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.
What many see is the wall not being the most efficient/cost effective way of dealing with the problem. Making E-Verify mandatory and legislating jail time for those who hire/profit from cheap illegal labor would eliminate the reason so many illegals come here and be far more easily accomplished than even land acquisition for a wall would be.
The Democrats will not support that either. In fact, they will not support anything that will actually work. It is as simple as that.
The problem with e-verify is that many transactions not involving illegals such as hiring baby-sitters or snow-shovelers would become very complicated. Many illegals do something simpler; they give birth, entitling their offspring to benefits which they use. But basically you're right; the Democrats want nothing that would cut off the supply of future voters. And they get to feel so virtuous about themselves, on other people's money.
That was a question about Truman's right to seize steel mills. It wasn't about his right to declare a state of emergency.
Courts are not going to want to insert themselves into second guessing what a President deems an emergency. They never have before.
And what will Trump do to get the private property to build his wall? Bases on previous court ruling he can't seize it, and there are still cases going through court from the 2006 secure fence act to get property. So basically his fix for this emergency could take decades to even get started in places.
The whole issue is simple to me. The purpose of a border is to determine on which side people belong. We have to leave it up to the discretion of those administering the laws of the country to determine how best to enforce the border. And it can be harsh. In another context Liel Leibovitz wrote, in Tablet Magazine (link to article):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tablet Magazine
If, like me and like most Israelis, you believe that humanity could hardly do better than to arrange itself by nation state, you shouldn’t have much difficulty understanding why a border is among the key emblems of national sovereignty, and why violating it brazenly and violently is going to be met with the harshest response imaginable.
While the setting is the Middle East the dilemma is identical; either there is a national border or there is not.
That was a question about Truman's right to seize steel mills. It wasn't about his right to declare a state of emergency.
Courts are not going to want to insert themselves into second guessing what a President deems an emergency. They never have before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
And what will Trump do to get the private property to build his wall? Bases on previous court ruling he can't seize it, and there are still cases going through court from the 2006 secure fence act to get property. So basically his fix for this emergency could take decades to even get started in places.
This is truly fascinating. The likely statute that Trump would use to reach the military construction funds is Section 2808 of Title 10. This is the statute that requires infrastructure to support the military. And then it will divert funds intended to support current military bases. A problem.
But beyond that - Section 2808 authorizes construction only on military land — very little of which abuts the border.
“The president would need to use the military to seize hundreds upon hundreds of miles of border land from the states and from private citizens, which there’s no legal authority to and which you can bet would create a political and legal response.” https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ration-1069293
Trump, no doubt, has been told that. Last week he was talking about using a "military" version of eminent domain.
Can you imagine the outcry - and the court cases. Seizing land for the military for an emergency that isn't.
The Trump White House remains adamant that it is moving ahead with a wall, hopefully with the Democrats cooperation, but if the Democrats cannot manage that, then without it.
Trump restated Friday night that if a negotiated agreement cannot be reached with the Democrats, then "we'll do the emergency, because that's what it is".
Trump can move it right into the courtroom, where it will sit for months, if not years, hopefully long enough for him to be impeached and/or leave office.
Trump can move it right into the courtroom, where it will sit for months, if not years, hopefully long enough for him to be impeached and/or leave office.
If you say so.
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.
