The President Trump Immigration Thread

[BugI02]

nonsense. The hypocrisy is complaining, rightly I might add, of Obama’s overuse of pen and phone, while applauding Trump’s yet more egregious uses,[1] because, as clear as day, the end justifies the means.

And this was my complaint about nominating Trump. A few Trumpers forced a crappy person on the rest of the electorate via a flawed Primary system.[2] who did not Want Hillary anywhere near power. When I was forced to voted for Trump because it was a Hobson’s choice, I was concerned that his supporters were incapable of criticizing legitimately bad behavior, and therefore could not hold him accountable.[3] ***dammit Inhate being right sometimes. A high price to pay for at least 4 years of Hillary not president.

Or, Idunno. Maybe Democrats wont abuse this newly precedented power to render Congress irrelevant.[4] Surely they’ll be benevolent. Oh well. Works great though while it’s your guy doing it. Maybe you guys can again find your way back to the right when the Dems get back in office. Maybe then you’ll be able to detect DICKtator bs. This pragmatic BAMN **** supported now isn’t very American.

Sigh

1) Nice jump from the specific to the general, if I were channeling a certain member I would challenge you to prove I had ever criticized Dolt 44's use of pen and phone and chastize you for interpreting a lack of documented criticism of 45's use thereof as applause

2) A few Trumpers didn't force you to do anything, they narrowed your choices when the time came to vote to include one possibility that they approved of. Did you do anything to support your preferred candidate besides sit back and *****? If a few Trumpers were so powerful, what might a few [your preferred candidate here] supporters have accomplished? You were [STRIKE]beaten[/STRIKE] thrashed within the bounds of the existing system, perhaps it's time to deal with that particular disappointment. Given the inputs at the gate that was you, you chose 1 instead of 0 - without a schematic we'll take your word that no other output was possible

3) Now you admit you had a choice, even if it was Hobsonian; but we're back to the classic critique of Trump supporters for not being able to see the Hitler for the trees. I've asked before, why is it so important that we join the Greek Chorus? Will that change the dilemma you claim you're in now? You're doing enough 'holding him accountable' for ten of us, so why is it so important to proselytize, to win converts? Do you need the support of others to reinforce your own convictions that you're correct about Trump?

4) You seem to hold it true by inspection that Democrats will only exceed their future presidential authority to declare national emergencies because Trump did. This is by no means empirical, you need to offer some proof. I have previously mentioned that they were able to nuke the filibuster all on their own without Republican help. I interpret that to mean they are quite capable of abusing the NEA (or anything else) without someone showing them the way. Like the plenary presidential power on immigration, you should be *****ing about congress ever having made such sweeping powers available to the president in the first place and advocating for constitutional seperation of powers to be reinstated

Did you do a single thing to change your circumstances besides write about it on INGO? What have you done in the realz to bring rank order voting one iota closer to existence? I most certainly have no wish to silence your voice, I just reject that being a Trump supporter is the root of all evils and aver that we are far better off with him than without. Save the coulda/woulda/shoulda for an episode of Timeless (unless you're worried that showing Democrats how to time travel to change history to one we like better might be abused)

I, for one, tire of being nagged to follow The Marquis of Queensbury's rules in what hass obviously always been a bare knuckle street brawl. Does annoying Trumpers count as some kind of success on your part of the political spectrum? Congrats.

We don't have trains here in Columbus, so do let me know if they're running on time. When the Gestaat Polizei come for you, you can hide in my attic

 

[T.Lex]

Sorry jamil, the rep trains are at full stop.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.

 

[JettaKnight]

moved.

 

[JettaKnight]

Sorry jamil, the rep trains are at full stop.

Got him for you (and me).

 

[Route 45]

So, the topic of the Alabama woman who wants to come back from Daesh is super-interesting. To my knowledge, the only way we can strip someone of US citizenship is if they're convicted of treason or something. (Which, might totally happen to her.)

But, her dad was a diplomat, so maybe she's not a US citizen. But, his diplomatic status ended a month before she was born. And she had a US passport, which in the vast majority of situations means that the US gov't thought she was a citizen.

I'd prefer that we not deny her back under some thin pretense that she was the child of a diplomat. That seems lazy to me. Let's let her come back, then prosecute her for what she actually chose to do, then let those chips fall where they may.

I'm not sure either - I know she wants to come back and be prosecuted...

...but denying entry would be the quick way to solve this.


Does prosecuting her serve a public interest? Is she correct in her assertion that it could help prevent this sort of thing happening in the future?

There's a thread on this: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-isis-jihadist-alabama-wants-return-home.html

 

[T.Lex]

Ah, thanks!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So, the topic of the Alabama woman who wants to come back from Daesh is super-interesting. To my knowledge, the only way we can strip someone of US citizenship is if they're convicted of treason or something. (Which, might totally happen to her.)

But, her dad was a diplomat, so maybe she's not a US citizen. But, his diplomatic status ended a month before she was born. And she had a US passport, which in the vast majority of situations means that the US gov't thought she was a citizen.

I'd prefer that we not deny her back under some thin pretense that she was the child of a diplomat. That seems lazy to me. Let's let her come back, then prosecute her for what she actually chose to do, then let those chips fall where they may.

According to her lawyer... State Department says differently. If the State Dept is correct, then the passport was issued in error, and she is not, nor ever was, a citizen.

 

[T.Lex]

According to her lawyer... State Department says differently. If the State Dept is correct, then the passport was issued in error, and she is not, nor ever was, a citizen.

Last I saw, the State Department wasn't saying anything. Has that changed?

 

[BugI02]

Last I saw, the State Department wasn't saying anything. Has that changed?

Directly from https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/02/289558.htm 1 minute ago


View attachment 74946

 

[jamil]

I wish this could have been accomplished by the congress, via "normal" procedures. I really do.

But to be clear, these aren't new appropriations. The money has been appropriated already. Here's the breakdown:

1.37 Bn - from the bill recently approved (by Congress)
3.6 Bn. - from the DoD construction fund*
2.5 Bn. - from the DoD drug interdiction fund*
600 million from asset forfeiture (Dept. of the Treasury)

* 6.1 billion from already appropriated DoD funds. And who is in charge of the DoD? The CinC. So all but 600 million has already been appropriated by Congress, and the lion's share is coming from the DoD budget, which is spent at the discretion of the CinC - aka the President. So it seems to me that this isn't as extraordinary as it's being made out to be.

Noted. So no new precedent here. It's all okay anyway. Because you wish Trump could have gotten it done the constitutional way. I'll bookmark this post and look forward to comparing/contrasting during the next Democratic presidency where you justify their use of emergency powers to bypass congress.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Noted. So no new precedent here. It's all okay anyway. Because you wish Trump could have gotten it done the constitutional way. I'll bookmark this post and look forward to comparing/contrasting during the next Democratic presidency where you justify their use of emergency powers to bypass congress.

It is constitutional until the law that was passed in 1976 is rescinded, which I'm totally okay with. If the law is still in effect in your scenario, I won't like it any more or less UNLESS they are indeed infringing on the rights set forth in the constitution (by confiscating guns for example) by their actions. If you can show me in the constitution where it says that the president has no power to protect the nation's borders, then this current situation would be comparable.

ETA: In the end, this will be decided in the courts, which is also constitutional and with which I also have no problem. The same will be true if and when a Democrat/Socialist/whatever president does it.

 

[T.Lex]

This is me giving up on the argument that the 1976 law didn't really "give" POTUS emergency powers.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This is me giving up on the argument that the 1976 law didn't really "give" POTUS emergency powers.

Typed a response too soon. I'm sensing that you saying you're giving up on the argument that it didn't give him the power doesn't mean that you agree that it did give him the power. I figure you have "give" in quotes for a reason.

 

[T.Lex]

[multiple cross-editing of your post and mine can become an inside joke between the 2 of us]

[sigh]

{ETA: that sigh isn't directed at you, just an expression of frustration that I've covered this in a different thread.}

POTUS has always had emergency powers. It is part of the executive authority. Article 2, section 1. (Not much detail, though, so reference must be made to other documents/traditions.)

The executive has the power to handle the day-to-day operations of the government. In an emergency, there isn't really time to convene Congress (which POTUS has the power to do). He has to make decisions about the emergency rightstinkingnow.

I put the "give" in quotes because that act "delegated" to POTUS some authorizations that Congress doesn't have in the first place. So, they can't really delegate them. Plus, a couple of them are probably non-delegable. That is, things that are specific to Congress.

That's a long way around for me to say every POTUS has had the power to declare emergencies, even before that legislation. There was just confidence that they wouldn't use it to short circuit the appropriations process.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

[sigh]

{ETA: that sigh isn't directed at you, just an expression of frustration that I've covered this in a different thread.}

POTUS has always had emergency powers. It is part of the executive authority. Article 2, section 1. (Not much detail, though, so reference must be made to other documents/traditions.)

The executive has the power to handle the day-to-day operations of the government. In an emergency, there isn't really time to convene Congress (which POTUS has the power to do). He has to make decisions about the emergency rightstinkingnow.

I put the "give" in quotes because that act "delegated" to POTUS some authorizations that Congress doesn't have in the first place. So, they can't really delegate them. Plus, a couple of them are probably non-delegable. That is, things that are specific to Congress.

That's a long way around for me to say every POTUS has had the power to declare emergencies, even before that legislation. There was just confidence that they wouldn't use it to short circuit the appropriations process.

But, other than the 600 million from the Dept. of the Treasury (asset forfeiture), has he short circuited the appropriation process? That's the angle I'm coming from. The 6.1 billion from the DoD (which he controls as CinC) was already appropriated by Congress. Congress appropriated the 1.37 billion. He hasn't appropriated anything on his own (other than the 600 million). Now, one can argue whether or not the wall is a better way to spend those funds on than what they were originally earmarked for or not, and that's fine. But it was "his", as the commander in chief, to do with as he sees fit from a legal standpoint (IMHO, IANAL, YMMV).

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Noted. So no new precedent here. It's all okay anyway. Because you wish Trump could have gotten it done the constitutional way. I'll bookmark this post and look forward to comparing/contrasting during the next Democratic presidency where you justify their use of emergency powers to bypass congress.

I'm going to disagree with you that Trump's national emergency is unconstitutional. I refer you to:

50 U.S. Code § 1621 - Declaration of national emergency by President; publication in Federal Register; effect on other laws; superseding legislation

According to that law, it's a national emergency if the President says it is... and remains so until the either the President says it is no longer an emergency or the Congress passes a law saying it isn't (presumably over the President's veto).

Congress gave the president the full discretion in declaring national emergencies. However, it isn't a "blank check", he is limited to expending monies that have been appropriated by Congress designated for emergencies. Looks like that is the case... IANL.

 

[T.Lex]

... has he short circuited the appropriation process?

The short answer is, yes, he has.

That money has been appropriated for other projects, probably specifically, but also possibly by a category. Like "barracks at a military base." (I happen to have personal knowledge of a military construction project overseas that is now in jeopardy because of this.)

This kinda explains one example.
https://appropriations.house.gov/ne...2019-on-energy-and-water-development-military

It describes an appropriation specifically for VA hospital improvements.

Think of it this way, if the appropriation was for "Military Construction Projects" and the POTUS had discretion, then there wouldn't be any need for an emergency. He could just use his discretion and spend it on what he wanted.

But Congress wised up to that a LONG time ago. (This also plays out locally, because in Indiana the fiscal body - usually some form of a legislative branch - does appropriations kinda like this, too.) Appropriations almost always have some strings attached. "Here's a billion dollars for X, but you have spend at least 1/4 on X1 and X2."

So, by declaring an emergency, he can turn those funds into discretionary spending.

Again, as an executive power to be used judiciously, I think this is appropriate. If there is a sudden emergency that means we have to spend money, I kinda don't care where POTUS finds it, invasion, fire, flood, pestilence, whatever.

But this wall thing isn't a real emergency, IMHO. The problem with that is that the only vote that counts is POTUS. For me, this is comparable to the pardon/clemency decision. It is almost strictly an executive decision. (Which means the character of the officeholder becomes very important.)

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The short answer is, yes, he has.

That money has been appropriated for other projects, probably specifically, but also possibly by a category. Like "barracks at a military base." (I happen to have personal knowledge of a military construction project overseas that is now in jeopardy because of this.)

This kinda explains one example.
https://appropriations.house.gov/ne...2019-on-energy-and-water-development-military

It describes an appropriation specifically for VA hospital improvements.

Think of it this way, if the appropriation was for "Military Construction Projects" and the POTUS had discretion, then there wouldn't be any need for an emergency. He could just use his discretion and spend it on what he wanted.

But Congress wised up to that a LONG time ago. (This also plays out locally, because in Indiana the fiscal body - usually some form of a legislative branch - does appropriations kinda like this, too.) Appropriations almost always have some strings attached. "Here's a billion dollars for X, but you have spend at least 1/4 on X1 and X2."

So, by declaring an emergency, he can turn those funds into discretionary spending.

Again, as an executive power to be used judiciously, I think this is appropriate. If there is a sudden emergency that means we have to spend money, I kinda don't care where POTUS finds it, invasion, fire, flood, pestilence, whatever.

But this wall thing isn't a real emergency, IMHO. The problem with that is that the only vote that counts is POTUS. For me, this is comparable to the pardon/clemency decision. It is almost strictly an executive decision. (Which means the character of the officeholder becomes very important.)

I can see your argument on the first item, but concur that the second one is the "trump" card.

Legally, it's a national emergency if the president says it is. That's the way the law is written, full stop, end of story.

The check on that authority is for Congress to pass a law declaring it isn't, presumably over the President's veto. That process is defined in the law itself.

 

[T.Lex]

... he is limited to expending monies that have been appropriated by Congress designated for emergencies. Looks like that is the case... IANL.

Quick note on this - I don't think this is completely accurate, although I could be mistaken, also. I think the money he's converting to use for the wall was appropriated toward other construction projects or was to revert back to a general fund for appropriation elsewhere.

I haven't seen a full breakdown about which appropriations are going to be diverted - and I don't think that exists yet - but I don't think they are from designated emergency or rainy day funds.

 

[Dead Duck]

I'm going to disagree with you that Trump's national emergency is unconstitutional. I refer you to:

- SNIP - ......words......letters.......codes........stuff........

I REFER YOU TO: