The President Trump Immigration Thread

[JettaKnight]

They need that money to buy some $2mil toilet seats.

The way I see it, those are more applicable to national defense, and probably are a better investment.

 

[printcraft]

The way I see it, those are more applicable to national defense, and probably are a better investment.

Take the lock off of your bathroom door. Hell, take them off of you house completely.
The way I see it, they really aren't going to stop someone from coming in anyhow.

 

[JettaKnight]

Take the lock off of your bathroom door. Hell, take them off of you house completely.
The way I see it, they really aren't going to stop someone from coming in anyhow.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

[BugI02]

I disagree. As CinC, he's in charge of defense of the country. The money was allocated to the DoD. As I see it, he can shift it around for any purpose that is defending the country and that includes defending our borders.

With DD on this one, secure borders is a national defense issue and a wall isn't perfect but I'm not hearing any suggestions for an alternative (lookin' at you, Jetta) that can be done in real time rather than requiring years to execute - unless you're saying that the status quo ante of storm or flop across the border, without limit, and claim asylum or squirt your anchor baby, was an acceptable state of affairs?

 

[KLB]

With DD on this one, secure borders is a national defense issue and a wall isn't perfect but I'm not hearing any suggestions for an alternative (lookin' at you, Jetta) that can be done in real time rather than requiring years to execute - unless you're saying that the status quo ante of storm or flop across the border, without limit, and claim asylum or squirt your anchor baby, was an acceptable state of affairs?

The wall wouldn't take years to complete?

 

[NKBJ]

Why can't we turn loose those cool giant cat droids that we've been paying out the kazoo to develop?

 

[jamil]

You can’t say a long term fix is an emergency remedy. I’d be fine with Trump using emergency powers to send troops to the border to resolve an emergent crisis. But building a border wall which would take years is not an emergency solution. Trump only did it to get around congress. You guys need to admit that if Obama did something like that every right wing group would be fundraising off of that, and every right wing pundit and politician would be screaming about the unconstitutionally of it. And they’d be right. The problem is, you guys are so blinded by your own sidedness that you can only see when it’s not your side doing it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You can’t say a long term fix is an emergency remedy. I’d be fine with Trump using emergency powers to send troops to the border to resolve an emergent crisis. But building a border wall which would take years is not an emergency solution. Trump only did it to get around congress. You guys need to admit that if Obama did something like that every right wing group would be fundraising off of that, and every right wing pundit and politician would be screaming about the unconstitutionally of it. And they’d be right. The problem is, you guys are so blinded by your own sidedness that you can only see when it’s not your side doing it.

No, if Obama did it to fund a wall, I think we'd have been okay with it.

 

[jamil]

No, if Obama did it to fund a wall, I think we'd have been okay with it.

That's kinda the point. Obama wouldn't use emergency powers for that. He'd use them for something you didn't like. You're okay with abuse of power when that power accomplishes something you want. You'd be against that abuse of power when that power is used to accomplish something you don't want.

John Locke said that a free society must be subject to laws that apply to everyone equally. That means even when the law prevents you from accomplishing your goals. That's the basis for rule of law. If you only care about upholding laws when they benefit you, that's not rule of law. It's rule of whim. When 0bama was president, you guys could figure that out. So what else should I think when you can't figure it out when Trump is president?

You guys ("you" rhetorically) recited those principles when 0bama was in power. It's not like principle has changed. It's that you guys have just said, "**** principle". And a few of you admit that. I think for consistency you all should admit you don't give a **** about rule of law, you give a **** about what you want. So then the experiment in a free society has failed from both sides. You agree with the other that principle doesn't matter. What matters is who holds the biggest stick. It's just a battle for who gets to impose their will on the other.

 

[NKBJ]

Remember three years ago when the press lambasted the president as encouraging police brutality?
At that time the fix was being tested out; robot police. Now semi-autonomous patrol droids are actually being deployed.
I look at "the wall" and expect that some time in the near future the solution will be to have your digital ID tell the droids that you are approved to be in a given area. Not just units that amount to drones such as transferred in the 1033 program but semi and fully autonomous enforcers. The convenience of no one being to blame when bad things happen will win out.

 

[printcraft]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

The way I see it is you appear to not care about a weak border.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That's kinda the point. Obama wouldn't use emergency powers for that. He'd use them for something you didn't like. You're okay with abuse of power when that power accomplishes something you want. You'd be against that abuse of power when that power is used to accomplish something you don't want.

John Locke said that a free society must be subject to laws that apply to everyone equally. That means even when the law prevents you from accomplishing your goals. That's the basis for rule of law. If you only care about upholding laws when they benefit you, that's not rule of law. It's rule of whim. When 0bama was president, you guys could figure that out. So what else should I think when you can't figure it out when Trump is president?

You guys ("you" rhetorically) recited those principles when 0bama was in power. It's not like principle has changed. It's that you guys have just said, "**** principle". And a few of you admit that. I think for consistency you all should admit you don't give a **** about rule of law, you give a **** about what you want. So then the experiment in a free society has failed from both sides. You agree with the other that principle doesn't matter. What matters is who holds the biggest stick. It's just a battle for who gets to impose their will on the other.

But I don't agree to a carte blanche for Trump. I still maintain that a wall to secure the border is a legitimate use of DoD funding, over which the CinC has authority. That narrows things quite a bit to my way of thinking. Using EO to accomplish things not under the President's purview is a different situation.

 

[BugI02]

The wall wouldn't take years to complete?

I didn't say complete, I said execute. Do you deny that some wall has some effect? Does future legislation, as yet unwritten and unpassed, have any current effect at all?

Sorry, but I see the 'let's take care of this by changing [immigration law, birthright citizenship, whatever else you think might be effective]' as an excuse to put off doing anything - much like waiting on a balanced budget amendment to do the work of rationalizing federal budgets. It is a way to appear to be addressing the problem without actually having to take a stand, or a risky vote or really do much of anything besides posture

 

[jamil]

But I don't agree to a carte blanche for Trump. I still maintain that a wall to secure the border is a legitimate use of DoD funding, over which the CinC has authority. That narrows things quite a bit to my way of thinking. Using EO to accomplish things not under the President's purview is a different situation.

If Trump had such legitimate authority over dod funds why did he need congress to appropriate the funding for the wall, and then when they declined, why did he use emergency powers to do it?

 

[BugI02]

I believe he isn't saying the president can allocate funds but that he has legitimate authority over how some funds are spent. I'm not sure congress should be able to retcon restrictions in existing appropriations, where none existed, without amending the bill. I believe such changes, like the Hyde amendment, could only affect future appropriations

 

[jamil]

I believe he isn't saying the president can allocate funds but that he has legitimate authority over how some funds are spent. I'm not sure congress should be able to retcon restrictions in existing appropriations, where none existed, without amending the bill. I believe such changes, like the Hyde amendment, could only affect future appropriations

If he has legitimate authority over how funds are spent, why did he need to seek money from congress, and why did he need to use emergency powers when congress declined. Why wouldn’t he have just signed an EO directing the funds he has this legitimate authority over to the wall fund?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If Trump had such legitimate authority over dod funds why did he need congress to appropriate the funding for the wall, and then when they declined, why did he use emergency powers to do it?

I think he was giving them the opportunity to work with him in a more traditional manner. When they sat on their hands, or severely limited their actions then and only then did he use the EO. And he didn't appropriate the funding. He merely re-allocated where it was spent. That I believe is within his authority so to do.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If he has legitimate authority over how funds are spent, why did he need to seek money from congress, and why did he need to use emergency powers when congress declined. Why wouldn’t he have just signed an EO directing the funds he has this legitimate authority over to the wall fund?

That's what he did, was it not? Take existing funds and direct them to the wall instead of where they were originally planned to go? That was my understanding. Am I mistaken in that?

 

[jamil]

That's what he did, was it not? Take existing funds and direct them to the wall instead of where they were originally planned to go? That was my understanding. Am I mistaken in that?

No. He used emergency powers to direct funds from the DoD. That's not simply an EO. I'd have had no problems, other than it likely being a waste of money, if he could have made the case that border security is rightly a matter of the DoD instead of DHS, and then just used an executive order to direct the DoD funds to the border wall. But for consistency's sake, I'd then expect him to re-organize the border patrol agencies and other border security out of DHS, and into DoD. Or something approaching consistency with that belief.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No. He used emergency powers to direct funds from the DoD. That's not simply an EO. I'd have had no problems, other than it likely being a waste of money, if he could have made the case that border security is rightly a matter of the DoD instead of DHS, and then just used an executive order to direct the DoD funds to the border wall. But for consistency's sake, I'd then expect him to re-organize the border patrol agencies and other border security out of DHS, and into DoD. Or something approaching consistency with that belief.

Okay, so I think we're just differing in opinion about the DoD vs. DHS. I look at "defending" the border as a function of the Department of Defense. As in a physical, defensive barrier to entry. Homeland Security, while certainly related has (to me) a little more nuanced meaning including intel, screening, asylum issues, etc..