Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another example of cherry picking. What about the numerous stories where citizens including the mayor of McAllen town said there is no crisis on the border? Most people aren't disputing a need for a barrier but not on taxpayer's dollar and it's not an emergency. If it was an emergency, Individual 1 should have passed it 2 years ago.
Mayor Jim Darling is not completely opposed to physical barriers along the US-Mexico border, but he doesn't see a wall as a realistic solution to the variety of issues the US faces in terms of immigration.
"In certain locations, a wall or a fence or some deterrent makes sense but certainly not one across the great swath of the border in places where, ecologically, the damage would be much greater than a security benefit," he said. "So it's really a political football, I think. And just saying we're going to build this great wall across the whole border makes no sense at all."
There’s nothing incriminating here, just nonsense.
Oh, and:
“An executive at a San Diego television station backed off his claim that CNN had asked for a "local view" and then "declined to hear from us" after past reports from the station showed that a border wall was effective.
****-TV news director Steve Cohen acknowledged on Friday that he didn’t actually know why CNN turned down an opportunity to interview local reporter Dan Plante, The Associated Press reported.”
This threat will force Pelosi and Ocasia Cortez to capitulate and vote to reopen the government and fund the border wall. This $5 billion is less than 0.01% of the total federal budget yet they oppose it simply for political correctness reasons. They think having a border wall is "racist". They have no other logical arguments against it given its such a small percentage of the federal budget and we give MUCH more in foreign aid including to Mexico and Central America, and to Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers yearly.
Or maybe Trump should threaten to divert Planned Parenthood funds for the wall now THAT would really get the Democrats panicking.
There are the stickies that address how dysfunctional it would be to build a wall. In an ideal world the wall should be justified (funded) on its merits. The percentage of the total US budget that it may account for is irrelevant. That it's only 0.01% of the total federal budget says nothing to the Texas borderer whose livelihood is destroyed by a wall.
One of the demonstrable faults our appropriations process is that unsupportable (financially, logistically etc.) projects are funded in broadranging deals that include other initiatives. So, yes, here even a "boondoggle" (and it is that) stands some chance.
The issue here is that Trump so far has been unable to figure out to deal with Congress using even these timeworn practices. He's now degrading even that process, taking it to new lows.
BobNJ, We are all in favor of enhanced border security.
Cheeto wants a wall that has NO chance of working, has no chance of being completed.
Cheeto's administration has not spent what he received in last budget for a Wall. Not buying his explanation that Government doesn't pay until job complete. You'd be a foolish contractor if you expended hundreds of millions up-front with payment at end. They're called either progress payments, not unlike how you pay a home improvement contractor you pay for materials and based upon certain percentage of completion.
It has a 100% chance of working based on actual results of past barrier construction.
And to shoot down that myth that the wall money in the last budget has not been spent, that claim has been shown as Mostly False by Politifact. You're right about contractors and progress payments but you have inadvertently demonstrated why the "only 6% spent" claim is phony. 100% of the budget money has been allocated, 6% has actually been paid for construction seed money, and none of the construction has even reached a 10% milestone yet.
No one disputes your first bold. And find me one post (or advocate) who wants to tear existing fencing down. Walls are part of a border-security toolset, particularly in urban areas. The current dispute is whether to extend them to areas where they have previously been judged (by Homeland Security, pre-Trump) is not only be not functional but problematic.
Trump's White House attorneys notified him that he would most likely lose in court if he went the emergency declaration route.
Probably why he's backed off lately
If he declares a National Emergency due to the shutdown and authorizes himself to control spending temporarily until congress passes a spending bill, is a court going to block that? Because by blocking it they are ordering the shutdown to continue.
You realize that illegal immigrants are also killing countless Americans every day, and the drugs that come from the border and the crime that fuels also kills people every day. So if it comes to a state of emergency yes the funds SHOULD come from Pelosi's district and similar ones since they're the ones who refuse to secure the border.
And its the Democrats and the deep state who started targeting Trump's base specifically like how they taught China in the trade war to specifically increase tariffs on agricultural and industrial products made mostly in Republican states like Wisconsin dairy, Louisiana soybeans etc etc teh left and the deep state support our unfair status quo with China for example. I think the deep state and the globalists in the government have open communications with Communist China and the Party. Obama cared only for his base when he pushed Obamacare and engaged in his pro BLM anti police rhetoric and pushed DACA.
In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, which permits the president to pronounce a national emergency when he considers it appropriate. The act offers no specific definition of “emergency” and allows a president to declare one entirely at their discretion.
It has historically been invoked during unusual or extraordinary threats to the United States, according to Dickinson, like in response to the threat of North Korean nuclear warfare or amid the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.
Would inadequate or no airport screening be considered an extraordinary threat? What about inadequate or no health or food screening?
Would inadequate or no airport screening be considered an extraordinary threat? What about inadequate or no health or food screening?
Apparently not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
