The President Trump Immigration Thread

[d.kaufman]

It's an interesting premise. If Congress holds the purse strings, and the president asks Congress to pay for something, should if Congress say "no," the president be able to take the money Congress have approved for something and fund the thing Congress has said "no" to?

Remember, it this should be true of whomever is in power.

It was Defense Dept funds so i dont see a problem. Its being appropriated to the defense of our southern boarder

 

[Kutnupe14]

It was Defense Dept funds so i dont see a problem. Its being appropriated to the defense of our southern boarder

Congress also make the decision to fund the DoD too, right? So it should be ok, for a any president to raid the DoD budget to address anything he considers defense related, even if Congress has expressly forbidden it? Keep in mind that would be making the president the sole arbiter of what is defense worthy and what is not. Surely you must see that this is giving even more power to a chief executive position that many already think has too much power. Being able to circumvent Congress via an EO, regardless of who does it, seem like a bad idea.

 

[Phase2]

Trump reaches landmark immigration deal with Guatemala- Like Mexico, Guatamala has agreed to require migrants to request asylum there rather than passing them on.

 

[d.kaufman]

Congress also make the decision to fund the DoD too, right? So it should be ok, for a any president to raid the DoD budget to address anything he considers defense related, even if Congress has expressly forbidden it? Keep in mind that would be making the president the sole arbiter of what is defense worthy and what is not. Surely you must see that this is giving even more power to a chief executive position that many already think has too much power. Being able to circumvent Congress via an EO, regardless of who does it, seem like a bad idea.

What i have no problem with is using Defense Dept funds to build a wall that will help defend our border from the influx of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTs here in our country. I say its a great place to start spending the defense dept funds as opposed to building walls in other countries and protecting other countries interests before our own
Our borders, and how we secure them is definitely within the parameters of "defense" of this country

 

[Dead Duck]

DOD funds for DOD built border wall will also support DODs border security remote machine guns and canons..... solar powered to appease the green bastards of course.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What i have no problem with is using Defense Dept funds to build a wall that will help defend our border from the influx of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTs here in our country. I say its a great place to start spending the defense dept funds as opposed to building walls in other countries and protecting other countries interests before our own
Our borders, and how we secure them is definitely within the parameters of "defense" of this country

It's not a question of what you agree or disagree with. It's a question of if it's appropriate under the Constitution. The SCOTUS say it's ok, so technically it is, but I think they got it wrong. This ruling only empowers the chief exec more than I believe the Founding Father's wanted.

 

[Dead Duck]

It's not a question of what you agree or disagree with. It's a question of if it's appropriate under the Constitution. The SCOTUS say it's ok, so technically it is, but I think they got it wrong. This ruling only empowers the chief exec more than I believe the Founding Father's wanted.

You know POTUS didn't need anyone's permission. He was just being... well, presidential.

 

[d.kaufman]

The only part i disagree with is the fact we have to have special permission from Congress to secure our borders. Money was appropriated for Defense. Securing our border is defense of this Nation. Secure it!!! Thats the first and foremost thing the Dept of Defense should be spending money on. I dont believe Congress oks what every penny allocated to the Dept. Of Defense gets spent on. What makes this different that it has to be okd by Congress? Its money spent on Defense.

 

[Libertarian01]

It's an interesting premise. If Congress holds the purse strings, and the president asks Congress to pay for something, should if Congress say "no," the president be able to take the money Congress have approved for something and fund the thing Congress has said "no" to?

Remember, it this should be true of whomever is in power.

Dude, you are 100% correct. This is called a [STRIKE]BALANCE OF POWER[/STRIKE] CHECKS AND BALANCES(my bad)! The problem is that the idiots elected to the congress over the last 100 years, mostly 80 years since WWII have abdicated their responsibility and power by giving it away to El Presidente.

In this particular case they gave him the power to move money in an emergency without ever legally defining an emergency. This is just stupid, which is to say normal governmental SNAFU. We could be running low on chocolate ice cream and the president could declare that this great deprivation is a national emergency and give money away to ice cream makers to produce more.

It comes down to be legally right v/s the laws intent. I love it when Trump does this! I look at it as an opportunity for congress to learn from their past F-up and fix the law, on both sides.

Alas, I know this will never happen, but it is an opportunity.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I also hate the SCOTUS ruling that allows the president to sign "executive agreements" with foreign powers that have the same force of law as a treaty without senate oversight. The senate is suppose to approve all treaties but hey, just go executive agreement and cut out that silly little oversight thingy. It gets in the way.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Old border "wall" near Tijuana

New border wall near Tijuana:

 

[SheepDog4Life]

It's not a question of what you agree or disagree with. It's a question of if it's appropriate under the Constitution. The SCOTUS say it's ok, so technically it is, but I think they got it wrong. This ruling only empowers the chief exec more than I believe the Founding Father's wanted.

You can read the short opinion here... which was really a 6-3 opinion, IMO, or at least a 5 1/2 - 3 1/2 opinion, lol.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/19a60_o75p.pdf

Basically, I think it reads as the Sierra Club is likely going to lose, because the funds were appropriated by Congress and the administration was using the funds within the law... BUT the injunction was just a stall to prevent signing contracts for construction until September 30, when the fiscal year ends, and the funds disappear if not used/contracted.

Justice Breyer split the difference, lift the injunction to allow the contracts to be signed, but keep the injunction on the actual construction until the court case actually plays out... hence, really 6-3 allowing the Trump administration to move forward.

 

[BugI02]

PS - I also hate the SCOTUS ruling that allows the president to sign "executive agreements" with foreign powers that have the same force of law as a treaty without senate oversight. The senate is suppose to approve all treaties but hey, just go executive agreement and cut out that silly little oversight thingy. It gets in the way.

You mean like JSTAR and JCPOA? D'Accord!!

 

[Libertarian01]

You mean like JSTAR and JCPOA? D'Accord!!

All of it dude. ALL OF IT!

Our system may not be totally broken, but it is bent to hell. The presidents office has been granted more and more power, and the power of the legislature has been diminished over time.

Hell, even the social expectations of the presidents office has changed significantly since the turn of the 19th century. Back then it was the legislature that drove most of the laws and direction of government, the president got up on a soapbox over a few things but otherwise sat back, ran the government, and dealt with foreign powers. That was about it.

Then WWI hit, and we looked to Wilson to keep us out of the war. He drove a few things but that was it. Then with the depression and WWII we wanted someone to do something, to heck with how it was done, and it is a lot easier/lazier to look at one person instead of a group. So then Roosevelt really took the presidents office to the next level. Ever since we have been giving our king (for four years) more and more power. I do not like it, not one bit.

Regards,

Doug

 

[idkfa]

Ever since we have been giving our king (for four years) more and more power. I do not like it, not one bit.

Indeed.
Trump is now "God Emperor", and the general sentiment on /r/The_Donald, for example, seems to be that he should remain in office for life.
This attitude seems to have outgrown its meme origins, and has morphed into a sincere desire for effectively having a king in place of a president.
The_Donald users have to be overwhelmingly republican (and thus conservative -- as much as the two correlate these days), but even they do not seem to understand that this would undermine the very foundations of this country.
Again, this is a conjecture based on what I perceive to be a "general sentiment."

Similarly, just yesterday I came across a highly upvoted post on ICE allegedly having been allowed to ask anyone for a proof of citizenship without probable cause, and then detain them if said proof could not be obtained.
I cannot comment on the validity of this issue -- I have not researched it myself yet.
The troublesome part, again, is the upvotes and comments section -- people went out of their way to say they would be delighted to show their papers to ICE, and praised the implied lack of due process.
Some also mentioned that only citizens (should) have any rights in this country.

Obviously, I am not taking these examples for their face value, but I believe they are indicators of public opinion worth paying attention to.

 

[Dead Duck]

More Power?

Emperor?

King?

You guys are nuts! Trumps the only president that's shaking trees and rattling cages by doing exactly what he promised to do before he was hired. Because of that he has angered all the right people for accomplishing tasks no other president has done before and in record time.


Wait until you see what Trump does in his 3rd term.

 

[BugI02]

Indeed.
Trump is now "God Emperor", and the general sentiment on /r/The_Donald, for example, seems to be that he should remain in office for life.
This attitude seems to have outgrown its meme origins, and has morphed into a sincere desire for effectively having a king in place of a president.
The_Donald users have to be overwhelmingly republican (and thus conservative -- as much as the two correlate these days), but even they do not seem to understand that this would undermine the very foundations of this country.
Again, this is a conjecture based on what I perceive to be a "general sentiment."

Similarly, just yesterday I came across a highly upvoted post on ICE allegedly having been allowed to ask anyone for a proof of citizenship without probable cause, and then detain them if said proof could not be obtained.
I cannot comment on the validity of this issue -- I have not researched it myself yet.
The troublesome part, again, is the upvotes and comments section -- people went out of their way to say they would be delighted to show their papers to ICE, and praised the implied lack of due process.
Some also mentioned that only citizens (should) have any rights in this country.

Obviously, I am not taking these examples for their face value, but I believe they are indicators of public opinion worth paying attention to.

So, do you find it equally disturbing when the Democrats speak of developing a 'permanent democrat majority' or do you find one party rule to be just fine as long as it's your preferred party? Does it bother you that Democrats seek to give all the rights of citizenship, but none of the responsibilities, to illegal immigrants; that they want to give felons and teenagers a well as non-citizens the right to vote (Democrat, of course) as part and parcel of that permanent majority?
Do you think the drive to erase borders happens in a vacuum? Or might it feed sentiments such as you mentioned about restricting rights to citizens

 

[KG1]

The very foundation of this country has already been in the process of being undermined and that began way before Trump ever set foot in the White House.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The very foundation of this country has already been in the process of being undermined and that began way before Trump ever set foot in the White House.

Yes indeed. I would trace it back to the Wilson administration in terms of government and slightly before that John Dewey and Horace Mann launching the process of converting our public schools into the likeness of rhe Prussian useful idiot mills of their day. After that, take the process of unwaveringly committed communists making the "long march through the institutions", the fact that Senator McCarthy, though demonized for calling out the communist infestation, erred only in that the problem was significantly worse than he realized--and we had the cable intercepts to prove it at the time even though the executive branch silently watched him being thrown under the bus. Yes, this has been a long time in the making.

 

[Brad69]

Novel idea “non citizens “ should be given rights and privileges of citizens.

Why would being a citizen be of value if non citizens had the same rights?

BTW
Why would a 70+ year old billionaire run for office for personal gain after he donates his salary to the government ?

 

[idkfa]

I thought my words might be misconstrued.
My post was not about Trump or his policies. I only addressed the issue with the power of the POTUS, nothing more, nothing less.

Trumps the only president that's shaking trees and rattling cages by doing exactly what he promised to do before he was hired.

Yes, he's a great president.

Wait until you see what Trump does in his 3rd term.

This is exactly the problem I was talking about in the context of any POTUS gaining too much power.
Trump may be just fine doing more than two terms as president, but can you say that with absolute certainty about his successor?

So, do you find it equally disturbing when the Democrats speak of developing a 'permanent democrat majority' or do you find one party rule to be just fine as long as it's your preferred party?

I do find the actions of the Democratic party much more disturbing. You seem to be insinuating that this is my preferred party. I assure you it is not.

The very foundation of this country has already been in the process of being undermined and that began way before Trump ever set foot in the White House.

Most certainly!
Trump had to come to the rescue in part precisely because previous presidents gained ever more power and did not use it wisely.


To conclude, this certainly is an exceptional time, and departures from conventions are meant for such times.
However, I do not see much deliberation in the public square, so to say, about entrusting POTUS (any POTUS) with even more power -- and that is troubling.