The President Trump Immigration Thread

[nonobaddog]

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.

I think it is pretty simple that the funds earmarked for the military construction were considered a good use of funds.
You don't start by diverting funds from something you want anyhow. You start by wanting that funding to go ahead and build the military construction and you ask for more money for the next project. That is why he asked congress for the money.
When that didn't work then you go to plan B.

Your objection to his starting by asking congress is irrelevant to whether or not plan B is legit.

 

[printcraft]

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

Yes, I have quite the supply of red pills.

Get off the blue stuff, that **** is bad for your brain.

 

[jamil]

I think it is pretty simple that the funds earmarked for the military construction were considered a good use of funds.
You don't start by diverting funds from something you want anyhow. You start by wanting that funding to go ahead and build the military construction and you ask for more money for the next project. That is why he asked congress for the money.
When that didn't work then you go to plan B.

Your objection to his starting by asking congress is irrelevant to whether or not plan B is legit.

The point asserted that I responded to was that Trump was within his authority to divert those DoD funds to the border wall. Don’t get hung up with language like “diverted”. You can use whatever verb you want. If it’s a good use of funds, and within his authority to do, he could just do it with an executive order. He would not have needed to use an emergency order as a mechanism to give him the authority to do it. Trump needed congress to fund the wall because he doesn’t have the authority to direct those funds wherever he wants. I have said repeatedly that it is the use of emergency powers to get around congress that I object to. So far TB is the only one who will just admit it and go to the crux of the issue, he just doesn’t give a ****. It’s okay for Trump to abuse power because Trump is accomplishing the goal by doing so. Everyone else is making excuses. There’s no other way out if it. Be consistent. If you’re gonna say **** rule of law, just remember you don’t really care when it’s the left doing it to achieve their goals. Don’t go talking about abuse of power when President Abrams uses emergency powers to get around congress on gun control. Pelosi has already promised they would when they gain back the presidency.

 

[BugI02]

The point asserted that I responded to was that Trump was within his authority to divert those DoD funds to the border wall. Don’t get hung up with language like “diverted”. You can use whatever verb you want. If it’s a good use of funds, and within his authority to do, he could just do it with an executive order. He would not have needed to use an emergency order as a mechanism to give him the authority to do it. Trump needed congress to fund the wall because he doesn’t have the authority to direct those funds wherever he wants. I have said repeatedly that it is the use of emergency powers to get around congress that I object to. So far TB is the only one who will just admit it and go to the crux of the issue, he just doesn’t give a ****. It’s okay for Trump to abuse power because Trump is accomplishing the goal by doing so. Everyone else is making excuses. There’s no other way out if it. Be consistent. If you’re gonna say **** rule of law, just remember you don’t really care when it’s the left doing it to achieve their goals. Don’t go talking about abuse of power when President Abrams uses emergency powers to get around congress on gun control. Pelosi has already promised they would when they gain back the presidency.

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) (Pub.L. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601–1651) is a United States federal law passed to end all previous national emergencies and to formalize the emergency powers of the President.


The Act empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis but imposes certain procedural formalities when invoking such powers. The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency. Congress can terminate an emergency declaration with a joint resolution signed into law.

If it is such a horrifying breach of law/precedent, why doesn't congress just end it? Could it be sentiment is not as clear cut on whether its an overreach as you would like us to believe. I don't see the limits on co-equal branches as bright lines but more as hazy areas of overlap. Like with Obama's DACA EO, if no one meaningfully calls a president out or forces the issue then it is de facto within his power. Given the court ruling that Trump can't undo DACA because his motives aren't pure enough, give it a few years and Trump's delegation of funds to the wall might be upheld by jurisprudence

 

[nonobaddog]

The point asserted that I responded to was that Trump was within his authority to divert those DoD funds to the border wall. Don’t get hung up with language like “diverted”. You can use whatever verb you want. If it’s a good use of funds, and within his authority to do, he could just do it with an executive order. He would not have needed to use an emergency order as a mechanism to give him the authority to do it. Trump needed congress to fund the wall because he doesn’t have the authority to direct those funds wherever he wants. I have said repeatedly that it is the use of emergency powers to get around congress that I object to. So far TB is the only one who will just admit it and go to the crux of the issue, he just doesn’t give a ****. It’s okay for Trump to abuse power because Trump is accomplishing the goal by doing so. Everyone else is making excuses. There’s no other way out if it. Be consistent. If you’re gonna say **** rule of law, just remember you don’t really care when it’s the left doing it to achieve their goals. Don’t go talking about abuse of power when President Abrams uses emergency powers to get around congress on gun control. Pelosi has already promised they would when they gain back the presidency.

Now hold on. I did not express any opinion on the use of emergency powers at all.
You asked twice in two different posts - why he went to congress first. I'm saying that when the executive branch wants to spend billions it always goes to the legislative branch first. That is the answer to your questions.

As to the use of emergency powers, I'll leave that to others to pee and moan about.

 

[jamil]

If it is such a horrifying breach of law/precedent, why doesn't congress just end it? Could it be sentiment is not as clear cut on whether its an overreach as you would like us to believe. I don't see the limits on co-equal branches as bright lines but more as hazy areas of overlap. Like with Obama's DACA EO, if no one meaningfully calls a president out or forces the issue then it is de facto within his power. Given the court ruling that Trump can't undo DACA because his motives aren't pure enough, give it a few years and Trump's delegation of funds to the wall might be upheld by jurisprudence

Are you guys even interested at all in knowing the ins and outs of this? Or is it really just this simple: Trump got money for wall. We want wall. Trump good. Don't give 2 ****s about stinking law. Just want money for wall.

Here's a brief history. Trump was being pressured by hard-core wall-ers. to build the wall already. Trump threatened congress that if they didn't give him everything he wanted he would just declare a national emergency and take it out of DoD anyway. They didn't give him the money, so he declared emergency. So anyone trying to say he already possessed the authority to take money out of the DoD for whatever he wants is making facile excuses because they like the outcome.

So after the declaration, Congress passed a joint resolution terminating the national emergency. Trump vetoed it and the house/senate fell short of an override, which of course required 2/3's vote. That leaves the courts. Many entities, including 16 states, have filed suit and those are still working their way through the system. Courts did issue an injunction, which last I heard is still in effect, which blocked the diversion of funds specifically from the DoJ since Congress had earmarked those funds for specific projects. The wall continues because Trump diverted other funds, which I think he does have the authority to divert by a simple executive order. Those funds are coming from law enforcement; mostly from the drug war, forfeitures and whatnot.

It comes down to this. Either the end justifies the means period for both, or the end justifies the means for neither. If we're gonna talk about sentiment, the problem with "the end justifies the means" is that other side gets to justify their means too. That makes it indeed a fight for who controls the stick. Trump has it today. Eventually Democrats will have it. And if this isn't stopped by the courts, Democrats have a handy little tool they can use then.

I get that the left plays asymmetrical warfare. Nevertheless, I'm not willing to give up what little of rule of law we have left. It's one of the required ingredients even to have a free society. As I've said, I guess if you just flat out say you don't give a **** about rule of law, fine. At least you're not pretending to give a **** about rule of law. But if we're playing us/them, yer one of them on this issue. If you say you do give a **** about rule of law, I'd expect the rule of law to be appreciated even when it means you don't get your way.

 

[jamil]

Now hold on. I did not express any opinion on the use of emergency powers at all.
You asked twice in two different posts - why he went to congress first. I'm saying that when the executive branch wants to spend billions it always goes to the legislative branch first. That is the answer to your questions.

As to the use of emergency powers, I'll leave that to others to pee and moan about.

That's what not giving a **** about rule of law looks like.

Going to congress first is irrelevant to the discussion other than to establish that Trump did not have the authority to take one ****ing dime from what Congress had already appropriated for specific DoD earmarks, to divert to the border wall. When congress refused to fund his wall, he made threats with the national emergency. So your point doesn't even fit into this conversation. You had claimed that he had this authority. He did not. That's why he resorted to using the emergency powers to circumvent the wishes of congress. Maybe you don't like the wishes of congress. I don't either. But that's what rule of law looks like. They have the power of the purse and they're under Democratic rule now. That's how it works.

 

[NKBJ]

There's $90,000,000,000,000 missing and nobody will ask who authorized it?

 

[nonobaddog]

That's what not giving a **** about rule of law looks like.

Going to congress first is irrelevant to the discussion other than to establish that Trump did not have the authority to take one ****ing dime from what Congress had already appropriated for specific DoD earmarks, to divert to the border wall. When congress refused to fund his wall, he made threats with the national emergency. So your point doesn't even fit into this conversation. You had claimed that he had this authority. He did not. That's why he resorted to using the emergency powers to circumvent the wishes of congress. Maybe you don't like the wishes of congress. I don't either. But that's what rule of law looks like. They have the power of the purse and they're under Democratic rule now. That's how it works.

I don't know man, maybe check your temperature, the heat of your argument might be getting to you. I don't think I ever made such a claim. I have been up at the cabin without wifi for about 6 days just relaxing and not making claims about anything.

I will say the rule of law is fine when enforced for both sides. But if one side ignores it and it is not enforced then it kind of forces the other side to do something similar or they will lose.

 

[BugI02]

Are you guys even interested at all in knowing the ins and outs of this? Or is it really just this simple: Trump got money for wall. We want wall. Trump good. Don't give 2 ****s about stinking law. Just want money for wall.

Here's a brief history. Trump was being pressured by hard-core wall-ers. to build the wall already. Trump threatened congress that if they didn't give him everything he wanted he would just declare a national emergency and take it out of DoD anyway. They didn't give him the money, so he declared emergency. So anyone trying to say he already possessed the authority to take money out of the DoD for whatever he wants is making facile excuses because they like the outcome.

So after the declaration, Congress passed a joint resolution terminating the national emergency. Trump vetoed it and the house/senate fell short of an override, which of course required 2/3's vote. That leaves the courts. Many entities, including 16 states, have filed suit and those are still working their way through the system. Courts did issue an injunction, which last I heard is still in effect, which blocked the diversion of funds specifically from the DoJ since Congress had earmarked those funds for specific projects. The wall continues because Trump diverted other funds, which I think he does have the authority to divert by a simple executive order. Those funds are coming from law enforcement; mostly from the drug war, forfeitures and whatnot.

It comes down to this. Either the end justifies the means period for both, or the end justifies the means for neither. If we're gonna talk about sentiment, the problem with "the end justifies the means" is that other side gets to justify their means too. That makes it indeed a fight for who controls the stick. Trump has it today. Eventually Democrats will have it. And if this isn't stopped by the courts, Democrats have a handy little tool they can use then.

I get that the left plays asymmetrical warfare. Nevertheless, I'm not willing to give up what little of rule of law we have left. It's one of the required ingredients even to have a free society. As I've said, I guess if you just flat out say you don't give a **** about rule of law, fine. At least you're not pretending to give a **** about rule of law. But if we're playing us/them, yer one of them on this issue. If you say you do give a **** about rule of law, I'd expect the rule of law to be appreciated even when it means you don't get your way.

I just don't see why your panties are so bunched on this. You admit that there are checks and balances available to his adversaries, that they have used them successfully, in one instance, and are attempting to use them in another. You speak of an end run around congress, but congress couldn't garner the votes to override a presidential veto. What about that is an end run around congress, that is how the system is built to work - it takes more than a simple majority to override the will of the executive. What could be more 'rule of law' than that. When the court ruled that Trump couldn't repurpose the DoJ money, did he not obey the dictate of the court? That sounds like 'rule of law' to me

As far as not being as upset by it as you, speaking for myself I'm not upset because we seem to be the only side that is playing by the old rules. Why aren't you as upset that Trump can't dissolve DACA (which Obama admitted he hadn't the legal authority to enact) not because of what the law says but that the judge(s) suspect him of uncharitable motives. That he can't restore a question on citizenship to the census because the court questions the sincerity of the reasons given. Show me where in the 'rule of law' it says the court can second guess the executive in this manner. Trump's adversaries use any legal pretext to slow or derail his initiatives, I see no reason to be upset when he uses his power to leave them having to cool their heels while an issue works its way through the courts. As long as Trump stops when the courts say stop, I have no problem with it because that is the essence of the 'rule of law'. I see the worry that a future D admin will do the same as a pointless worry. They will do whatever they want and rely on their tame press and fellow travelers to provide cover for them. They have already said they will do away with the filibuster the better to ram through their agenda against the will of the other half of the electorate. I'm tired of playing by the old rules. I don't want to be the redcoats marching down the road, I want to be the guys firing at them from behind trees. I just see 'we're better than that' as anorther path to defeat, if you think it is so existential you might develop a bit more concern for prevailing and a bit less concern for the niceties

Edit: Adopting your argumentum, doesn't congress trying to use the mechanism included in the Emergency Powers Act to recind the declaration of emergency mean that they admit that he does have the power under said act to do what he has done

 

[nonobaddog]

I just don't see why your panties are so bunched on this. You admit that there are checks and balances available to his adversaries, that they have used them successfully, in one instance, and are attempting to use them in another. You speak of an end run around congress, but congress couldn't garner the votes to override a presidential veto. What about that is an end run around congress, that is how the system is built to work - it takes more than a simple majority to override the will of the executive. What could be more 'rule of law' than that. When the court ruled that Trump couldn't repurpose the DoJ money, did he not obey the dictate of the court? That sounds like 'rule of law' to me

As far as not being as upset by it as you, speaking for myself I'm not upset because we seem to be the only side that is playing by the old rules. Why aren't you as upset that Trump can't dissolve DACA (which Obama admitted he hadn't the legal authority to enact) not because of what the law says but that the judge(s) suspect him of uncharitable motives. That he can't restore a question on citizenship to the census because the court questions the sincerity of the reasons given. Show me where in the 'rule of law' it says the court can second guess the executive in this manner. Trump's adversaries use any legal pretext to slow or derail his initiatives, I see no reason to be upset when he uses his power to leave them having to cool their heels while an issue works its way through the courts. As long as Trump stops when the courts say stop, I have no problem with it because that is the essence of the 'rule of law'. I see the worry that a future D admin will do the same as a pointless worry. They will do whatever they want and rely on their tame press and fellow travelers to provide cover for them. They have already said they will do away with the filibuster the better to ram through their agenda against the will of the other half of the electorate. I'm tired of playing by the old rules. I don't want to be the redcoats marching down the road, I want to be the guys firing at them from behind trees. I just see 'we're better than that' as anorther path to defeat, if you think it is so existential you might develop a bit more concern for prevailing and a bit less concern for the niceties

Edit: Adopting your argumentum, doesn't congress trying to use the mechanism included in the Emergency Powers Act to recind the declaration of emergency mean that they admit that he does have the power under said act to do what he has done

Very well said! Eloquent!

And the thing still won't let me rep you.

 

[jamil]

I just don't see why your panties are so bunched on this. You admit that there are checks and balances available to his adversaries, that they have used them successfully, in one instance, and are attempting to use them in another. You speak of an end run around congress, but congress couldn't garner the votes to override a presidential veto. What about that is an end run around congress, that is how the system is built to work - it takes more than a simple majority to override the will of the executive. What could be more 'rule of law' than that. When the court ruled that Trump couldn't repurpose the DoJ money, did he not obey the dictate of the court? That sounds like 'rule of law' to me

As far as not being as upset by it as you, speaking for myself I'm not upset because we seem to be the only side that is playing by the old rules. Why aren't you as upset that Trump can't dissolve DACA (which Obama admitted he hadn't the legal authority to enact) not because of what the law says but that the judge(s) suspect him of uncharitable motives. That he can't restore a question on citizenship to the census because the court questions the sincerity of the reasons given. Show me where in the 'rule of law' it says the court can second guess the executive in this manner. Trump's adversaries use any legal pretext to slow or derail his initiatives, I see no reason to be upset when he uses his power to leave them having to cool their heels while an issue works its way through the courts. As long as Trump stops when the courts say stop, I have no problem with it because that is the essence of the 'rule of law'. I see the worry that a future D admin will do the same as a pointless worry. They will do whatever they want and rely on their tame press and fellow travelers to provide cover for them. They have already said they will do away with the filibuster the better to ram through their agenda against the will of the other half of the electorate. I'm tired of playing by the old rules. I don't want to be the redcoats marching down the road, I want to be the guys firing at them from behind trees. I just see 'we're better than that' as anorther path to defeat, if you think it is so existential you might develop a bit more concern for prevailing and a bit less concern for the niceties

Edit: Adopting your argumentum, doesn't congress trying to use the mechanism included in the Emergency Powers Act to recind the declaration of emergency mean that they admit that he does have the power under said act to do what he has done

I'm not surprised that yours aren't bunched. You don't give a **** about rule of law. You give a **** about having the stick so that you can get your way. I suspect that when the other side has the stick, you'll say you give a **** about it. But you don't really. The thing you give a **** about is just that they're getting their way by the same means you got yours.

BTW, I *am* pissed that DACA can't get dissolved. IANAL, but I don't recall anyone complaining about an executive order not having a reason stated in the way the chief justice wants it stated. Any EO that a president can legally sign, another president can legally revoke by the same mechanism. The SCOTUS decision though was a procedural one, albeit bull****. The ruling wasn't that Trump can't rescind DACA. It's that he can't do it unless he gives a non-racist reason. As if that's actually the reality. I think RGB had back door sex with Roberts, and he was the catcher, making him her *****. He's been acting like it of late.

About your edit, no. Passing legislation that says a claimed emergency isn't an emergency isn't admitting that it's an emergency. What will you say when President Abrams declares a national emergency the first opportunity after a white cop shoots an unarmed black teen, and diverts some of the military budget appropriated for specific programs, to reparations? Will you say, oh, of course she has the power to do that. She's the POTUS. And to this particular question, should bipartisan legislation declaring that egregious declaration of emergency is terminated, be considered a tacit admission that she had the power to spend money that congress appropriates howeverthe**** she wants? Please do answer that. Let me guess. Oh. But that's different. Uh huh.

 

[jamil]

Very well said! Eloquent!

And the thing still won't let me rep you.

Hey, I'd rep that post if it weren't full of hooey.

 

[jamil]

I don't know man, maybe check your temperature, the heat of your argument might be getting to you. I don't think I ever made such a claim. I have been up at the cabin without wifi for about 6 days just relaxing and not making claims about anything.

I will say the rule of law is fine when enforced for both sides. But if one side ignores it and it is not enforced then it kind of forces the other side to do something similar or they will lose.

That's a fair point, that if the other side is playing asymmetrical warfare it makes it harder to win, and perhaps if you play by their rules, you might convince them that rule of law is wiser. I think more of rule of law than just, "meh, I guess it's fin and all, but by any means necessary is more efficient" Rule of law is a basis for a society where there can be personal liberty. If there's one set of laws for some, and not for others, that's just not a world where liberty can be sustained.

For this particular problem which Trump declared is an emergency, rule of law is more important than getting a border wall. It's been argued that there were mobs of immigrants heading towards the border to force their way in. Okay. That can be construed as an emergency. And the POTUS would have the authority to declare it so, and use it to direct troops to the border to protect it. An emergent action is appropriate for an emergency. I know you guys see the border as an ongoing huge problem. I think it's a problem. I don't think it's a problem which only a border wall can fix. I don't think it's a problem that supersedes the necessity for consistent laws. Your side wanted a border wall. The other side didn't. Forcing it by using mechanisms created for emergencies to bypass the congress is a violation of separation of powers. It's an abuse of the emergency powers granted by congress.

But to your point that you never made such a claim, you said this:

I think it is pretty simple that the funds earmarked for the military construction were considered a good use of funds.
You don't start by diverting funds from something you want anyhow. You start by wanting that funding to go ahead and build the military construction and you ask for more money for the next project. That is why he asked congress for the money.
When that didn't work then you go to plan B.

Your objection to his starting by asking congress is irrelevant to whether or not plan B is legit.

I think the bold text is reasonably interpreted as you claiming that he had this authority. It seemed clear to me that you were thinking that Trump used simple executive action to divert the funds. I was saying the thing I objected to was that he used emergency powers to get around congress.

 

[BugI02]

I'm not surprised that yours aren't bunched. You don't give a **** about rule of law. You give a **** about having the stick so that you can get your way. I suspect that when the other side has the stick, you'll say you give a **** about it. But you don't really. The thing you give a **** about is just that they're getting their way by the same means you got yours.

BTW, I *am* pissed that DACA can't get dissolved. IANAL, but I don't recall anyone complaining about an executive order not having a reason stated in the way the chief justice wants it stated. Any EO that a president can legally sign, another president can legally revoke by the same mechanism. The SCOTUS decision though was a procedural one, albeit bull****. The ruling wasn't that Trump can't rescind DACA. It's that he can't do it unless he gives a non-racist reason. As if that's actually the reality. I think RGB had back door sex with Roberts, and he was the catcher, making him her *****. He's been acting like it of late.

About your edit, no. Passing legislation that says a claimed emergency isn't an emergency isn't admitting that it's an emergency. What will you say when President Abrams declares a national emergency the first opportunity after a white cop shoots an unarmed black teen, and diverts some of the military budget appropriated for specific programs, to reparations? Will you say, oh, of course she has the power to do that. She's the POTUS. And to this particular question, should bipartisan legislation declaring that egregious declaration of emergency is terminated, be considered a tacit admission that she had the power to spend money that congress appropriates howeverthe**** she wants? Please do answer that. Let me guess. Oh. But that's different. Uh huh.

I will say that we do exactly what's been done to Trump, drag the decision through all the courts in succession up to and including the supreme court, and if we lose then we find a way to live with it. That is the real essence of rule of law, and the reason why the judiciary is one of the more important reasons to re-elect Trump and has been one of his most important contributions so far. We cannot end legislation by and from the bench without filling the ranks of the judiciary at all levels with constitutionalists. The danger isn't so much in a president overstepping his authority as it is in a partisan judiciary absolving him because he's a fellow traveler. The rule of law resides in the tension between the three branches, and if they are allowed to devalue the constitution sufficiently, it will come to an end

Your argument that we must limit the use of power to only what's been done before, because court acceptance of new strategies might give our opponents ideas, seems more worthy of Mike Braun than jamil

Edit: and doesn't Abrams have to resign as pretend governor of Georgia in order to campaign to be the pretend vice president?

 

[nonobaddog]

But to your point that you never made such a claim, you said this:

Originally Posted by nonobaddog

I think it is pretty simple that the funds earmarked for the military construction were considered a good use of funds.
You don't start by diverting funds from something you want anyhow. You start by wanting that funding to go ahead and build the military construction and you ask for more money for the next project. That is why he asked congress for the money.
When that didn't work then you go to plan B.
Your objection to his starting by asking congress is irrelevant to whether or not plan B is legit.

I think the bold text is reasonably interpreted as you claiming that he had this authority. It seemed clear to me that you were thinking that Trump used simple executive action to divert the funds. I was saying the thing I objected to was that he used emergency powers to get around congress.

Oh not at all. What that bold text says, or tries to say, is - There are some military construction projects that must have had enough merit to get funded.
It doesn't say anything more than that. Additional interpretation read into it is fictitious. Try reading the post again after this clarification.

 

[jamil]

Oh not at all. What that bold text says, or tries to say, is - There are some military construction projects that must have had enough merit to get funded.
It doesn't say anything more than that. Additional interpretation read into it is fictitious. Try reading the post again after this clarification.

Regardless how you meant it, it’s reasonably interpreted the way I took it. What you’re saying it means doesn’t seem to answer the post you were replying to.

 

[nonobaddog]

Regardless how you meant it, it’s reasonably interpreted the way I took it. What you’re saying it means doesn’t seem to answer the post you were replying to.

Just out of curiosity - how do you parse that sentence to mean what you got out of it?

 

[BugI02]

Its not uncommon for jamil to take folks to task because he is not saying what they think he is saying

I guess he also knows when you aren't saying what you think you're saying

 

[nonobaddog]

I think it is pretty simple that the funds earmarked for the military construction were considered a good use of funds.

I don't care what anybody *wants* this to say, just read the black part. All it really says is that there were some funds - these funds were earmarked for some military construction. I don't know what that construction even is and it doesn't matter. Apparently that construction had enough merit that it was approved and considered a good use of tax payer's funds.

I don't see how anything else can be read or imagined into that without delving into fantasy.

To somehow jump to the conclusion that this is any kind of claim about emergencies or jump to the conclusion that this is about crocodiles in the amazon is beyond me.