Trump to Declare National Emergency (top 10, Muslim, single, United States)

[Buckeye77]

this is President Trump's 4th "national emergency"
Obama had 11 or 12, many of which are still in effect
Bill had 17, none of which concerned Monica

Trump needs to get busy

[509]

Originally Posted by odanny

It's a "national emergency" in Trump's delusional imagination.

Well, according to Yale University....somewhere between one in TEN and FIFTEEN people IN THE UNITED STATES are here illegally.

The FEDERAL government has no clue about their motives.

I do know the more than a third of the folks in the local county jail are here illegally. I do know a local deputy sheriff and several men and woman have been killed by people here illegally. A personal friend was killed by a illegal driving drunk.....20 years later she has been deported for the THIRD time.

That is NOT counting the second generation....which are AMERICANS given the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

A County Sheriff once told me that the illegals are NOT that different from the American population. BUT their kids.....they are hell on wheels. Just like they were for the Italians, Irish, Russians, Vietnamese, and others. REALLY how many times do we have to go through this??

I suspect you live in a “gated” community where those “illegals” come during the day and leave. But for those of us in the real world......50% of the kids in my school district are the result of illegal immigration. Of course, they were born here making them Americans. But that doesn’t change the fact I am paying taxes to educate the kids that Mexico refused to educate.

As a legal immigrant I get it why people want to come to this country. Unlike, most of the Elites they recognize how special this country is in the world.

What I don’t get is why the Elites in this country prefer to protect the illegals over their own citizens?? Is a cheap maid, gardener, and “slave” labor worth it to them??

[natalie469]

Originally Posted by folkguitarist555

Liberals with such seething hate for our president should be deported immediately to somewhere like the Honduras or Somalia. seeing they want to turn our country into a third world country such countries would be suitable for them.

I think it’s more about respect than hate. We have a president who only caters to his base. He could care less about the rest of our country. He has shown no respect so he gets none in return

[Rocko20]

Originally Posted by ipaper

Please, everybody saw this coming a mile away, what country were you living in lately. No, he didn't hit anything out of the park, all the lawsuit will keep it in the park for a long time to come yet. Yeah, that's art the deal alright.

Yes, is that why this thread is 400 pages long?

Shall we bump up all the threads of democrats/liberals patting themsleevs on the back after the first shutdown ended with no money?

Now he has a possible $8 billion. Well done Mr. President.

[folkguitarist555]

Originally Posted by natalie469

I think it’s more about respect than hate. We have a president who only caters to his base. He could care less about the rest of our country. He has shown no respect so he gets none in return

It's the liberals who could care less about America. Trump is trying to protect America and secure our borders. While the liberals want wide open borders. Trump gets all my respect in the world he is a great president doing all the right things.

[JRR]

Originally Posted by yeahboy79

It makes complete sense. He has to appease to his base but we all know he's not going to win a lawsuit. He also knows that shutting down the government for longer is a going to hurt everyone and continue to make him look bad. So what does he do? sign the bill and ensure the government is open, act unilaterally and unconstitutionally even though it will get shot down, and turn that into a campaign slogan against the media/democrats/etc.

I agree that it was the only way to get him out of the bad situation he was in. He couldn't care less if the wall is or isn't actually built. He just needs to be able to keep telling the 35% that he is doing his best to get it done. Got to keep the studio audience happy.

[Spottednikes]

Originally Posted by banjomike

I seldom believe an independent I don't know well. Most independents tend to lean toward one party or the other, but they will occasionally vote for someone in the other party. Those who claim party affiliation do the same, though.

So for me, the term independent doesn't reveal very much at all. I've met too many extremists on both sides who call themselves independent to think the term defines centrists.

All I've come to believe is the independents are either tend to vote for candidates from personal candidate preferences over the party, or because they don't want themselves to be known by any affiliation to a party.

Most conversations about the voters being screwed are perpetual. They divide between the same divisions they always have, and many of the divisions are parts of the various party platforms that are fundamental beliefs.

Since Congress is the place where those party beliefs will conflict daily, it's the place where the conflicts are resolved to no one's complete satisfaction.

When Congress is working well, we all get what we need, but no one gets what we want.

When Congress isn't working well, no one gets what we need and no one gets what we want.

The same is true with the Executive branch.

It's part of the elemental conflict that is built into the Constitution and the one that every functioning Democracy depends on to survive as a democracy.

In my mind, a National Emergency has to be a real, honest to God emergency to qualify for that special power's use. A 100-year flood is a national emergency, as is an earthquake, or other natural disaster.

Handling thousands of immigrants daily is not a natural disaster. It is a routine daily function of ICE, and simple isn't being as well managed as it could.

What, after all, is an immigrant? A foreigner who wants to come here and stay a while. In the larger scope of that definition, most immigrants come with all the papers they need, and stay for as long as they've asked for in advance. With no problems at all.

I see hundreds of thousands of these no-problem people passing through my home town every year on their way to visit Yellowstone Park. About a million of them sleep over here in town for a night during the tourist season. They come here from all over the world.

They go there LEGALLY, with passports, and then go home.
There are hundreds of thousands of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens each yr. Everything from aggravated assault, rape, armed robbery, negligent homicide by dwi, murder, etc. Then add in the drug deaths caused by drugs that came thru our southern borders, and all of the deaths caused by illegal aliens, and maybe you might logically consider it an emergency.

[Spottednikes]

The libs called it a humanitarian crisis/emergency when 2 illegal alien kids died in the last few months. But are silent when US citizens are murdered or killed by illegal aliens.

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

Unlikely.

The current Supreme Court, where justified, believes in preserving executive discretion. This can be justified here because courts rely on precedent. The left cannot argue that this doesn't qualify as an emergency because there is a long list of prior emergencies that passed from several presidents without objection that you could argue are not emergencies at all, but that under the language of the law is permitted under Presidential discretion. The list of still active national emergencies include:

List of the 31 active national emergencies:
1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)
2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)
3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (Jan. 23, 1995)
4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (Mar. 15, 1995)
5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (Oct. 21, 1995)
6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (Mar. 1, 1996)
7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (Nov. 3, 1997)
8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (Jun. 26, 2001)
9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (Aug. 17, 2001)
10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (Sept. 14, 2001)
11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (Sept. 23, 2001)
12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (Mar. 6, 2003)
13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)
14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)
15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (Jun. 16, 2006)
16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Oct. 27, 2006)
17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (Aug. 1, 2007)
18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (Jun. 26, 2008)
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)
29. Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption in Myanmar (Dec 20, 2017)
30. Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in the 2016 presidential election (Sept 12, 2018)
31. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (Nov 27, 2018)

Emergency funding for a border wall is not in contradiction of any of these other existing items.

The Supreme Court will not rule against Trump on this, it will be built

You may notice, however, that most of these are impounding property or dealing with sanctions. How many are trying to go around the Constitutional limitations of the Presidency? The Congress has the power of the purse, not the president. I would say that no, declaring an emergency to get funding for a project not funded by Congress is not consistent with any of these earlier declarations.

Personally, I don't know how much actual wall will be built because I am not able to look into the future. Wishful thinking is seldom accurate.

[Scooby Snacks]

I can't stop thinking of Humpty Dumpty. Trump reminds me more and more of him. Maybe he wasn't a fairy tale after all.