On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Good to hear that you support the use of national emergency power to obtain a source of funds other than the purse of Congress, on an issue over which there is a political stalemate in Congress not 2 weeks before the use of emergency power, and over which there has been political debate and legislation in Congress for decades. Just admit that you only hold this opinion out of political expediency, rather than legal or logical soundness. It harms your consistency and credibility otherwise.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Good to hear that you support the use of national emergency power to obtain a source of funds other than the purse of Congress, on an issue over which there is a political stalemate in Congress not 2 weeks before the use of emergency power, and over which there has been political debate and legislation in Congress for decades. Just admit that you only hold this opinion out of political expediency, rather than legal or logical soundness. It harms your consistency and credibility otherwise.
This is factually inaccurate. Why don't you fix it and try again.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'?
Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Good to hear that you support the use of national emergency power to obtain a source of funds other than the purse of Congress, on an issue over which there is a political stalemate in Congress not 2 weeks before the use of emergency power, and over which there has been political debate and legislation in Congress for decades. Just admit that you only hold this opinion out of political expediency, rather than legal or logical soundness. It harms your consistency and credibility otherwise.
This is factually inaccurate. Why don't you fix it and try again.
I assume you're saying that prior authorization of defense department funds constitutes a generalized authorization for the president to take immigration related actions with those funds. Quite a convenient end run around congressional immigration legislation. This even when the wall and border security have been a subject of congressional debate and legislation for decades. Suddenly, two weeks after the president has sought congressional legislation, and following a two year period during which the president sought congressional legislation, the president can now accomplish the same thing he was trying to accomplish with congressional legislation by means of his national emergency power. Do I have this right? Also what is the distinction between Obama's pen and phone/his DACA actions and Trump's national emergency power? Surely DACA constituted prior congressional authorization for Obama to take generally related immigration actions.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'?
Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'?
Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Good to hear that you support the use of national emergency power to obtain a source of funds other than the purse of Congress, on an issue over which there is a political stalemate in Congress not 2 weeks before the use of emergency power, and over which there has been political debate and legislation in Congress for decades. Just admit that you only hold this opinion out of political expediency, rather than legal or logical soundness. It harms your consistency and credibility otherwise.
This is factually inaccurate. Why don't you fix it and try again.
I assume you're saying that prior authorization of defense department funds constitutes a generalized authorization for the president to take immigration related actions. Quite a convenient end run around congressional immigration legislation. This even when the wall and border security have been a subject of congressional debate and legislation for decades. Suddenly, two weeks after the president has sought congressional legislation, and following a two year period during which the president sought congressional legislation, the president can now accomplish the same thing he was trying to accomplish with congressional legislation by means of his national emergency power. Do I have this right? Also what is the distinction between Obama's pen and phone/his DACA actions and Trump's national emergency power? Surely DACA constituted prior congressional authorization for Obama to take generally related immigration actions.
Y'all on the left love to mis-frame the illegal immigration issue so as to obscure the real issues. Trump's not taking immigrant-related actions because he isn't legislating new immigration policy. He's performing a national security function and enforcing the laws already on the books. This is very different from DACA, which was the creation of new immigration policy by executive fiat. Likewise, Trump's use of already-approved defense funding authorizations for the wall is nothing more than standard operating procedure at this point. This has been done for decades. You just don't like what he's spending the money on because you like open borders.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'?
Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
Go read that inane Politifact article again. It most certainly does not refute my point.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'?
Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
Go read that inane Politifact article again. It most certainly does not refute my point.
Maybe you'll believe Trump's DEA?
The most common method employed by these TCOs involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. ports of entry (POEs)
On January 08 2019 12:45 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'?
Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
Go read that inane Politifact article again. It most certainly does not refute my point.
So no, a wall would in fact not stop most of that as a matter of fact.
Let me make this easy for you:
1) The argument isn't that the wall will stop all drug trafficking. 2) The argument isn't that the wall is necessary only to stop drug trafficking. 3) The argument is that the wall stops illegal border crossings outside of regular points of entry. These illegal crossings indisputably include human trafficking, drug trafficking, and other problems. 4) The argument is that the wall is thus necessary as part of a larger border control scheme to stop problems like drug trafficking. This scheme would include tightening security at other points of entry. 5) The argument is that good walls are very effective at stopping unlawful border crossings outside of regular points of entry.
I get that there are problems with our points of entry. But that's a separate problem that also needs to be addressed. My point (which I made clear above) is that we need to be locking everything down. If drugs are getting into the country utilizing "legal entry" methods, then that must be fixed.
On January 08 2019 18:21 iamthedave wrote: [quote]
Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'?
Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
Go read that inane Politifact article again. It most certainly does not refute my point.
Maybe you'll believe Trump's DEA?
The most common method employed by these TCOs involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. ports of entry (POEs)
So no, a wall would in fact not stop most of that as a matter of fact.
Let me make this easy for you:
1) The argument isn't that the wall will stop all drug trafficking. 2) The argument isn't that the wall is necessary only to stop drug trafficking. 3) The argument is that the wall stops illegal border crossings outside of regular points of entry. These illegal crossings indisputably include human trafficking, drug trafficking, and other problems. 4) The argument is that the wall is thus necessary as part of a larger border control scheme to stop problems like drug trafficking. This scheme would include tightening security at other points of entry. 5) The argument is that good walls are very effective at stopping unlawful border crossings outside of regular points of entry.
I get that there are problems with our points of entry. But that's a separate problem that also needs to be addressed. My point (which I made clear above) is that we need to be locking everything down. If drugs are getting into the country utilizing "legal entry" methods, then that must be fixed.
ya said:
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
To which I responded, put in bold to what I was referring, and said that was factually wrong, and provided supporting evidence. You're wrong on the facts there.
Now you're talking about a lot of other things that aren't that. I'm not going to bother refuting the rest until you can acknowledge that much.
On January 09 2019 00:46 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
Go read that inane Politifact article again. It most certainly does not refute my point.
Maybe you'll believe Trump's DEA?
The most common method employed by these TCOs involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. ports of entry (POEs)
So no, a wall would in fact not stop most of that as a matter of fact.
Let me make this easy for you:
1) The argument isn't that the wall will stop all drug trafficking. 2) The argument isn't that the wall is necessary only to stop drug trafficking. 3) The argument is that the wall stops illegal border crossings outside of regular points of entry. These illegal crossings indisputably include human trafficking, drug trafficking, and other problems. 4) The argument is that the wall is thus necessary as part of a larger border control scheme to stop problems like drug trafficking. This scheme would include tightening security at other points of entry. 5) The argument is that good walls are very effective at stopping unlawful border crossings outside of regular points of entry.
I get that there are problems with our points of entry. But that's a separate problem that also needs to be addressed. My point (which I made clear above) is that we need to be locking everything down. If drugs are getting into the country utilizing "legal entry" methods, then that must be fixed.
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
To which I responded, put in bold to what I was referring, and said that was factually wrong, and provided supporting evidence. You're wrong on the facts there.
Now you're talking about a lot of other things that aren't that. I'm not going to bother refuting the rest until you can acknowledge that much.
The language that I used in that first post definitely lacked precision, and to the extent that it implied that most drug trafficking would be shut down by only putting up a wall, yes, I would agree that is not correct. But again, this does not obviate the larger need for the wall for border security.
On January 09 2019 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
Go read that inane Politifact article again. It most certainly does not refute my point.
Maybe you'll believe Trump's DEA?
The most common method employed by these TCOs involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. ports of entry (POEs)
So no, a wall would in fact not stop most of that as a matter of fact.
Let me make this easy for you:
1) The argument isn't that the wall will stop all drug trafficking. 2) The argument isn't that the wall is necessary only to stop drug trafficking. 3) The argument is that the wall stops illegal border crossings outside of regular points of entry. These illegal crossings indisputably include human trafficking, drug trafficking, and other problems. 4) The argument is that the wall is thus necessary as part of a larger border control scheme to stop problems like drug trafficking. This scheme would include tightening security at other points of entry. 5) The argument is that good walls are very effective at stopping unlawful border crossings outside of regular points of entry.
I get that there are problems with our points of entry. But that's a separate problem that also needs to be addressed. My point (which I made clear above) is that we need to be locking everything down. If drugs are getting into the country utilizing "legal entry" methods, then that must be fixed.
ya said:
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
To which I responded, put in bold to what I was referring, and said that was factually wrong, and provided supporting evidence. You're wrong on the facts there.
Now you're talking about a lot of other things that aren't that. I'm not going to bother refuting the rest until you can acknowledge that much.
The language that I used in that first post definitely lacked precision, and to the extent that it implied that most drug trafficking would be shut down by putting up a wall, yes, I would agree that is not correct. But again, this does not obviate the larger need for the wall for border security.
Thank you.
Again, no one is arguing we don't need to do more to address "human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year."
People are pointing out (some inartfully) that threatening a state of emergency (or implementing one) to supplant congress and reallocate military funds to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) that may help (how much is a wild guess at best, but we agree won't be most) with those issues is what is ridiculous.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Good to hear that you support the use of national emergency power to obtain a source of funds other than the purse of Congress, on an issue over which there is a political stalemate in Congress not 2 weeks before the use of emergency power, and over which there has been political debate and legislation in Congress for decades. Just admit that you only hold this opinion out of political expediency, rather than legal or logical soundness. It harms your consistency and credibility otherwise.
This is factually inaccurate. Why don't you fix it and try again.
I assume you're saying that prior authorization of defense department funds constitutes a generalized authorization for the president to take immigration related actions. Quite a convenient end run around congressional immigration legislation. This even when the wall and border security have been a subject of congressional debate and legislation for decades. Suddenly, two weeks after the president has sought congressional legislation, and following a two year period during which the president sought congressional legislation, the president can now accomplish the same thing he was trying to accomplish with congressional legislation by means of his national emergency power. Do I have this right? Also what is the distinction between Obama's pen and phone/his DACA actions and Trump's national emergency power? Surely DACA constituted prior congressional authorization for Obama to take generally related immigration actions.
Y'all on the left love to mis-frame the illegal immigration issue so as to obscure the real issues. Trump's not taking immigrant-related actions because he isn't legislating new immigration policy. He's performing a national security function and enforcing the laws already on the books. This is very different from DACA, which was the creation of new immigration policy by executive fiat. Likewise, Trump's use of already-approved defense funding authorizations for the wall is nothing more than standard operating procedure at this point. This has been done for decades. You just don't like what he's spending the money on because you like open borders.
"Even though Congress has debated and legislated for decades on this issue, including on the exact action the president wants to take, but despite this debate has never authorized that action, the president does already have authority from Congress to take this action. In fact, even the exact issue has been the subject of Congressional political debate for decades, it is standard operating procedure for the president to do something the executive branch hasn't done before. It does not constitute new policy to take an action which Congress has long debated whether it should take, despite there being existing legislation related to the issue generally."
On January 09 2019 01:57 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
Go read that inane Politifact article again. It most certainly does not refute my point.
Maybe you'll believe Trump's DEA?
The most common method employed by these TCOs involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. ports of entry (POEs)
So no, a wall would in fact not stop most of that as a matter of fact.
Let me make this easy for you:
1) The argument isn't that the wall will stop all drug trafficking. 2) The argument isn't that the wall is necessary only to stop drug trafficking. 3) The argument is that the wall stops illegal border crossings outside of regular points of entry. These illegal crossings indisputably include human trafficking, drug trafficking, and other problems. 4) The argument is that the wall is thus necessary as part of a larger border control scheme to stop problems like drug trafficking. This scheme would include tightening security at other points of entry. 5) The argument is that good walls are very effective at stopping unlawful border crossings outside of regular points of entry.
I get that there are problems with our points of entry. But that's a separate problem that also needs to be addressed. My point (which I made clear above) is that we need to be locking everything down. If drugs are getting into the country utilizing "legal entry" methods, then that must be fixed.
ya said:
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
To which I responded, put in bold to what I was referring, and said that was factually wrong, and provided supporting evidence. You're wrong on the facts there.
Now you're talking about a lot of other things that aren't that. I'm not going to bother refuting the rest until you can acknowledge that much.
The language that I used in that first post definitely lacked precision, and to the extent that it implied that most drug trafficking would be shut down by putting up a wall, yes, I would agree that is not correct. But again, this does not obviate the larger need for the wall for border security.
Thank you.
Again, no one is arguing we don't need to do more to address "human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year."
People are pointing out that threatening a state of emergency (or implementing one) to supplant congress and reallocate military funds to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) that may help (how much is a wild guess at best, but we agree won't be most) with those issues is what is ridiculous.
The one thing that I take issue with here is that your post obfuscates the overall attitude of democrats and the left to border security. The reasons why people on the right accuse them of being for open borders are 1) they often don't even acknowledge the problem, and 2) to the extent that they do acknowledge a problem, they don't make any proposal for how to fix it. You don't want Trump's wall? Fine, what's the alternative for getting the border under control? The obvious answer is that democrats (and many republicans) are for illegal immigration, thus they are disinclined to lock down the border.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Good to hear that you support the use of national emergency power to obtain a source of funds other than the purse of Congress, on an issue over which there is a political stalemate in Congress not 2 weeks before the use of emergency power, and over which there has been political debate and legislation in Congress for decades. Just admit that you only hold this opinion out of political expediency, rather than legal or logical soundness. It harms your consistency and credibility otherwise.
This is factually inaccurate. Why don't you fix it and try again.
I assume you're saying that prior authorization of defense department funds constitutes a generalized authorization for the president to take immigration related actions. Quite a convenient end run around congressional immigration legislation. This even when the wall and border security have been a subject of congressional debate and legislation for decades. Suddenly, two weeks after the president has sought congressional legislation, and following a two year period during which the president sought congressional legislation, the president can now accomplish the same thing he was trying to accomplish with congressional legislation by means of his national emergency power. Do I have this right? Also what is the distinction between Obama's pen and phone/his DACA actions and Trump's national emergency power? Surely DACA constituted prior congressional authorization for Obama to take generally related immigration actions.
Y'all on the left love to mis-frame the illegal immigration issue so as to obscure the real issues. Trump's not taking immigrant-related actions because he isn't legislating new immigration policy. He's performing a national security function and enforcing the laws already on the books. This is very different from DACA, which was the creation of new immigration policy by executive fiat. Likewise, Trump's use of already-approved defense funding authorizations for the wall is nothing more than standard operating procedure at this point. This has been done for decades. You just don't like what he's spending the money on because you like open borders.
"Even though Congress has debated and legislated for decades on this issue, including on the exact action the president wants to take, but despite this debate has never authorized that action, the president does already have authority from Congress to take this action. In fact, even the exact issue has been the subject of Congressional political debate for decades, it is standard operating procedure for the president to do something the executive branch hasn't done before. It does not constitute new policy to take an action which Congress has long debated whether it should take, despite there being existing legislation related to the issue generally."
- xDaunt's opinion on separation of powers.
Just quit trying. You don't understand the issues well enough to even begin to presume what I think about separation of powers.
On January 09 2019 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
Go read that inane Politifact article again. It most certainly does not refute my point.
Maybe you'll believe Trump's DEA?
The most common method employed by these TCOs involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. ports of entry (POEs)
So no, a wall would in fact not stop most of that as a matter of fact.
Let me make this easy for you:
1) The argument isn't that the wall will stop all drug trafficking. 2) The argument isn't that the wall is necessary only to stop drug trafficking. 3) The argument is that the wall stops illegal border crossings outside of regular points of entry. These illegal crossings indisputably include human trafficking, drug trafficking, and other problems. 4) The argument is that the wall is thus necessary as part of a larger border control scheme to stop problems like drug trafficking. This scheme would include tightening security at other points of entry. 5) The argument is that good walls are very effective at stopping unlawful border crossings outside of regular points of entry.
I get that there are problems with our points of entry. But that's a separate problem that also needs to be addressed. My point (which I made clear above) is that we need to be locking everything down. If drugs are getting into the country utilizing "legal entry" methods, then that must be fixed.
ya said:
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
To which I responded, put in bold to what I was referring, and said that was factually wrong, and provided supporting evidence. You're wrong on the facts there.
Now you're talking about a lot of other things that aren't that. I'm not going to bother refuting the rest until you can acknowledge that much.
The language that I used in that first post definitely lacked precision, and to the extent that it implied that most drug trafficking would be shut down by putting up a wall, yes, I would agree that is not correct. But again, this does not obviate the larger need for the wall for border security.
Thank you.
Again, no one is arguing we don't need to do more to address "human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year."
People are pointing out that threatening a state of emergency (or implementing one) to supplant congress and reallocate military funds to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) that may help (how much is a wild guess at best, but we agree won't be most) with those issues is what is ridiculous.
The one thing that I take issue with here is that your post obfuscates the overall attitude of democrats and the left to border security. The reasons why people on the right accuse them of being for open borders are 1) they often don't even acknowledge the problem, and 2) to the extent that they do acknowledge a problem, they don't make any proposal for how to fix it. You don't want Trump's wall? Fine, what's the alternative for getting the border under control? The obvious answer is that democrats (and many republicans) are for illegal immigration, thus they are disinclined to lock down the border.
As someone who doesn't see open boarders as the worst outcome I can assure you that Democrats don't support open boarders. They do share a bipartisan consensus that allows a porous border and the people traveling through it to be exploited by US companies, I'll grant you that.
Neither of your points make an argument for a state of emergency and the described actions under that specific authority.
As to how I would fix it, you can't tie it to Democrats, but it doesn't start at the border.
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote: Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Good to hear that you support the use of national emergency power to obtain a source of funds other than the purse of Congress, on an issue over which there is a political stalemate in Congress not 2 weeks before the use of emergency power, and over which there has been political debate and legislation in Congress for decades. Just admit that you only hold this opinion out of political expediency, rather than legal or logical soundness. It harms your consistency and credibility otherwise.
This is factually inaccurate. Why don't you fix it and try again.
I assume you're saying that prior authorization of defense department funds constitutes a generalized authorization for the president to take immigration related actions. Quite a convenient end run around congressional immigration legislation. This even when the wall and border security have been a subject of congressional debate and legislation for decades. Suddenly, two weeks after the president has sought congressional legislation, and following a two year period during which the president sought congressional legislation, the president can now accomplish the same thing he was trying to accomplish with congressional legislation by means of his national emergency power. Do I have this right? Also what is the distinction between Obama's pen and phone/his DACA actions and Trump's national emergency power? Surely DACA constituted prior congressional authorization for Obama to take generally related immigration actions.
Y'all on the left love to mis-frame the illegal immigration issue so as to obscure the real issues. Trump's not taking immigrant-related actions because he isn't legislating new immigration policy. He's performing a national security function and enforcing the laws already on the books. This is very different from DACA, which was the creation of new immigration policy by executive fiat. Likewise, Trump's use of already-approved defense funding authorizations for the wall is nothing more than standard operating procedure at this point. This has been done for decades. You just don't like what he's spending the money on because you like open borders.
"Even though Congress has debated and legislated for decades on this issue, including on the exact action the president wants to take, but despite this debate has never authorized that action, the president does already have authority from Congress to take this action. In fact, even the exact issue has been the subject of Congressional political debate for decades, it is standard operating procedure for the president to do something the executive branch hasn't done before. It does not constitute new policy to take an action which Congress has long debated whether it should take, despite there being existing legislation related to the issue generally."
- xDaunt's opinion on separation of powers.
Just quit trying. You don't understand the issues well enough to even begin to presume what I think about separation of powers.
What's funny is that you can't possibly deny that your argument is that it is not new policy/legislation for the president to take action which Congress has specifically debated and rejected for decades. This when the president's decision to take the action comes after a two year period during which he sought congressional legislation for the action.
What's the statute that authorizes a southern border wall? The one that authorizes a wall for only one part of the border?
On January 08 2019 18:21 iamthedave wrote: [quote]
Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'?
Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
No, they are factual arguments based on the available information (as unreliable as the sources may be).
There's lots of things we should do, the question was what is the national emergency, and what would a wall do. You and Trump share a fantasy unsupported by facts. That $20B and a wall would "shut most of this down".
If you want to talk about the fact we should be doing more to combat those issues sure, but that's a different issue than declaring them so catastrophic that the President must declare a state of emergency, supplant congress and reallocate funding to build a wall (Mexico is supposed to pay for) or what that wall will do.
You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down. That's why asking the question of "would building a border wall have prevented the opioid crisis" is both (intentionally) misleading and wildly retarded. And yes, a border wall will shut down most illegal crossings along the southern border. Walls work everywhere that they're tried. Just look at Israel or Hungary.
I just cited it because it refutes your incorrect argument that a wall would shut most of it down. That's just wrong as a matter of fact no matter how you try to frame it.
You didn't see me disagree that we could do more to address the issues you mention but you failed to address why your argument fell apart so quickly.
Go read that inane Politifact article again. It most certainly does not refute my point.
Maybe you'll believe Trump's DEA?
The most common method employed by these TCOs involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. ports of entry (POEs)
So no, a wall would in fact not stop most of that as a matter of fact.
Let me make this easy for you:
1) The argument isn't that the wall will stop all drug trafficking. 2) The argument isn't that the wall is necessary only to stop drug trafficking. 3) The argument is that the wall stops illegal border crossings outside of regular points of entry. These illegal crossings indisputably include human trafficking, drug trafficking, and other problems. 4) The argument is that the wall is thus necessary as part of a larger border control scheme to stop problems like drug trafficking. This scheme would include tightening security at other points of entry. 5) The argument is that good walls are very effective at stopping unlawful border crossings outside of regular points of entry.
I get that there are problems with our points of entry. But that's a separate problem that also needs to be addressed. My point (which I made clear above) is that we need to be locking everything down. If drugs are getting into the country utilizing "legal entry" methods, then that must be fixed.
Can you also make easy for me what the dire situation is that warrants a National State of Emergency, and how the wall deals with the exact National State of Emergency problem?
My takeaway from what you've just listed is that the President should shut down literally any way of anything getting into the USA.
Shut down the ports, airports, all borders, and I guess something for the sewers as well?
I'm not even being facetious, you did just list every way into the US of A as a problem that needs to be dealt with. Is that what you think should be done?
To be simple about it: All of these can't simultaneously be a National State of Emergency. That requires something urgent. Are we about to wheel back to that caravan of immigrants that's on the way? Just for bolding purposes this is what you said: You're missing the point for the same reason that Politifact is. If there are multiple points of entry for bad things, you have to shut them all down.
Is this the National State of Emergency? And why is it so seriously awful that it qualifies as one? What will be the immediate catastrophic consequences of not building the wall right now?
EPT
