard. I declared a family emergency to quell the protests of my nosy neighbors.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Are you having troble with millions of non-Americans crossing into your yard?

    Must be tons of shit you clean up.

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    declare a national emergency to obtain money for his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border

    How will that help get the money from Mexico?

    "seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

    Oh, I see.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Since the Mexicans don't want to pay, we'll seize the land from them and build the wall on their side.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have been assured that 'Mesicans pay more in US taxes than they receive.

    That is how Mexico is paying for the border fence.

    Thanks Mexico!

  • Tony||

    I wonder how much this moves the needle really. Genuinely curious if the MAGA people give a shit about Ann Coulter or if they're so infatuated with their ruler that he could fail to build a wall and piss off all of FOX News and they'd simply turn on FOX News. *Adds popcorn to Amazon cart*

  • Ecoli||

    What would Hillary do?

  • Tony||

    She'd probably be dealing with the 57th Congressional Benghazi-email-Vince Foster investigation, to be honest.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Being responsible for allowing the murder of 4 Americans is pretty tame for Lefties.

    They killed over 100 million people around the World in the 20th Century.

  • Tony||

    Mostly through famine. Everyone makes mistakes!

    Your people put people on trains and took them to death camps by the millions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Murder Tony. It was murder.

    When you take things like food from others so they don't have enough, its murder.

    Your National Socialist German Workers Party friends only killed 6 million Jews. Millions more died but didn't count either.

  • Tony||

    When you take things like food from others so they don't have enough, its murder.

    Couldn't agree more. Glad we're on the same page with respect to SNAP and farm subsidies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    SNAP takes food from farmers and gives it to poor people?

    To think, I paid taxes all these years in cash.

  • Tax-Payer-Extreme||

    So you're okay with generational welfare and mass murder? That's what you keep stating.

    You that bored or indoctrinated you spend so much time spewing your circular logic online?

  • JesseAz||

    The millions who died were a small accident... whoopsie. God you're fucking stupid Tony.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Nothing! She'd be too busy turning the Oval Office into The Clinton Foundation Oval Office, just like she turned the State Dept. into The Clinton Foundation State Dept.! And then there's all those pesky e-mails that have to be deleted!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Will I be able to rent the Lincoln bedroom for a couple of nights?

  • Teddy Pump||

    Sure, but there is no furniture or paintings left in it!

  • The_Hoser||

    Bang Webb Hubbell.

  • Teddy Pump||

    More likely Bang Huma Abedin!

  • Steve-O||

    Mixed bag, I think. There is a cult of personality going on to some extent, but there are also a bunch of people who are completely freaked out about the Mexicans.

  • Tony||

    So if the president ever stopped being hysterical about the Mexicans, the Republican base could split into the personality cultists vs. the racist xenophobes. If nothing else it would be instructive for future candidates: Do they keep drawing from the race well, or do they talk about how big their penis is during a presidential debate? (I presume that's why he's so loved.)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I'm not the least bit freaked out about Mexicans who come here legally.

    That's like saying that somebody who objects to being embezzled is freaked out about accountants. You're leaving out the part that we actually care about, and I expect you're doing it deliberately.

  • Tony||

    Unlawful presence in the US is a civil violation. It's a traffic ticket. Why so much hysteria over something so minor?

    Worried about the minority of unlawful residents who crossed a border without going through border patrol? Still, it's hardly mass murder. Considering that such a thing does not amount to any real crisis, as it has been going down for years, why are we spending so much of our lives talking about it? Such a mystery!

    It's not like morons who can't be good leaders would ever resort to racist scapegoating or anything like that.

  • Steve-O||

    I did do it deliberately, but not to misrepresent anyone's point of view. There are some people who are only freaked out by illegal immigration from Mexico and points south and others who are freaked out by the sheer volume of immigration, whether it be legal or illegal.

    And I actually find the sheer level of immigration worrisome myself. I don't buy the magic dirt theory, and it's well-established that immigrants and their descendants tend to vote for big government. And as for the people who point to xenophobia surrounding late 19th, early 20th century immigration, I don't see this as a good counter-argument. It would appear that that xenophobia was well-founded, as the rise of immigrant voters back then ushered in the progressive era.

    I'm not sure that mass immigration has ever been an unadulterated success for any society on the receiving end. Just ask the 7th century British Celts, or Metacomet, or the Zulu . . .

  • Tu­lpa||

    Why would anyone give a shit about Ann Coulter?

  • Tony||

    I gave a shit that looked like Ann Coulter and was named Ann Coulter.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Dat be one good looking shit! I took one today that looked way better than Pe-Lousy!

  • Tu­lpa||

    It seems to be where you get your facts from.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who's Ann Coulter?

    Who's Tony, for that matter?

  • Fats of Fury||

    So, you were shaving at the time Ann?

  • M.L.||

    He should not sign the bill and forget about getting any funds from Congress. The bill is filled with insane open borders bullshit and a gaping wide amnesty provision.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What is the "insane open borders bullshit" that is in this bill?

  • Tu­lpa||

    Hey remember yesterday when you admitted you thought illegal aliens were as bad as junkies and a huge drain on society?

    Good times good times.

  • Cathy L||

    How's the zero width space game today?

  • JesseAz||

    Will you and Jeff just fuck already. This white knighting for each other is getting old. Just fuck.

  • Cathy L||

    Tulpa is never going to sleep with you.

    I mean, other than the way he does every night.

  • Tu­lpa||

    Cry more Cunty Cathy.

  • Tu­lpa||

    "Tulpa is never going to sleep with you.

    I mean, other than the way he does every night."

    Lololo Cunty Cathy is so upset that it can't even make sense!!!

    Lolol god you try so hard at gotchas and do nothing but fail.

  • gclancy51||

    What an ad homenim little shit you are Tulpa. Purely reactive, never says anything of substance, cock-sucking all the other anti liberty Trumptards on every issue.

    What a piece of work is a man.

  • JesseAz||

    The depth of a retort from cathy. I k ol you are but what am I. Obvious.

  • Tu­lpa||

    They did it again with a different sockpuppet.

  • gclancy51||

    I am a man!

  • gclancy51||

    What a weird little culture of accusing each other of sock-puppetry Reason commenters have. I guess you're right to be paranoid when Hinh actually does it.

    But when folks have different diction, tone, style etc., it makes you wonder... boy, how much do you really think the other side's out to get you.

    Yes, more than one person thinks you're a despicable example of humanity. I'm one of them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Hey, remember yesterday when you were a trolling shitposter?
    Oh wait, that's every day

  • Tu­lpa||

    Oh dear you mad!!!

  • marshaul||

    "you mad"

    Literally the definition of "trolling shitpost".

    But I'll allow it, because it reflects you so accurately.

  • Tu­lpa||

    Ohhhhh you really mad! Cry more!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Reduces the number of detainee beds allowed even when illegal border crossings are trending up, for one thing.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh, so let's see. Since the bill authorizes funding for detaining *only* 40,520 migrants per day, instead of 45,274 migrants per day, that constitutes an "open borders" bill? Are you kidding me? I thought "open borders" meant, you know, open borders, and not "detaining slightly fewer migrants than before".

  • Cathy L||

    If you don't put every Latin American in a cage, half of Tulpa's socks will cry.

    The other half will pretend to love it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Evidently, anything short of 100% detention of all illegal immigrants is equivalent to "open borders".

  • Tu­lpa||

    Hey man, you're the one who admitted that illegals were a huge drain on society.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Good draw knew bred ham busy his hour. Ask agreed answer rather joy nature admire wisdom. Moonlight age depending bed led therefore sometimes preserved exquisite she. An fail up so shot leaf wise in. Minuter highest his arrived for put and. Hopes lived by rooms oh in no death house. Contented direction september but end led excellent ourselves may. Ferrars few arrival his offered not charmed you. Offered anxious respect or he. On three thing chief years in money arise of.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Well ... that is more sense than you usually make ...

  • Tu­lpa||

    Isn't that the truth.

    I always laugh when I've so thoroughly embarassed jeff that he engages in exactly the behavior he's always whining at me about.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Tulpa,
    The only person that you consistently embarrass is your mother.

    You're a self-admitted shitposting troll, so you don't deserve any response other than gibberish.

    The chestnut bakes our giving terminology in a scenario. Why can't the cheer sand the pope? The witty weather absorbs the dress disgust. The captain breezes? The cream ties the muddle.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Pretty much, yeah. Just like if we were really having a rape epidemic, and the government capped the number of cells that could be used to detain accused rapists prior to their trials at a fraction of the number that needed detaining.

    Congress wants people caught entering the country released on their own recognizance, so that they can disappear into the crowd and get proper jobs as nannies and gardeners, and keep unskilled Americans unemployed and needing to vote for the dole.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    and the government capped the number of cells that could be used to detain accused rapists prior to their trials at a fraction of the number that needed detaining.

    We already have that. It's called a finite number of jail cells. So is the government now "pro-rape"?

    If you really think "not rounding up every single illegal immigrant" is equivalent to "open borders", then you are using "open borders" as just an empty slur, much like how many progressives throw around the terms "racist" and "fascist". They are just virtue-signaling epithets that have been neutered of any meaning.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Congress wants people caught entering the country released on their own recognizance, so that they can disappear into the crowd and get proper jobs as nannies and gardeners, and keep unskilled Americans unemployed and needing to vote for the dole.

    Or, Congress wants the executive branch to prioritize their enforcement efforts, so that law enforcement isn't incentivized via a blank check to round up every litterbug and throw them all in jail. You know, there is a rational, non-sinister reasoning for wanting to limit the number of detention beds. But it's more fun to persist in the delusion that "Democrats are evil" than to actually debating the issue on its merits.

  • Ecoli||

    Per day? So, 40,520 X 365 beds per year?

    At least argue your dismal point from a position of honesty.

    Why put a cap on the number of detainees? Detain all that illegally cross the border, whether that number is zero or many.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well presumably certain detainees are going to occupy the same bed for more than one night at a time.

    Why put a cap on the number of detainees?

    Well let's see. Because there isn't infinite money? Because we don't want ICE to be running concentration camps with migrants? Because the executive should have to prioritize their law enforcement efforts on those causing the most harm, instead of handing the executive a blank check to round up every litterbug and throw them all in jail?

    Why put a cap on the number of prison cells? Hmm?

  • Ecoli||

    Jeff,

    You make it sound like we need a layered defense. Starting with a wall. You can call it a barrier, or fence or obstacle if that makes it sound less immoral.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Or, perhaps we should have less spending, fewer thugs with badges running around hassling peaceful people, and fewer laws generally that restrict our liberties.

    Nahh, that would be too libertarian! This is the Reason comment section! Time to advocate for big huge walls to keep the swarthy browns out!

  • Ecoli||

    Let me know when I am not on the hook to pay for all those peaceful people. Then you and I can join arms and sing Kumbaya.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Let me know when I am not on the hook to pay for all those peaceful people.

    Huh. So because you don't want the state depriving you of liberty by handing your tax money to immigrants in the form of welfare, you want the state to deprive you of even more liberty in order to stop them from doing so. Do I have that about right?

    "It's an outrage that they are stealing my money for welfare! Therefore I want them to steal more of my money to build a huge pointless wall!"

    This makes no sense, and suggests that the real reason for your displeasure at illegal immigration extends far beyond welfare.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It gets 75 more immigration judges, that Trump gets to pick, so there's that.

    Deport them faster, so less beds needed.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Agreed. Maybe there are enough votes to override his veto, but at least make them do that.

    Then we can primary into retirement every Republican who voted for the override.

    Signing it just makes it too easy for them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. There are still too many RINOs left in Congress.

    Your plan would help get more of them gone.

  • wearingit||

    When are you gonna realize that your deluded views are just NOT indicative of the American population? Your "RINOs" were freaking right wing loonies back a decade ago.

    Good grief- get some help LC to get back into reality.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor new troll.

    Acts like its comments mean anything.

  • some guy||

    What's the over/under on number of lawsuits filed and how long it will take them all to be settled? Will Trump even still be in office when his national emergency actually takes effect?

  • Teddy Pump||

    And unlike the experts commenting in this article, I would bet anything Trump will lose in court on this one!

  • Ken Shultz||

    What Trump is doing here in declaring a national emergency is wrong, and I oppose it. I would oppose it if he did something that I didn't like with it. I'd oppose it if he did something I liked with the money! Some of you may remember that I opposed Obama waging war on Libya because it was unconstitutional--even though, within the context of an argument about whether we should do what Obama did in Libya, I supported him on that. (Broken clocks, twice a day; Obama, once every eight years).

    All that being said, I'm going to laugh at all the phony constitutionalists crying about how this means the end of the Republic and constitutional government.

    This isn't different from every other president since Reagan attacking someone in the world without authorization. Does that make what Trump is doing okay? Of course not. But it does mean that constitutional government isn't in any more danger now than it's been in the last 20 years. This is not a constitutional crisis. The Constitution is clear about what we should do in this situation.

    Step 1) Supreme Court

    They can sue the hell out of the president.

    Step 2) Impeachment

    The House can choose to impeach Trump for what he's doing, and the Senate can vote to remove him from office.

    Step 3) Elections

    If the American people decide they don't want Trump to be president anymore, they can pick somebody else.

    This ain't no constitutional crisis. Contract matter most when somebody isn't abiding by them.

  • JesseAz||

    At least in this case the money was actually authorized by Congress, but not appropriated. The Iran ransom nor DACA was ever even authorized.

  • Cathy L||

    By "ransom" I assume you mean something other than their own money that we gave back to them.

    lol

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you referring to that time Obama shipped them palates of cash in an unconstitutional treaty he made without congressional authorization or are you referring to Iran-Contra?

  • marshaul||

    Woah, palates of cash are a commodity now? And here I am, still not having acquired the taste for hard currency. And I could just have it shipped to me!

  • Nardz||

    "their own money"

    Goodness, you're such a progressive nitwit, Cathy.
    I guess it's easier to parrot discredited talking points than it is to think for yourself.

    That money was the Shah's government's money. The moment he was deposed and his government replaced, the moment that money stopped being "Iran's".

  • JesseAz||

    Iran had almost as much held up on civil torts fue to terrorist actions they support. On top of that the us had a counter claim against the regime for buildings seized considered to be us property prior to the takeover. On virtually every case similar to the Iran ransom we dod not agree to terms of 5% interest on full principle with so many outstanding claims against the plaintiff. The fact that you domt even know the basics of the issue prove how fucking dumb and ignorant you are.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Truth be told, BOTH SIDES, for their own cynical reasons, have left that border wide open for decades & ignored many immigration laws....15-20 million people here illegally, drugs flowing over the border, and human trafficking, etc..Heck, it has been an emergency for years!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    left that border wide open for decades

    lol

  • Teddy Pump||

    HAHAHA!!!....Since when does the FED Govt. increasing their spending to accomplish something have anything to do with their actually completing said task?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Wait, are you telling me that government is incompetent at its job? No way! So why again are we throwing money at it in a futile attempt to "secure the border" when it is manifestly incompetent?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unfortunately, with regard to immigration its more than just typical government incompetence.

    Its active attempts by politicians and bureaucrats to not make sure the immigration laws on the books are faithfully enforced.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Its active attempts by politicians and bureaucrats to not make sure the immigration laws on the books are faithfully enforced.

    That's why those same politicians keep shoveling money at CBP and ICE. Gotcha!

  • Teddy Pump||

    If the FEDs truly wanted that border shut & secured these many years, it would've been!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh, so government really is super-duper-competent, and the reason why the "border isn't secure" is because of some deliberate plot. Is that what you're saying?

  • John||

    They are competent enough to vet every refugee in the world aren't they? I seem to recall you claiming they were. So, I am pretty sure they can build a wall and keep people from climbing over it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, they're really not. They're mostly incompetent at pretty much everything. Which is why I want to deprive the state of power, unlike you and your Trumpian pals.

  • John||

    That is right. Some member of ISIS might be a nice guy so letting every single one of them in is just perfect. The Chem Jeff theory of political economy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I prefer the free movement of people over creating a xenophobic police state. The world already has one in North Korea, it doesn't need a second one.

  • John||

    Yeah, Canada and Mexico, countries that exert more control over their borders than we do are just like North Korea.

    Honest question Jeff, what is so damned seductive about being stupid? Don't you ever get tired of it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Have you stopped beating your wife, John?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chemjeff, have you stopped fucking your dog?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's pretty obvious that you haven't stop fucking Trump.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor chemjeff has not stopped fucking his dog. He admitted it.

    He is worried about what others are doing.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Do you also support the state subsidizing these free moving people?

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff you fucking liar. You dont want to deprive the state of jack. You openly advocate for the jailing or economic terrorism of states shutting down shops because they dont agree with you politically you lying piece of shit.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Jesse, that is a complete lie from top to bottom. I have never advocated for anyone to go to jail based on the exercise of freedom of association. FFS I support your right to associate freely with Jose even if Jose doesn't have the correct papers from the state. (You're welcome.)

    Oh oh oh but you inserted that weaselly "or economic terrorism" bullshit. WTF is "economic terrorism"? Oh I know, in Jesse-world, it means "boycott". You're damn right I support your right to boycott Starbucks, or Nike, or the NFL, or Gillette, if your shriveled little heart desires.

    When Jesse boycotts Starbucks, that's an expressions of his conscience.
    But when I boycott Alex Jones, that is "economic terrorism". Gotcha!

  • Azathoth!!||

    But when I boycott Alex Jones, that is "economic terrorism".

    You DON"T boycott Alex Jones, Jeff. You never listened to him. You and your comrades scream until he's cut from all platforms so no one can listen to him even if they want to.

    You're not boycotting--you're infringing on the rights of others to have an opinion different from yours.

  • Teddy Pump||

    It's a matter of political will....If the FEDs truly wanted that border secured over the years, they would've gotten it done...But, there is cheap labor & illegal votes now with the promise of amnesty & citizenship in the future & more votes in the future & there is also drug money flowing to Pols & Bureaucrats too!

  • marshaul||

    You're aware that the cartels build and operate fucking submarines, and by the DEAs own estimates they interdict approximately 0% of these, right?

    Fucking Great Britain can't keep drugs from flowing across its puny borders in rubber boats (literally true story), and over here the cartels operate submarines and planes and trucks and god-only-knows what the fuck all else, and you seriously believe that government could ever do anything about this? Government, the universally least-competent form of organization in literally every human endeavor except value-destruction?

    You're a fucking world of delusion.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You're aware that the cartels build and operate fucking submarines

    They must look pretty weird sitting out in the desert. But I can see why that can't be interdicted (hint--it's because they're sitting out in the desert)

  • Juice||

    the 1976 National Emergencies Act entitles the president to "statutory delegations from Congress" that let him "seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities...

    Looks like we need a constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress from delegating away the ability to make law. You can't have a legislature make a law saying "the executive can do whatever it wants."

    To satisfy some people, it could even have vague language like "Congress shall make no enabling acts" or "the powers delegated by the States to Congress enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 shall not be construed to be further delegated by Congress to the President" or something like that.

  • Steve-O||

    To be fair, it's hard for me to see how this description of emergency powers differs from what the executive branch exercises on a regular basis.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Which doesn't make what Trump is doing okay!

    It just makes it somehow less of a crisis than the pants-shitters would have us believe.

  • John||

    He is reprograming money.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you being sarcastic?

  • John||

    NO. I am describing what he is doing. And also understand that Congress could deny the reprograming by a majority vote. The only reason why don't have wall funding is the Democrats filibustered. So this isn't getting around the will of Congress. This is going around the bullshit filabuster rules.

    Maybe you love the filibuster. But, understand that is what is going on here. Stop pretending it is something it isn't.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't think we should conflate the question of whether this is legal with the question of whether this is appropriate.

    Trump is running an end around Congress on a budget issue, and I'm against that on principle. Whether what he's doing is legal is another question entirely.

    P.S. I also oppose torture--even if it's legal.

  • John||

    How is he doing an end run around Congress when Congress has the ability to reject the reprograming if they choose to do so? An end run is something that leaves Congress powerless. Congress is not powerless. They could vote down the reprograming and stop him. If they don't, then they are effectively approving his doing it.

    You either don't understand what is going on here or do and just are pretending you don't.

  • Tony||

    (John supports torture even though it's not legal.)

  • John||

    I only support torturing people like you Tony.

  • Tony||

    Tease.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Look, I agree the Emergencies Act was a terrible idea. And the Court should have struck it down entire on non-delegation grounds, rather than just requiring that it conform to the Presentment clause.

    But they didn't, which means that Trump is actually on solid legal grounds doing this. Deciding whether there's actually an emergency is delegated to him, not the editorial staff of Reason.

    And if Congress disagrees, they can pass a statute saying so, and if he doesn't successfully veto it, the emergency is officially undeclared.

    They shouldn't have delegated emergency powers to the President. Stupid move, but they did it, and here we are. And all this demanding that Trump not exercise powers they gave him right there in black and white text on legislation is just special pleading.

    Propose to repeal the damn thing, and I've got your back. Demand that Trump alone not get to take advantage of it, and I'm just going to laugh at you.

  • Jerryskids||

    I hear the sounds of millions of people flip-flopping on the idea that if Congress refuses to do its job to pass laws the President wants country needs then the President has no choice but to use his pen and phone to make sure these needful things get done. It was an outrage when Obama made the claim, it's an outrage now. If Congress says "No", that should be the end of it. Don't like what Congress did? Get a new Congress. Elections have consequences.

  • Rich||

    We don't know what limits there are on a president's ability to declare a national emergency.

    But after this, we're gonna find the fuck out! 8-(

  • Ken Shultz||

    I thought I'd throw in here that it's kinda funny seeing Amazon give New York City the finger.

    Honestly, I don't see this as a victory for people who don't want their politicians giving away tax breaks.

    I see it as a victory for people who want lower taxes.

    Hey, New York. If your voters and your taxes weren't so fucking retarded, you'd have Amazon and a boat load of other great employers piling in, but nooooooOOOOOOOOoooooo.

  • TJJ2000||

    California is on the same path -- I hear they're actually loosing population and business is moving out. The biggest problem is how many areas their liberal citizenry will infect because for some odd reason Liberals NEVER see their own mistakes and have to run from them and STILL insist they're right.

  • Ray McKigney||

    LET TRUMP BE TRUMP!

  • Tony||

    He can be Trumpier?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties hate MAGA. POOR LEFTIES.

  • TJJ2000||

    Let me get this straight; The bill going through offers $21B to cuddle illegal immigrants and $1B for actual border security?!?!?!

    Our neighbor had a "guard" dog like this once. We use to quip that, "so nice he'd HELP a burglary get away". Needless to say the dog got replaced.

    Anyhow; Just curious why Trump has to declare an Emergency when Obama did the exact opposite (violated immigration law and congress) by means of an "Executive branch memorandum".

  • TJJ2000||

    Un-Believable -- "It's not an emergency, what's happening at the border. It's a humanitarian challenge to us," Pelosi said. I see RELEASING and SUBSIDIZING criminals at LARGE is the lefts next "progressive" idea. Of course; that is where most their voting population lies.

  • John||

    Obama unilaterally granted quasi legal status to millions of people in direct contradiction to the law. Obama basically claimed the power to make the Immigration and Naturalization Act a dead letter by refusing to enforce it. Trump is reprograming a few billion dollars of DOD construction funds.

    Yet, somehow reason wants us to believe this is the end of the Republic!!

  • Teddy Pump||

    And Obummy did it after saying several times over a period of 15 months that he could not do that according to the law & then BOOM, he did it when he saw his Poll numbers tanking with Hispanics....Trump was actually the one who did the right thing Constitutionally when he came into office by trying to end the illegal action by Obummy & then throw it back to Congress to make it right via a proper law!

  • creech||

    And the gutless GOP couldn't find a federal judge somewhere that would have enjoined Obama?

  • TJJ2000||

    The IRS at the time would've thrown any federal judge that ruled again Obama into prison before he could even make a ruling. The FBI would be doing investigations on the judge. The NSA would be spying on the judge. The Prosecuting Attorney Lynch would have indicted the judge.

    Maybe it's a stretch of the imagination - but there was certainly a more Dictative (by fear) Approach about the Administration's Cabinets actions when Obama was in office. Some of it actually hit mainstream media like the IRS scandal.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm sure the folks at Bretibart believe such nonsense, too.

  • TJJ2000||

    I guess the folks at Bretibart LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD then.

  • Ecoli||

    "Obama unilaterally granted quasi legal status to millions of people in direct contradiction to the law."

    That sounds like an illegal abuse of presidential authority.

  • JesseAz||

    It also reauthorized child smuggling. Any sponsor, not just a family member, will be immunized for taking care of an unaccompanied minor going through the court process, ie a free 2 year Visa for just collecting a kid from a coyote. Surely this wont cause child smuggling sales at all.

  • marshaul||

    TJJ2000, you're an idiot. I'm sure you can find somewhere that welcomes your breed of idiot, but it isn't here. Kindly fuck off.

  • TJJ2000||

    By such an insubstantial response to a statement and question; I'd have to guess that you're a D-Team Cheerleader.

  • John||

    Understand a couple of things. First, previous Presidents have invoked the National Emergency Act. Obama and Bush both did so over a dozen times. Second, Trump is invoking the act because doing so gives him the authority to reprogram DOD construction funds for use in the wall. Reprograming funds is also something that happens all of the time.

    So whatever you think of this, this is nothing new and doesn't set any new precedent. If you hate the National Emergency Act, things are no worse today than they were before. The people who are claiming that this is some kind of crossing of the Rubricon are either lying or morons. Yes, a future Democratic president can and mostly will invoke the act. But invoke the act to do what? Reprogram a few billion dollars of DOD funds? Invoking the act only allows you to do a set number of things, like reprogram funds or pay military retires above the cap if they go to work as GS employees and a list of other specified things. The conservatives running around today claiming "what are you going to do when a Democrat declares and emergency on gays or guns" are showing the world how stupid they are. I think the country will survive the coming national gay emergency.

  • Tony||

    John was, of course, a model of equanimity when Obama did it.

  • John||

    Obama did do it. And I never had a problem with it then. That is because unlike you I know something and am not a dumb animal who runs around and emotes talking points.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    You love partisan hackery, so what's your complaint?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Sorry John, that should have been under Tony's post.

  • John||

    The law is what it is. If it was legal for Obama to do it, it is legal for Trump to do it.

  • Tony||

    Do you lie to your wife like that?

  • John||

    Go find where I ever had a problem with it. Just because you are a lying sack of shit doesn't mean everyone is.

  • Tony||

    I choose not to fact check your self-assessment because I am lazy and also because whenever someone catches you red-handed knee-deep in your own bullshit, you run away, and I like having you here.

    Notice that I'm not having hysterics over Trump's actions. Why do you think that is? Thrill me with your acumen.

  • John||

    You are a fucking moron who doesn't even understand what Trump is doing.

  • Tony||

    To answer my question, what Trump is doing is not winning reelection with this crap.

  • John||

    No one cares what you think Tony. You are an idiot who makes up for it by being ignorant.

  • Tony||

    At least I never had to be reminded that ladders and shovels exist.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Tony has never used a shovel or ladder in his life.

  • Tony||

    Then how do you explain my rooftop vegetable garden?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Black slaves?

    You Democrats love Black slaves.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, just to be clear about what I was saying above . . .

    1) There will be a lawsuit, and the courts will work through it.

    That isn't a crisis. If it clarifies that the president can't spend money like that or that Congress can't delegate its spending power that way, that might actually be a good thing.

    2) Impeachment.

    That isn't a crisis. We've been expecting impeachment proceedings since forever anyway.

    Meanwhile, if the Democrat House wants to impeach Trump because the Democrats are fundamentally unwilling to secure the border, then that's their prerogative. No way two-thirds of the Senate is getting on board to remove him from office. No crisis.

    P.S. In absurd twist, if Trump were removed, I suspect Pence would win in a landslide. If I were Warren, I'd rather run against Trump than Pence.

    3) Elections

    If the American people are sufficiently upset about this to vote Trump out of office come November of 2020, then that's what they can do. Again. No crisis.

  • John||

    You can't impeach someone for lawfully using reprograming powers under the law. You can but it is absurd. You seem to be under the impression that Trump is doing something illegal or unprecidented. He is not.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It would play in Trump's favor.

    Trump really is trying to secure the border as he promised he'd do, and the Democrats really are trying to stop him--and it's hard to imagine that the white, blue collar voters in the rust belt that put him in office in 2016 are about to punish him at the polls because he did what he said he was going to do. Meanwhile, it would expose the Democrats to some harsh criticism for being opposed to a secure border solely out of hatred for Trump and with complete disregard for American security.

    Even if and when they impeach Trump for something completely unrelated now, Trump will make it all about the wall. And all Trump's people have to do is bait AOC and that Muslim representative who can't shut up about Jews into making it about their views on immigration. Pelosi is going to wish she'd taken Trump's offer for a three year reprieve for the Dreamers in exchange for $2 billion dollars. Denying his $5 billion was a Pyrrhic victory for her at best.

  • John||

    The truth is the Democrats know this is a loser of an issue and want it to go away. Trump declaring and emergency and building the wall makes the issue go away. This entire thing will be forgotten before the month is out. Trump will build his wall and no longer be able to beat Democrats over the head about it. Democrats will be able to tell their lunatic base that they did everything to stop that evil wall but Trump is just lawless.

    Like many things in Washington, both sides win with this.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't see why Trump should stop until the whole border is secure.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    John, Trump is not done bashing the Democrats over the head with this issue. Its a winner election issue for him.

    If the Democrats were smart, they would have taken one on the chin and gave him a few billion dollars more than Trump asked for. The Democrat voter would justify it away like they do all the racism, sexism, and anti-American behavior the Party of slavery puts out.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "Its a winner election issue for him."

    Or a colossal disaster that sets a precedent for horrible things not too far down the road when the pendulum swings. Guess we'll find out, but I'm guessing Trump is about to step on his dick..... bigleague.

  • jomo||

    Yes, because there are only two choices, agree 100% with how this is being done (and the idea that this wall will actually work) or be, as you put it, "being opposed to a secure border solely out of hatred for Trump and with complete disregard for American security."

    I hope you're not anyone's boss, if this how you see the world. "Guys, agree with my bombastic, inefficient, property-taking and likely useless method of dealing with a problem that not everyone even thinks is that real, or else it means you disagree only out of spite for me and have no regard for your jobs or this company."

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Yes, because there are only two choices, agree 100% with how this is being done (and the idea that this wall will actually work) or be, as you put it, "being opposed to a secure border solely out of hatred for Trump and with complete disregard for American security."

    1) The Democrats lost all their credibility when they spurned Trump's offer to give the Dreamers a three year reprieve. For all Nancy Pelosi knows, Trump may not win in 2020, and the Republicans in the Senate might have to negotiate with a Democrat president in 2021. They spurned that offer--because they don't really give a shit about the Dreamers. I try not to judge people by their words when I can look at their deeds, and noting the Democrats have done here suggests they really care about illegal immigrants and their problems. All their actions suggest that this is all about opposing Trump personally--and that's it. Now I've shown you a good reason to think that Pelosi and the House Democrats don't care about the Dreamers. Why don't you give me a good reason to think that they do?

  • Ken Shultz||

    2) You don't know anything about what I think of immigration--not from what I wrote in the comment you responded to. That was my honest assessment of the way things are--I don't believe things are as they should just because I want them that way. Is that what you do? Do you only believe facts if they support your preexisting biases? I don't. In fact, for your information, I happen to support open borders. So stick that in your peace pipe and smoke it. All the facts show me that Nancy Pelosi is full of shit on immigration--she doesn't care about the Dreamers at all. And anyone who supports her or the Democrat leadership because they think she's pro-immigration is making a fool of themselves.

  • Tionia||

    So if trump was so fired up about his wall that he promised Mexico would pay for them why didn't he even start it when republicans help all 3 branches? Wouldn't that have been the time for him to at least get his wall started?

  • Ken Shultz||

    He didn't have the support for it in the Senate. Murkowsi, Colllins, and Heller might as well have been Democrats.

    Now Trump has support for it in the Senate, but lost the support he needed in the House.

    In the meantime, the clock is ticking, and he appears to be working on keeping his promises. He promised to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. If he doesn't get the wall, it sure as hell isn't because of a lack of effort on his part. More than shut down the government and declare an emergency--how much more could he do? He doesn't bring up Mexico's concessions in regards to the NAFTA renegotiation, because if that becomes about immigration and them paying for the wall, the Democrats will oppose it solely on the basis that Trump wants it. I see no good reason to believe that the Democrats care about the Dreamers or any other immigrants. It's just about embarrassing Trump ahead of 2020 to them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So, let's review some of his promises.

    He promised to build a wall, and I think it's unreasonable to have expected him to do more than he's doing to accomplish that. If Mexico doesn't pay for it, it sure as hell isn't because he doesn't want them to pay for it.

    Trump promised to leave the states alone on marijuana, and that's what he did.

    Trump promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and that's what he did.

    Trump promised to pull us out of the Paris Accord Treaty, and that's what he did.

    Trump promised to tear up the Iran nukes agreement, and that's what he did.

    Trump promised to work with Putin to drive ISIS out of Syria, and that's what he did.

    Trump promised to give the Chinese hell on trade, and that's what he did.

    It doesn't matter whether I like Trump. It doesn't matter whether I like the promises he kept. He did what he promised to do on those issues--whether I like it or not--and the swing state, rust belt voters who put him in the White House will probably reward him for keeping those promises, too--whether I like it or not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +100 len

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ken

  • creech||

    The only crisis I see was McCabe admitting that the Gestapo was discussing how to assemble a majority of the cabinet to remove the constitutionally elected president.

  • jomo||

    Maybe it's just me, but in this list I see just a few little items that go a bit beyond "Invoking the Act only lets you do a set number of things, like reprogram funds or pay military retires above the cap if they go to work as GS employees and a list of other specified things."

    from the article...
    "...seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens...."

    Yeah, you know, just a few little tidbits here and there. Like seizing people's land, declaring martial law, you know. Little things.

  • mpercy||

    Two things.

    The Congress that passed that law was 291-144 Democrat/Republican.

    Congress can terminate a declaration of emergency, and under the terms of the Act it looks like a fast-track procedure is called for (no more than 15 days).

  • John||

    Yes Congress can do that.

  • RockStander||

    No, congress cannot stop it. Obama's EO gave the sitting president this power, regardless of congressional opinion or approval. And only the president can end it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So we have people like ML and Jesse declaring that this bill is an "open borders bill" that prevents ICE from deporting people and legalizing child smuggling. Where are these people getting this type of crap? Is this the headline from Breitbart or something?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh look, big headline on Breitbart is "Congress Sends Trump Open Border Bill". Looks like we know where our resident conservatives are getting their talking points from.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    People ignored you above, so you're trying to be ignored some more?

  • posmoo||

    https://imgur.com/a/G2xhA5p

    anyone in any household that contains a minor that was trafficked into the united states (unaccompanied minor means they were trafficked) is absolutely immune from detention and deportation.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh I see. So the idea that relatives who sponsor unaccompanied minors, relatives who may be undocumented themselves, shouldn't be subject to deportation themselves while taking care of these minors, that gets spun into OMG CHILD SMUGGLING IS LEGAL NOW.

    how ridiculous

  • CapitalistRoader||

    We're not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help they need. I've got a pen and I've got a phone—and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.
    President Awesome Boyfriend, 14 Jan '14
  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well looks like, if Trump goes the National Emergency declaration route, that there's going to be a vote in Congress to repeal the declaration, and McTurtle can't bottle up the vote this time.

  • John||

    Yes and Congress will reaffirm the declaration. The Democrats can't filibuster that the way the did wall funding. The Republicans will want a vote.

  • LEAPGuyAZ||

    I was a deputy sheriff so i understand we need border security. But I worked narcotics and I can tell you, if you build it, they will come. If you spend billions building roads into remote inaccessible areas of the border, the cartels will do the same from their side of the border.

    Currently we have no way to stop drugs from entering the US. Building roads into remote areas will only give cartels many more places to smuggle drugs and people into our country. They currently don't use the remote areas of the border because, there are no roads to get there...

  • Tony||

    ^^Look at the deputy sheriff with the good point.

    Of course as everyone knows, the Mexicans travel in hordes and caravans, roads be damned, guided by only two aims: go north and impregnate people's daughters.

  • TJJ2000||

    Roads end were barricades begin.

  • RockStander||

    The road doesn't end --- it just requires a passport or proof of citizenship. Nice try.

  • Anthony555||

    If you worked narcotics, you know it's time to legalize them and use them to create jobs in this country.

  • jomo||

    You'll soon find that your status/opinion as a former officer will be discounted by half the posters here and all the posters on sites like Breitbart, because even though most of them never served in anything other than a fake paintball militia, they are the only true arbiters of what a "real Soldier" or "Real Cop" would do.

    Ever see the treatment that former soldiers and cops get online when they dare to point out truths that don't fit the SuperCon narrative?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All drug laws are unconstitutional, so if you're a cop...you are violating your oath of office.

  • TJJ2000||

    LOL... Surprising True (Can't find any enumerated power that fits) but there is this one for drugs being imported, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"..

  • TJJ2000||

    And of course this would only apply to Federal Officers not States.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    States dont have unlimited powers. States are limited by their state constitutions, the US Constitution, and federal supremacy.

    States did have umlimited powers but they gave some of those powers up to form this Constitutional Democratic Republic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The federal government can regulate commerce interstate and internationally.

    Regulation is not banning. Otherwise there is nothing to regulate.

    Even the Prohibitionists knew that they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.

  • TJJ2000||

    "among the States" - Originally written due to State-to-State conflicts. Just wanted to clarify that part.

  • Nuwanda||

    Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    https://youtu.be/KT3vOCWA-J0

    Road, that's a weird word.

  • I Used To Be A Democrat||

    This is actually one of the reasons I used to be in the democrat party.

    Koch brothers open boarders immigration just means less jobs and social benefits for people like me, just so rich people can have cheap labor. Why should I suffer more for the 1%?

  • Tony||

    It rather depends on whether you missed out on the job opportunity of washing dishes at a restaurant, or if you're a customer at the restaurant.

  • John||

    Tony just because your job as a ten dollar a trick tranny hooker is secure doesn't mean everyone else is so lucky.

  • Tony||

    I just defended a Republican economic theory and Republican immigration policy that leaves us with an underclass with no rights doing cheap menial labor for a benefit of a white leisure class. Why are you being mean? You love that shit.

  • Ecoli||

    Shitting on the poor so you can have a cheap hamburger is no way to win the votes of the poor. Ironically, that tactic has worked for the Democratic party for decades.

    I guess LBJ was right.

  • Tony||

    I don't think this country has ever gone without cheap labor in one form or another. Even if we give undocumented immigrants some rights, all the stuff we buy will still be made by toddlers in Asia.

    The doubly disturbing thing is that if we did the "right" thing and worked to lift all boats across the globe into a universal middle class, we'll destroy the planet almost immediately. Best wait till we finally get fusion power.

  • Uncle Adolf’s Gas and Grill||

    And as we keep learning over and over again - cheap labor for us today means our descendants will be paying for it in perpetuity. Maybe it's time we got it through our heads that there ain't no such thing as cheap labor!

  • Tony||

    How so? White people are still seeing dividends on slavery.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats do like them some slavery

  • TJJ2000||

    Don't you mean Black people?

  • I Used To Be A Democrat||

    Who do you think are the most vulnerable, and who need the most protection?

    This is why I'm not a democrat anymore: they don't really care about the poor.

  • Tony||

    Democrats have immigration reform ready to hit the floor whenever Republicans want to get on board. It's Republican special interests that benefit from an environment of cheap labor combined with xenophobia against the people doing the cheap labor.

    The answer is we should all be willing to pay extra for food and such because the macro situation of everyone being more middle class grows the economy makes us wealthy enough to afford it.

  • Brian||

    And how do we "pay extra" when the labor market is a buyer's market? Do we just give restaurants more profit?

    You're disgusting.

  • Tony||

    I don't know what you're asking. Obviously it's a freer market when it permits restaurant owners to hire cheap Mexican labor.

  • Brian||

    And how exactly will you make people pay a lot for labor that isn't worth it?

  • Tony||

    Part of being a wealthy, modern civilization is that we only permit businesses to operate that can manage to pay a decent wage. It's still market competition, but at the varsity level, you might say.

  • Brian||

    I'm sure price fixing will handle cheap, oversupplied labor in an efficient manner, with no unintended consequences ever.

  • Tony||

    You're the ones who insist that people do hard labor in order to purchase their basic needs. All modern civilizations have figured out that you have to put a floor on the level of misery people are expected to live. It's why you don't have to trudge through muddy tracks to get to Krispy-Kreme and instead have a nice flat road to use that I paid for. It's why Social Security exists. And the minimum wage. Yes, these things distort the market, but--and I need you to pay attention--there is no such thing as a pure, pristine, ideal market configuration. Laws, among other environmental factors, will always affect it. But it's okay because, again, there is no such thing as a magical ideal market. Even a bare-bones libertarian system of laws will change prices of some things.

  • Ecoli||

    "Democrats have immigration reform ready to hit the floor..."

    Right. Democrats worked on it feverishly and perfected every single phrase and word during their 40 year control of the congress. Why, Democrats are experts at "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", that is a trade marked phrase, son, so don't go bantying it about without citation. Democratic immigration reforms are so iron clad as to be impregnable to logic and common sense.

    If you vote for me, you will enjoy life and be much above average.

  • Tony||

    Democrats have had exactly 4 years of total government control since the 1980s.

    But whatever. Both sides! Rah!

  • Ecoli||

    Who is talking about total gov control. Dems controlled the House f(ya know, the branch that writes laws) for forty years. They did nothing on immigration.

    In fairness, neither party wants to do anything on immigration, each for its own nefarious reasons.

    Tucker Carlson has it right about this issue. I know you hate him, but you should listen to him, he is just as hard on the Republicans as he is on the Democrats.

  • TJJ2000||

    Democrats "Immigration Reform" - Is cuddling/subsidizing the illegal invasion! No Thanks!

  • Tony||

    You should stick to things you know about like carnal relations with close blood relatives.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony loses argument, so turns to irrelevamt insults.

  • TJJ2000||

    That's how I've always seen it -- Democrats want to de-associate personal action from its natural consequences/reward by diverting those consequence/rewards to someone else completely un-assoicated with the personal action.

    That's how Billionaires exist UN-Justly because they got the "rewards" without the action and that's how "The People" got their "consequences" without doing the crime.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    "Koch brothers open boarders immigration just means less jobs and social benefits for people like me, just so rich people can have cheap labor. Why should I suffer more for the 1%?"

    Did you have a habit of running home crying to mom every time you got picked on at school? Not trying to be mean, just an honest question.

  • RockStander||

    The time for Bier and others to be "concerned" with this action was when OBAMA created the Executive Order giving the sitting president the right to declare a national emergency IF the president determines it's a national emergency regardless of congressional opinion. Not only that, but Obama's EO states that the president alone can determine it is no longer a national emergency. He can also use American citizens to work for the government at this time, without recompense (slave labor.) Yes, Obama put these powers directly into the hands of any seated president. You liberals be sure to thank him and the democrats you elected who want power above citizens' rights. It's too late now. You should've objected about 4 years ago. You reap what you sow.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    dude, right-wing news rots your brain

    the National Emergencies Act has been around since 1976, and there has been some sort of presidential power to declare national emergencies since before that

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Article II, Section 1: Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

  • Tionia||

    According to Charles McFarland, an eminent domain lawyer with the Owners' Counsel of America, Trump's strategy could actually doom his hopes for the project.

    The "rogue decision to secure funding through executive fiat (like a declaration of national emergency) could ironically give landowners the ability to challenge the project on grounds that were previously unavailable," McFarland explained in an NBC News op-ed in early February, before Trump's decision was formalized. "This would be a mistake with both immediate and historic consequences for his project and his presidency."

    He noted that in general, the government's power of eminent domain is expansive. And since Congress has already passed legislation directing the government to construct "not less" than 700 miles of barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, essentially everything but the funding is in place for the fences or walls to be built.

    But, McFarland argued, by stretching his authority to get funding for the wall, Trump raises serious legal perils for the project. If Congress appropriated the funds as it does normally, it could use the Declaration of Takings Act to push passed many legal obstacles. The national emergency doesn't allow for that, as he explained:

    1

  • Tionia||

    But to take advantage of the quick-take process authorized by the Declaration of Takings Act, project funding must be appropriated by an act of Congress, not an emergency order. Thus, if President Trump funds his border wall project through executive order, he could lose a very favorable process for getting the project built.

    Additionally, once Congress has granted authority for a project, judicial review of that decision is exceedingly limited. But, by proceeding under an emergency order, the president opens the door to public use and necessity challenges that would probably not be otherwise available to landowners under the existing legislative authority for the project.

    On top of both of those issues, the ability to waive federal, state and local laws under the REAL ID Act may be lost if the president proceeds with an executive order, which could subject the project to immediate injunction and compliance actions under the myriad of environmental laws that could otherwise be waived.

    2

  • Tionia||

    Political issues compound the legal issues McFarland outlined. In addition to alienating some members of the Republican Party through an extreme exertion of executive power, Trump's attempted power grab also lessens the leverage over lawmakers to offer concessions on the wall. If the president is just going to try to unconstitutionally procure funds for the project, why should any Democrats or wall-skeptical Republicans go along with efforts to fund it through the traditional means?

    And by pushing the project into the center of bitter legal fights with landowners, the president also exposes the project to much more public criticism. The legal fight over the wall will be extensively covered; the litigants having their land taken away by the government may get sympathetic portraits written up in the press. All this will eat away at whatever political capital Trump has left for the wall.

    3

  • Anthony555||

    Suddenly the people that were OK with the Obama administration seizing property, guns or forcing people to sell their autos are suddenly not OK with the Trump administration doing the same.

  • John||

    Except that isn't what is happening here. Go understand what is going on and then come tell us about what it means for the future.

  • Anthony555||

    The article specifically bemoans seizure of private property on the border. Maybe you should read it.

  • Ecoli||

    Pelosi is threatening a national emergency to violate the 2nd amendment if ever a Democrat becomes president.

  • Echospinner||

    "I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall,"

    Donald Trump June 16, 2015.

    And lock her up, ban all the Muslims, have a great amazing military parade.

    Space force is another great big idea. Trump has dealt with the huge transsexual problem in the military.

    Great great. That is double great.

  • Tony||

    He's also responsible for unprecedented diversity in Congress.

  • Heresy Hunter||

    Regardless of the necessity of the wall, what's really scary is a declared national crises. If trump declares a national crises and uses executive authority to do things not approved by Congress, my remaining respect for him plummets. Do people not realize that using military action to control domestic affairs without legislative direction in the name of "crises" ignores legal process and the authority of constitutional law. This is what allows dictators to seize power and is the main reason I dislike Abraham Lincoln. TRUMP, DO NOT DO THIS!!!!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • Tony||

    Do you post this when you cum or what?

  • Ecoli||

    Like you don't.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony is jealous because he cant cum and post at the same time.

    In fact, tony cant cum at all anymore since Trump has been prez. Rolling back socialist policies ruins it every time.

  • Fmontyr||

    Little Donnie Trump is so upset that adults won't let him have a wall that he is having a tantrum.

  • Rob Misek||

    Hell of a precedent, doing an end run around legal checks and balances, to declare a national emergency to fulfill an election platform promise and as a future campaign advertisement.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    But in fact, Americans flipping the bill and Americans losing their property was not the delusional " election platform promise" he made, remember. Is that what his supporters knew that he meant when he said Mexico would pay for it? Maybe Drumpf should impose martial law on all those individuals that have nothing else better to do than to protest outside Planned Parenthood to help build his fence, you know, so that they have something productive to do with their wasted time.

  • Rob Misek||

    Are you suggesting that declaring a national emergency to fulfill an election promise is constitutional.

    Personally I think it would be far more constitutional to declare a national emergency to ban abortion and put the industry out of business that is responsible for the murder of 750,000 innocent American citizens every year.

    That's a lot of murder.

  • Rob Misek||

    What about NAP?

    Not a single libertarian should support abortion.

    Unless somewhere buried in the libertarian mantra is the caveat which allows to to deny logic and science whenever it suits you.

  • posmoo||

    "Trump would still have to convince the courts that building a wall is necessary for national defense"

    that's not the legal standard, Joe Seyton. I realize you got a communications degree from Grove City College, so maybe you should be a journalist, and go ask a lawyer.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I bet it cost more to tear it down than it does to build it next time we have a team blue prez.

  • librich||

    I made the prediction to friends twenty years ago that America would be a totalitarian society within a century. I wasn't clear, however, on how that might happen. The increasing use of Executive Orders to skirt unresolvable conflicts in Congress is a good example of the trend, but there are still a lot of obstacles to Executive fiat using that approach. Declaring an ongoing state of national emergency, however, gets you there overnight. As I'm sure many Reason readers are aware, this situation was predicted by Hayek. As the government gets more power, the need for political consensus mounts; and when consensus isn't possible, Executive fiat becomes the only way things can get done.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You will have to articulate what you mean.

    If the 3 branches of govnerment are 'equal' then congress controls the purse and the executive controls how to implement those laws, a d the courts decide if the laws and their execution conform to the limits of the constitution.

  • Echospinner||

    "Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it."

    Donald Trump, Cleveland Ohio RNC July 21, 2016

  • Tionia||

    One thing people need to remember if Trump does claim a National Emergency all other presidents can do the same thing for their pet projects. So what would that mean if you get an anti-gun president in the White House?!?!?!
    THINK ABOUT IT!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They have.

    Guns are protected by the 2A. National defense is an enumerated power under various clauses of the constitution.

  • Heresy Hunter||

    Right. It makes you wonder what Rebublicans like Mitch McConnell are thinking.

    Answer: They don't.

  • Nardz||

    Fuck it.
    Let's just go civil war.
    The progressives have now openly declared their totalitarian plans (Green Leap Forward), have gone full fascist in their control/cooperation with means of communication (Google, Twitter, Facebook, MSM, Obama's state propaganda act passed 12/16), have positioned and utilized their brownshirt thugs (antifa), are aiding and abetting a literal invasion of foreign nationals (sanctuary cities, obstruction of border control, welfare provision), obstruct any means of securing our voting process, and are still attempting to stage a coup to overthrow government elected by The People.
    I see nothing distinguishing these actions from out and out treason.
    There will be blood.
    The only question is "whose?"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its close.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The progressives have now openly declared their totalitarian plans

    Huh. So Trump is a progressive now.

    Let's just go civil war.

    The Bundys would like to have a word with you.

  • Nardz||

    You're very ignorant, jeff, and unwise.

  • TJJ2000||

    "I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward" -- Exactly Obama words Jan 14, 2014.

    The word of the Bundy's is right on the mark and is why they were released and its why Trump pardoned the Hammond's. The *corruption* of the Obama Administration is clear as day to EVERYONE who isn't a D-Team Cheerleader fighting endlessly for their FREE SOCIALIST meal or just flat out supporting team affiliation.

    The USA is NOT and hopefully will never be a COMMUNIST country.

    and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, [[[but were reserved to the States respectively]]]. Secondly, the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. Thirdly, the right of the United States to the public lands, and the power of Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the sale and disposition thereof, [[[conferred no power to grant to the plaintiffs the land in controversy]]]
    https://supreme.justia.com /cases/federal /us/44/212/case.html

  • Wearenotperfect||

    Drumpf at rally: "Who's going to pay for it?"

    MAGAlomaniacs at rally: "We are!"

    Let's not forget that little 2016 campaign promise.

  • gclancy51||

    Before reading, this thread will be:

    ChemJeff whining almost hysterically

    Tulpa being a troll and saying nothing constructive ever, not realizing his comments win far more enemies than friends to his cause (if he actually has one)

    Shitlord saying something which may be prosecutable against his enemies

    Sevo acting as a slightly more educated Tulpa

    Tony being Tony

    LibertyMike and Soldier medic being the only ones with a modicum of decency

    I miss Hinh. Where is he these days?

  • RoninX||

    I've always thought Trump's wall was stupid, but mostly harmless, but the idea that the President can declare a national emergency whenever he (or she) doesn't get what he/she wants from Congress is far, far worse.

    What are you going to do when the next Democrat President declares a national emergency over "gun violence" and starts seizing privately-owned guns? Sue? Well, good luck with that if the SCOTUS decides to uphold Trump's "emergency" powers.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    A repeat of 1861?

  • My Internet Name||

    I don't expect the SCOTUS to be consistent in how they apply the law to conservatives vs liberals, but I also don't see what stops a Democratic president and congress from adding another 4 justices to the court and packing it.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Here is the short list of the very few actions the Constitution allows our Federal government: Regulation of interstate commerce. The coining of money, (which BTW the have illegally ceded to private banks in 1917.) and Defending our borders. If 22% of our prisons are filled with Crimaleins, if 99% of the Fentanyl , crack and Meth are coming across, if child trafficking is coming from there... then what about this is less of a crisis the the GD flu TWO presidents declared a NE. Sometimes I think Libertarians have such an open mind, their brains fall out. No wonder you cant win an election.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Sorry, wrong article.... :-)

  • IJustWorkHere||

    Fuck off, slaver

  • My Internet Name||

    What it means for some of us is that we've given up on the law and integrity as a way to govern. The Republicans are willing to jettison all principles and their Constitutional duty to serve their master. They should expect the same from us. The reckoning that is sure to come will be very painful, but I no longer care about the welfare of conservatives. When we regain power, I hope we bury them.

  • Nardz||

    Hilarious.
    This has always been your attitude.
    Fundamental dishonesty is characteristic of progressives, so I commend you for at least coming clean at the end.
    You'll not be missed.

  • Bubba Jones||

    "If only we could be China for a day." - Thomas Friedman

  • Leslie the Bard||

    Why should Trump "seize" property to build the Wall? He could just as well persuade, or buy, or rent. As for the Indian lands, he need only ask the Tohono O'odam where *they* want the wall built, and then go and do accordingly.

  • vek||

    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.

    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... 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.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online