The President Trump Immigration Thread

[jamil]

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..

It's more than just that. You're also thinking it was a simple executive order. Trump invoked the Emergency Powers Act. My position is that 1) to use emergency power to direct funds to some remedy for that emergent crisis, the thing he diverts funds to should be an emergency action, not a long term action. 2) This was an abuse of power because he used a mechanism not intended for the purpose of getting around a congress that wouldn't give him what he wanted. If he had the power to simply divert the funds all along, he would not have needed to seek the funding from congress, and he would not have had to invoke emergency powers. He could have just written an executive order.

 

[jamil]

Also, border control is under DHS. It's not under DoD. To help take care of the crisis at the border, I could see Trump declaring an emergency under the emergency powers act to put troops at the border. That's an action that is easliy considered an immediate action to end a crisis. Border funding, notwithstanding any short term relief effects, is not an immediate action. He's not saying, well, for now we'll just put a fence here and here in these strategic areas just to resolve the crisis. No, he's using it to fund the whole thing.

Regardless of whether you want a wall or not, he used a law not intended for that purpose to achieve his goals. You guys would rightly call out Obama for doing the same thing, but for something you didn't want. But because it's what you want, you won't be as critical of Trump. That my friend is not what rule of law looks like.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It's more than just that. You're also thinking it was a simple executive order. Trump invoked the Emergency Powers Act. My position is that 1) to use emergency power to direct funds to some remedy for that emergent crisis, the thing he diverts funds to should be an emergency action, not a long term action. 2) This was an abuse of power because he used a mechanism not intended for the purpose of getting around a congress that wouldn't give him what he wanted. If he had the power to simply divert the funds all along, he would not have needed to seek the funding from congress, and he would not have had to invoke emergency powers. He could have just written an executive order.

Fair enough, and I do see your point. To me, the emergent part was getting the wall started, not necessarily getting it completed, which of course would be a long term project. Rather than have it languish in Congress, Trump jump started that process.

 

[NKBJ]

The names of the victims of illegals should be on the wall.

 

[jamil]

Fair enough, and I do see your point. To me, the emergent part was getting the wall started, not necessarily getting it completed, which of course would be a long term project. Rather than have it languish in Congress, Trump jump started that process.

Again, jump starting a process for a long term project is not an emergency action. And it goes far beyond jump-starting. It's funding the whole ***damn thing. The purpose of the Emergency Powers Act is not to get the ball rolling to fund something long term that the president can't get congress to fund.

 

[Twangbanger]

Also, border control is under DHS. It's not under DoD. To help take care of the crisis at the border, I could see Trump declaring an emergency under the emergency powers act to put troops at the border. That's an action that is easliy considered an immediate action to end a crisis. Border funding, notwithstanding any short term relief effects, is not an immediate action. He's not saying, well, for now we'll just put a fence here and here in these strategic areas just to resolve the crisis. No, he's using it to fund the whole thing.

Regardless of whether you want a wall or not, he used a law not intended for that purpose to achieve his goals. You guys would rightly call out Obama for doing the same thing, but for something you didn't want. But because it's what you want, you won't be as critical of Trump. That my friend is not what rule of law looks like.

Rule of Law is primarily believed in by sentimental old farts like you.

(And to some extent, me).

I'm not saying you're wrong on the merits. I'm saying the world is never coming back to that. You're debating procedural points while figuratively getting your head smashed in the fight. (And I say "your" figuratively, because I realize you have illegal extended relatives and have some sympathies and conflicts in this area). The "area under the curve" on this is millions of illegals that will (hopefully) not come in for the duration of time Trump is quote-unquote "wiping his ass with the rule of law." I really don't have a problem with that, this day in age.

If you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck. I don't want to be the guys in Red Coats getting shot by colonists. I want to be the colonists. If the so-called "rule of law" has become a one-way street, at least on the issue of immigration, then I don't want it anymore. I'm tired of being "consistent." I want to win, some of the time.

I realize that may make your head explode. I'm ok with that. Antonin Scalia is dead. He's not coming back. Now we have a bunch of f_ucks like Roberts. The original program has been written-over so many times it cannot be recovered.

If the casino is rigged, and we can't leave the casino because no better one is available, then I want some representation on the "rigging committee."

I think it's important we both realize the system doesn't require "our" assent to become this way. It can and will become that way whether we agree with it or not. Taking the principled stand you are taking, and withholding your approval, in no way prevents the thing from happening.

 

[JettaKnight]

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

There's more than one way to protect a border.

 

[Twangbanger]

There's more than one way to protect a border.

But this is a rabbit hole. I've heard it before. "I support all reasonable means of securing the border (except the one you're trying to implement now)."

We have become wise to this run-around.

The Libertarian-poseurs say, "Have you tried Chicken Soup? We need to give Chicken Soup a chance, before spending more money on ( > things we don't like < ). These people would quit trying to come here, if they just had a really good bowl of Chicken Soup. Yeah, that's it."

 

[jamil]

Rule of Law is primarily believed in by sentimental old farts like you.

(And to some extent, me).

I'm not saying you're wrong on the merits. I'm saying the world is never coming back to that. You're debating procedural points while figuratively getting your head smashed in the fight. (And I say "your" figuratively, because I realize you have illegal extended relatives and have some sympathies and conflicts in this area). The "area under the curve" on this is millions of illegals that will (hopefully) not come in for the duration of time Trump is quote-unquote "wiping his ass with the rule of law." I really don't have a problem with that, this day in age.

If you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck. I don't want to be the guys in Red Coats getting shot by colonists. I want to be the colonists. If the so-called "rule of law" has become a one-way street, at least on the issue of immigration, then I don't want it anymore. I'm tired of being "consistent." I want to win, some of the time.

I realize that may make your head explode. I'm ok with that. Antonin Scalia is dead. He's not coming back. Now we have a bunch of f_ucks like Roberts. The original program has been written-over so many times it cannot be recovered.

If the casino is rigged, and we can't leave the casino because no better one is available, then I want some representation on the "rigging committee."

Huh? When have I ever said I have illegal extended relatives? My sister married a Mexican American back in the mid 70's. His parents were legal US citizens. He is a US citizen. They had a daughter, my niece. She is a US citizen as well. I don't, to any of my knowledge, have any extended relatives who are not US citizens. Now, she is far left leaning and does identify as Mexican-American. She is an identitarian. I have no sympathies which would make me pro-illegal immigration. So whatever you may have thought might be motivating my words is not what you think.

But, you are at least consistent. You're saying **** rule of law out loud. Rule of law is necessary for a free society, which we have to some extent. But if that's no longer a goal, the people who believe that should just say **** rule of law and **** liberty. I get the problems with the asymmetrical warfare. That is a problem. Making it more symmetrical has some problems of its own though. It's not just principle. It's also the likely conclusions.

 

[jamil]

There's more than one way to protect a border.

I don't think a fence strategically placed along points across the border is a bad idea. We have a problem with people sneaking across the border and we have a responsibility to stop it. If we resort to misusing the law to get it, it's kinda hard to make the same argument when they do it. I think a big problem is that we have two sides which have completely different and incompatible interpretations of the world that they can't find a solution that works in any way for both. With both sides that turns into all or nothing. For the one side, the only way they can view the border wall is that it's racist. Which is absurd. It's not much better for the other side. To them, not having a border wall means you hate America.

 

[jamil]

But this is a rabbit hole. I've heard it before. "I support all reasonable means of securing the border (except the one you're trying to implement now)."

We have become wise to this run-around.

The Libertarian-poseurs say, "Have you tried Chicken Soup? We need to give Chicken Soup a chance, before spending more money on ( > things we don't like < ). These people would quit trying to come here, if they just had a really good bowl of Chicken Soup. Yeah, that's it."

The chicken soup thing is a really overly simplistic representation of that. The bat**** crazy libertarians are imposing an unrealistic ideological vision of reality. In their version of utopia there aren't any borders. So it's going backwards for them to accept putting walls up along ours. It kinda goes with what I said in the other thread. The more ideologically pure/extreme you get the less you're able to perceive what's actually real.

Humanity has not figured out how to handle diversity enough that we're very close at all to having no borders, and no nations. We don't need walls along our border with Canada because they're not as different from us as Mexico is (I'm speaking less about culture and more about countries, which is the reason for borders).

 

[BugI02]

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?

I can only guess, but I would assume use of emergency powers would get around any necessity for a comment period, requirement for environmental impact statements etc and he could start right away. As to asking congress to appropriate money for the wall, I don't think he was under any illusions about that. I would guess that was a necessary precursor to using emergency powers - that perhaps he needed to show normal means were unavailable

 

[BugI02]

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.

So, when Russian aircraft breach an ADIZ, who intercepts them? DHS? I think you misinterpret who is responsible for border security just because CBP wound up in DHS during the reorg in '01

 

[Twangbanger]

Huh? When have I ever said I have illegal extended relatives? My sister married a Mexican American back in the mid 70's. His parents were legal US citizens. He is a US citizen. They had a daughter, my niece. She is a US citizen as well. I don't, to any of my knowledge, have any extended relatives who are not US citizens. Now, she is far left leaning and does identify as Mexican-American. She is an identitarian. I have no sympathies which would make me pro-illegal immigration. So whatever you may have thought might be motivating my words is not what you think.

But, you are at least consistent. You're saying **** rule of law out loud. Rule of law is necessary for a free society, which we have to some extent. But if that's no longer a goal, the people who believe that should just say **** rule of law and **** liberty. I get the problems with the asymmetrical warfare. That is a problem. Making it more symmetrical has some problems of its own though. It's not just principle. It's also the likely conclusions.

I remembered the first part wrong, so sorry about that and thanks for the clarification.

Where I'm actually being consistent in the second part, is that I was never one of the people who chastised Obama for "making an end-run around the Constitution." I always regarded that as an over-simplification. Don't get me wrong; I certainly didn't _like_ what he did. And I complained plenty about it. But the difference between me and others was that I didn't question his right to do it. I recognize and understand that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has a tremendous amount of money and power running through it, by design. And also, by design, whoever gets elected President gets to command that power. Distasteful as that may be to us.

If transferring money from one Federal Government bucket to another Federal Government bucket constitutes "abusing the rule of law," then yes, I say f_ck it. That is about funding priorities. Nobody's rights are at stake. It is, to cop a phrase, a "victimless crime." I have understood since the days of Midnight Basketball funded under the crime bill (the old version of "defund the police") that this is how things get done up there. If it was taking away the rights of gays to have a job, or blacks to get a home loan, or gun owners to own a certain type of gun, then that would be different. But transferring money from one bucket to another? Meh. Have at it. Let whoever is elected President ram that white-hot rod up the ass of the other side. Because that's what they're going to do anyway. Whether we approve of it or not. That is why you need to win elections.

That is why I don't buy your "whoever holds the stick" analogy, in this case. I could simply care less what Trump does with border funding. One side took it up the ass under Obama. By rights, it's now the other side's turn. The Bumpstock Ban we should actually be mad about, because it actually limits somebody's rights. This one, meh.

 

[KLB]

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

Some effect? Very little. I've seen border fences that people could just walk around. A wall is no different. Taking money that was meant for construction projects for the military and building small sections of walls is not a good thing. The only positive I have seen from the wall is that some of the money is being diverted from counter-drug operations, an even bigger waste of money.

 

[NKBJ]

So far there's $90,000,000,000,000 that's known to have gone missing.
That's enough "liquidity" to build the wall out of moon rocks.

 

[jamil]

I remembered the first part wrong, so sorry about that and thanks for the clarification.

Where I'm actually being consistent in the second part, is that I was never one of the people who chastised Obama for "making an end-run around the Constitution." I always regarded that as an over-simplification. Don't get me wrong; I certainly didn't _like_ what he did. And I complained plenty about it. But the difference between me and others was that I didn't question his right to do it. I recognize and understand that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has a tremendous amount of money and power running through it, by design. And also, by design, whoever gets elected President gets to command that power. Distasteful as that may be to us.

If transferring money from one Federal Government bucket to another Federal Government bucket constitutes "abusing the rule of law," then yes, I say f_ck it. That is about funding priorities. Nobody's rights are at stake. It is, to cop a phrase, a "victimless crime." I have understood since the days of Midnight Basketball funded under the crime bill (the old version of "defund the police") that this is how things get done up there. If it was taking away the rights of gays to have a job, or blacks to get a home loan, or gun owners to own a certain type of gun, then that would be different. But transferring money from one bucket to another? Meh. Have at it. Let whoever is elected President ram that white-hot rod up the ass of the other side. Because that's what they're going to do anyway. Whether we approve of it or not. That is why you need to win elections.

That is why I don't buy your "whoever holds the stick" analogy, in this case. I could simply care less what Trump does with border funding. One side took it up the ass under Obama. By rights, it's now the other side's turn. The Bumpstock Ban we should actually be mad about, because it actually limits somebody's rights. This one, meh.

All of that can be condensed to "**** rule of law". The wordy parts are just excuses. I've said that the transfer of money in itself is not the problem. It's misusing emergency powers to do it. But it is indeed an issue of "whoever holds the stick". Or, Idunno. Maybe you cheer the other side misusing the power of the stick because then your side gets to one-up that. The problem with it seems self-evident to me. It is the very thing that has prevented the US from being the instantiation of the constitution it was intended to be, and the logical conclusion of that is the deconstruction of it. We're seeing that play out right now.

And of course, the bump-stock ban is even more egregious than using emergency powers to achieve what could not be achieved in the way lawfully designated to achieve it. Trump ordered the DoJ to fabricate a law that did not exist. I'll bet Democrats can't wait to use that new precedent enabled power. But even with the bump-stock ban, Trumpers have denied it, excused it, and have dismissed it as unimportant. The worst is the belief that it was a necessary concession to sacrifice bump-stocks so that we wouldn't get worse! WTF?

 

[JettaKnight]

So, when Russian aircraft breach an ADIZ, who intercepts them? DHS? I think you misinterpret who is responsible for border security just because CBP wound up in DHS during the reorg in '01

Are you seriously trying to compare Soviet bombers coming to nuke Chicago to migrant workers coming to process chicken?



Despite some claims here, this wall isn't for defending the nation from a foreign military - it's to keep a pregnant mom from dropping her anchor baby in Arizona - hardly a task that should be under the purview of the DoD.

 

[BugI02]

Are you seriously trying to compare Soviet bombers coming to nuke Chicago to migrant workers coming to process chicken?



Despite some claims here, this wall isn't for defending the nation from a foreign military - it's to keep a pregnant mom from dropping her anchor baby in Arizona - hardly a task that should be under the purview of the DoD.

I'm seriously trying to call an invasion by its true name

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm seriously trying to call an invasion by its true name

You've been getting into Printcraft's stash again, haven't you?