SIGN UP

Donald Trump's Wall

Avatar Image
Khandro | 22:51 Fri 11th Jan 2019 | News
74 Answers

He said at the White House on Thursday before leaving for a tour of the border in Texas.

'They could solve this problem in literally 15 minutes. We could be back. We could have border security. They could stop this problem in 15 minutes if they wanted to. I really believe now that they don’t want to. I really believe that. I really believe that they don’t care about crime. I really believe this. The Democrats don’t care about crime.

They’ve been taken over by a group of young people who, frankly, in some cases — I’ve been watching — I actually think they’re crazy. But they’ve been taken over by a group that is so far left. I really don’t think they care about crime. And, you know, sadly, they’re viewing this as the beginning of the 2020 presidential race, and that’s okay with me. But they have been taken over by a group of people that don’t care about gangs. They don’t care about human trafficking and drugs. They don’t care about anything. I’ll tell you what — they have gone crazy.'

Legal experts say the president has the authority to declare an emergency and invoke a federal statute called the National Emergencies Act that President Gerald Ford signed into law on Sept. 14, 1976.

He ran for presidential candidacy with this as part of his policy and was voted in, is he right to dig in his heels and declare a national emergency?

Answers

1 to 20 of 74rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Legal experts say the president has the authority to declare an emergency..."

I believe this point is disputed. Certainly, it would end up being dragged through the legal system for some time. And why not? At the heart of this dispute is a conflation of border security in general -- which, let's be clear, Democrats have no objections to funding -- and the Wall in particular, the case for which is far from convincing (to say the least).

It's also worth noting that the last 16 years have seen migrant flow across the Mexican border fall rapidly, by just a shade over 75% since 2001 (from a high of 1.6 million), and while it did rise last year, the general trend is hardly suggestive of a crisis. If this is a National Emergency now, then why was it not in 2001, when the problem was four times worse?

I'm surprised that Trump hasn't at least tried to declare a National Emergency already, though, and I think that rather speaks to the truth of it. It's a threat, trying to force the Democrats to buckle, rather than something he is wanting to do because it is objectively the right call.

Finally, on your last point -- this I can accept, as it's quite clear that the Wall, as part of his wider campaign, played a not insignificant role in his victory. So Trump does have a mandate for it. But the 2018 Midterm results gave the Democrats in the lower House an equally strong mandate to work against Trump. Both sides therefore have democratic legitimacy to back exactly opposite positions. No wonder both are sticking to their guns, and will presumably do so for the foreseeable future.

Trump has to accept that border security is possible to achieve without building his pet Wall. Considering that $5.7 billion is, anyway, only a fraction of the cost to build and maintain the thing, and considering that he definitely *did* suggest, explicitly, that Mexico would directly pay for it, then I think it's completely reasonable for Democrats to continue to resist him on this.
Do you think anybody should be allowed to enter the US, claim the benefits and protections of US citizenship, and be protected from deportation despite (in many cases) criminal records by immigrant-friendly local administrations (i.e. the sanctuary city crowd). And, further, establish ongoing citizenship rights under the "anchor baby" principle: I've just had a kid here - the kid's a citizen by right and you can't or shouldn't get rid of me, its mother - or its father whoever he may be. (A constitutional amendment, if I've got it right, to prevent the denial of suffrage by southern Democrats to the children of recently enfranchised slaves).
(Do the Owen Jones , other Guardian fans, or the Antifa mob know anything at all about any of this I wonder?
Sorry, Jim, the question was addressed to you.
As soon as children become involved, I tend to be very sceptical of harsh immigration measures. Yes, I can see that the parents might decide to have a child as a cynical way of staying in a country where they would otherwise not be welcome, but it's hardly the child's fault, and allowing the family to stay in those circumstances becomes as much about the child's rights as anybody else's.

As to the first question, no I do not, but I also can't see the relevance of the question to whether or not Trump should press ahead with trying to get his wall built. The argument is not about whether or not something should be done to combat immigration flow across the huge land border with Mexico (and, by extension, with the rest of Central and Southern America), but whether or not the Wall is the appropriate something.
Dear me.

Are you arguing for illegal immigration, or contesting the methods of preventing it, Jim?

I do understand that my front door may be considered an ineffective defence against someone who is a determined burglar even if I've gone to the expense (required by my- don't know about yours - home insurance policy) of having a double/drop-down/whatever lock plus keys).

Please explain the more effective practical alternatives to the primitive protection mechanisms.

Alternatively make your case for burglars.
Let's not go down the route of comparing this to someone's front door. A 1600-mile border cannot be even remotely compared to a house. Also, I did not argue in favour illegal immigration, so no idea why you felt the need to even ask that question.

All I am saying is quite simple really: the US can improve border security without needing to build a solid and very expensive wall. Investing in more Border Agency staff, for example.
We're agreed on the principle, then, Jim. Just the method.

PS: the "principle" (VE style) is the right of a national state to decide who or who may not become residents legally[i, and to protect itself from those who want to enter its territory [i]illegally].

The "principle" (Jim style) may be different. Some of us may be "citizens of the world". Didn't Socrates say as much? Maybe "citizens of the world" don't believe in borders and territorial integrity.
You've just described the EU to a T.
Well, you don't have to blame Socrates (a lovely little thinker, but a b***r when he's p****d) for EU but for alleged disciple Plato. They're too thick to work it out. It needs the smart set to work out the rules and provide the governance. And, by the way, allowing the thickos to rear children with all the risks that entails of imposing thicko prejudices on young minds, must be disallowed. Children must be educated communally by the best in order to produce the best.

Aristotle (a b****r for the bottle) observed in attacking this argument that people on the whole cared more for things which they personally owned than for things which were communally held.

Company car?
But the replacement of morally useful institutions like the traditional family by experimental alternatives will remain as a high priority by citizens oif the world and all other global governance advocates.
Ah, the Philosophers' Drinking Song. Used to be my party piece when I was a student. Can still remember all the words, even though it was 45 years ago.
Remarkable how anything musical can stick in your head pretty much indefinitely.

I don't really know how, or indeed if, I can describe "Jim's principle" -- whatever it is, it's almost certainly tempered by pragmatism anyway. As far as I can see it hardly matters, since, as I say, my objection is primarily to the means, rather than the end.
The Cartesian ref a particular source of amusement to me, Jackdaw.

Doesn't have to be particularly subtle to be funny, innit?
I was asserting the principle that certain "communities" - nation states in my example - have the right to determine who or who may not join that community.

Is that a right you object to, Jim?

If so, why?
Even if Trump had come up with a less in your face solution the Democrats would object. They are like Labour in as much as they object to everything the president and republicans do just because they are not in power and want to be in power.

You now have elected house representative Democrats chanting MotherF****r president. Another talking with the childish ‘tippytoppy’ term for the top tier of earners and who has such socialist dogma and no idea how the economy or finances work, the country would be bankrupted quicker than if Corbyn got in.

The biggest ghettos are in Democrate cities. The biggest gun crime is in Democrate cities. Does this sound familiar?
Question Author
Great heavens! (cried Odysseus of the nimble wits). I post a question and slip off to bed with a good book ('Cutty, One Rock', by August Kleinzahler - as you ask) I return and tune in this morning and an intelligent conversation has been taking place - a philosophical discourse no less, well done chaps, things are looking up on AB.

My own view of the wall coincides with not only Donald Trump's but with that of previous administrations including democrat Obama, who not only wanted a wall, but facilitated many miles of its construction.

Its purpose is not to keep a single immigrant out, but to force them to enter the U.S. only through the recognised ports of entry, just like you or I have to. Anyone with a legitimate reason for entry will be allowed in.

As v_e points out, anyone in opposition to this idea, must, as night follows day, be a supporter of illegal immigration.

1 to 20 of 74rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Donald Trump's Wall

Answer Question >>