Mexico border wall: Trump defends emergency

[aztek]

Privately funded border wall built at El Paso: 'Why wouldn't we allow it?' land owner asks

EL PASO, Texas – A private group has built a $6 million bollard-type wall at the border on private property near El Paso with money raised from a GoFundMe account.

..........

"Why wouldn't we allow it?" Allen asked. "We have dealt with illegals coming across. We have been attacked by illegals coming across. We have been burglarized by illegals. We have drug traffickers coming through here, and anyone who is against this is against America."

Kobach said the "liberal court" makes his group's private projects even more necessary.

“Now more than ever we need it, because we have a liberal court decision that stopped President Trump from building in some the areas with the National Emergency funds,” Kobach said. “So, we the people need to step and do this private action to supplement what the federal government is doing. It really needs to be all hands on deck.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/privately-funded-border-wall-built-115033127.html

[Vorg]

On 5/29/2019 at 6:42 AM, Farmer77 said:

Yeah dude this garbage from the administration should terrify you and anyone who cares about the constitution.

Their agenda is being found unconstitutional by the checks on power so those in power claim those very checks are unconstitutional. SMDH

Its really quite blatant banana republic 101 type stuff.

https://www.westernjournal.com/bill-barr-used-one-figure-prove-nationwide-injunctions-problem/

Nationwide injunctions prohibit the federal government from enforcing a particular law or policy across the entire country. Progressive cause lawyering groups have used such injunctions to stymie a wide array of Trump administration policy priorities.

“Since President [Donald] Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch — that’s more than one a month,” Barr said.

“According to the [Justice] Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century,” he said, before bristling at the notion that the disparity is a function of the president’s “lawlessness.”

Barr cited the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as the starkest example of a nationwide injunction’s harmful effects.

 

No, it's liberal fight Trump with any means necessary stuff. The Starkest example is listed above is DACA, not quite Dictatorial Banana boat Republic stuff you keep touting.

[Gromdor]

19 hours ago, South Alabam said:

https://www.westernjournal.com/bill-barr-used-one-figure-prove-nationwide-injunctions-problem/

Nationwide injunctions prohibit the federal government from enforcing a particular law or policy across the entire country. Progressive cause lawyering groups have used such injunctions to stymie a wide array of Trump administration policy priorities.

“Since President [Donald] Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch — that’s more than one a month,” Barr said.

“According to the [Justice] Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century,” he said, before bristling at the notion that the disparity is a function of the president’s “lawlessness.”

Barr cited the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as the starkest example of a nationwide injunction’s harmful effects.

 

No, it's liberal fight Trump with any means necessary stuff. The Starkest example is listed above is DACA, not quite Dictatorial Banana boat Republic stuff you keep touting.

Judges aren't supposed to be political- they are only supposed to determine if something is Constitutional or not.  Perhaps Trump and the Republicans should do the same before they write these laws and policies that aren't making the muster?  I mean, a little editing and foresight goes a long way.  Rewriting the immigration ban till Version 3.0 finally made the grade, for example.

[Farmer77]

19 hours ago, South Alabam said:

“According to the [Justice] Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century,” he said, before bristling at the notion that the disparity is a function of the president’s “lawlessness.”

Barr cited the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as the starkest example of a nationwide injunction’s harmful effects.

 

No, it's liberal fight Trump with any means necessary stuff. The Starkest example is listed above is DACA, not quite Dictatorial Banana boat Republic stuff you keep touting.

So again, those in power have been shown to be acting unconstitutionally by the checks and balances on power, and because you like those in power you want those checks to be stopped.

Utterly anti constitutional and unamerican and whether you want or have the ability to admit or even understand that you are doing it you are cheering on dictatorship in America.

Sure I know Trump's a giant patriotic teddy bear who would never become a dictator , but, Trump wont always be in power and every single step he takes to erode the checks on power in America only sets up the next guy.

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Farmer77

[+DieChecker]

12 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Sure I know Trump's a giant patriotic teddy bear who would never become a dictator , but, Trump wont always be in power and every single step he takes to erode the checks on power in America only sets up the next guy.

Sure, and I was saying the same thing under Obama and Harry Reid, with the "Nuclear Option". Now we have two conservative Supreme Court Justices, and there was nothing essentially the Democrats could do about it. I said repeatedly that a GOP administration would use that to do what it wanted, rather then force bilateral concession. And here we are.

Yet, at the time Democrats praised Reid's choice.

These things are never one sided.

Obama put in a very surprising number of liberal, activist, judges in the Federal Judiciary. Might that not also be a factor?

Edited May 31, 2019 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Judges aren't supposed to be political- they are only supposed to determine if something is Constitutional or not.  

And yet here we are with the same courts over and over making news for bias decisions which are almost always overturned by higher courts. Bias politicians install bias judged, and try to install as many as possible. 

Unbias Federal Judges may be the general rule, but a handful of bias ones has pulled our government to a virtual stop several times. 

[Farmer77]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

And yet here we are with the same courts over and over making news for bias decisions which are almost always overturned by higher courts.

Those in power being checked claim theyre biased and because you like those in power you agree with them.  Human nature for sure, still rooting on dictatorship at the end of the day.

 

 

[+and-then]

On 3/20/2019 at 12:55 PM, Tatetopa said:

Are you so done and cynical that you think it is all a joke? You think we are powerless victims?  What becomes of a nation when its's citizens don't care or believe it should continue to exist? 

We're about to see.

[+and-then]

On 5/29/2019 at 6:40 AM, Farmer77 said:

Thank God for Checks and Balances

Judge Blocks Trump from Using Pentagon Funds for Border Wall

Can you tell me the last time a president has been usurped in action by a Federal judge from some outlying district and that, of political opposition?  I don't recall it ever being done on such a scale.  Appointed judges to the Federal bench were NEVER given such power by the Constitution and after Trump's presidency, they'll never be able to do so again.  The Dems will help see to that because they won't want it to be used against them.  Better to say, Thank God for the Second Amendment 

[Tatetopa]

5 hours ago, and then said:

We're about to see.

Only maybe friend.  We had our shot when we were in our 20's and 30's.  We might have loved America and the world in different ways, but it was our home, the place we built our future and raised our families. Most of us who had families wanted them to see the best world possible.  Maybe we think we blew it, or maybe we think we gave it our best shot.   Either way, we are done. 

In our 40's and 50's we are still involved and feel powerful, but a new generation is in their prime and out to shape the world to their liking.  We can obstruct them or guide them, but there is no do over for us.  

It is their turn now. In our 60's and beyond, young people might like our encouragement,  and 10% of our advice, but they don't give a fig for our criticism or our bitterness or our sense of loss at what might have been.  

Young people are coming into their own.  Hopefully we raised them well. 

[Farmer77]

On 6/1/2019 at 11:26 AM, and then said:

Can you tell me the last time a president has been usurped in action by a Federal judge from some outlying district and that, of political opposition?  I don't recall it ever being done on such a scale.  Appointed judges to the Federal bench were NEVER given such power by the Constitution and after Trump's presidency, they'll never be able to do so again.  The Dems will help see to that because they won't want it to be used against them.  Better to say, Thank God for the Second Amendment 

The fact that you have the ability to delude yourself into thinking this is some sort of usurpation by the checks and balances is really stunning.

From the Trumpian perspective the worst case scenario is that it goes to the supreme court where the case will be decided on its merits by judges the Trumpians trust.

From the American perspective the worst case scenario would have been the POTUS usurping congress' power of the purse strings without challenge.

As for the history of judges stopping POTUS there are quite a few examples

Federal judge halts Obama’s order on immigration

Judge reaffirms nationwide ban on Obama transgender school bathroom policy

U.S. Judge Stops Federally Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Perhaps its time to admit it isnt the checks and balances that are acting abnormally , it is the man at 1600 penn.

[+and-then]

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The fact that you have the ability to delude yourself into thinking this is some sort of usurpation by the checks and balances is really stunning.

It would probably surprise you to know that I genuinely look upon your stances the same way.  I am aware that Federal judges can issue limited injunctions over presidential orders but the scope of this kind of action has dwarfed anything before.  It has angered those who voted for him and for a change in how we've been doing the business of our nation and the "resistance" he has faced is probably going to get him re-elected.  Now, I ask you, seriously... what happens if he does?  What's the next move by those who hate and fear him so much if he has another 4 years?  Impeachment will fail.  It has no chance at all.  Do we spend another 4 years hating Trump or do we try to get some positive things done for this country?

[Farmer77]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

Now, I ask you, seriously... what happens if he does?  What's the next move by those who hate and fear him so much if he has another 4 years?  Impeachment will fail.  It has no chance at all.  Do we spend another 4 years hating Trump or do we try to get some positive things done for this country?

Well I have to say that I honestly believe that you are largely conflating hate of Trump with love of the country. You view all of this as simply extreme politics as usual and I see it as legitimately eroding the very things that have made America great, namely the processes and institutions.

Trump is actively working against those processes and institutions. I understand his supporters see that as working for America because the end goal will (in their eyes) be good for America. In my eye and in that of many the ends dont justify the means. Particularly since we simply dont agree on the starting point, I.E there was no "American Carnage" in 2016 and therefore no need to destroy the institutions and processes in place.

So while I have a deep fear that Trump's unconstitutionality will only grow if reelected ill  put that aside and say I guess the same will keep happening if he is reelected. When Trump acts in a manner that needs to be examined by the checks and balances then his actions will be examined.  

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, and then said:

I am aware that Federal judges can issue limited injunctions over presidential orders but the scope of this kind of action has dwarfed anything before. 

Again though I find this is about perspective. From mine it is the scope of Trump's actions that have required so many injunctions.

And this shouldnt be a surprise. His status as a political neophyte has been used by his supporters as excuses for many of his actions. It would make sense that that naivete would extend into areas of constitutionality.

[Vorg]

27 minutes ago, and then said:

It would probably surprise you to know that I genuinely look upon your stances the same way.  I am aware that Federal judges can issue limited injunctions over presidential orders but the scope of this kind of action has dwarfed anything before.  It has angered those who voted for him and for a change in how we've been doing the business of our nation and the "resistance" he has faced is probably going to get him re-elected.  Now, I ask you, seriously... what happens if he does?  What's the next move by those who hate and fear him so much if he has another 4 years?  Impeachment will fail.  It has no chance at all.  Do we spend another 4 years hating Trump or do we try to get some positive things done for this country?

Here is the real reason they are fighting him so bad. This was written 14 years ago. https://cis.org/Impact-NonCitizens-Congressional-Apportionment

This isn't some biased article either, just the facts. Congressional lines are being redrawn and seats are being lost to Democrats that Republicans once held all due to the impact of Illegal aliens. Add to it millions of illegal aliens and even more seats that have been lost over the years and you see that it is all by design to allow illegals in and protect them with "sanctuary cities."

Add to the fact that Obama flooded America with almost a million Muslims from Syria from a civil war that we had no business being in and there are even more congressional lines being redrawn from people that shouldn't have even been here.

But let's keep dreaming Trump is the problem with illegal immigration.

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by South Alabam

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

This isn't some biased article either, just the facts.

 The source is very biased. I havent gone through the study to see if it is, so it could not be, but those doing the study are themselves anti immigration.

Here are some quotes from its founder

Quote

About John Tanton

A retired Michigan ophthalmologist, Tanton has white nationalist beliefs and has written that to maintain American culture, "a European-American majority" is required. As of 2010, Tanton served on FAIR’s board of directors.

In His Own Words
"I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."
– Dec. 10, 1993, letter to the late Garrett Hardin, a controversial ecology professor.

"I have no doubt that individual minority persons can assimilate to the culture necessary to run an advanced society but if through mass migration, the culture of the homeland is transplanted from Latin America to California, then my guess is we will see the same degree of success with governmental and social institutions that we have seen in Latin America."
– Jan. 26, 1996, letter to Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA (and then an employee of Tanton's foundation U.S. Inc.).

 

The data could still be good but the think tank itself is dubious

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

 The source is very biased. I havent gone through the study to see if it is, so it could not be, but those doing the study are themselves anti immigration.

Here are some quotes from its founder

 

The data could still be good but the think tank itself is dubious

The think tank may be dubious, but it's conclusions - in this particular case - are self-evident and common sense. 

Goodbye California.  

[Vorg]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

 The source is very biased. I havent gone through the study to see if it is, so it could not be, but those doing the study are themselves anti immigration.

Here are some quotes from its founder

 

The data could still be good but the think tank itself is dubious

Agreed, maybe it is biased but the data appears good, and the Democratic agenda appears to be what it is, from my perspective. This is why voter ID is called "racist" or anything that questions legitimacy of an election.

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, South Alabam said:

Agreed, maybe it is biased but the data appears good, and the Democratic agenda appears to be what it is, from my perspective. This is why voter ID is called "racist" or anything that questions legitimacy of an election.

Part of what the author touched on relating to congressional representation is actually very reminiscent of what republicans are doing with prison populations

Prison Gerrymandering Distorts Our Democracy in the Worst Ways

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

The think tank may be dubious, but it's conclusions - in this particular case - are self-evident and common sense. 

Goodbye California.  

As someone who is considering buying a house in California as we speak I am genuinely baffled by your closing statement there.

[Vorg]

42 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

As someone who is considering buying a house in California as we speak I am genuinely baffled by your closing statement there.

I think he is saying it is "Liberal" to stay. It will never switch back.

[RoofGardener]

7 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

As someone who is considering buying a house in California as we speak I am genuinely baffled by your closing statement there.

I would have thought it obvious, based on your quotation of John Tanton in post #491 ? 

[Uncle Sam]

Migrants are kidnapping children and falsely claiming to be parents of those children to get in.

Then there are migrants who said they have no choice but to invade our nation when they could have applied for asylum in multiple nations that they passed through. The arrogant and blatant lies really p*** me off.
 

 

Then there are migrants as far away as Africa are storming our borders...
 

The migrant caravan is also costing United State's taxpayers billions of dollars...
 

 

This type of behavior from government officials is borderline treasonous towards our citizens as well...
 

 

These people do not obey the law either. Here is some staging 6 massive prison escapes in mexico...
 

 

Criminals coming over and doing what they please as well since things have become lawless at the border at times.
 

 

Things here is a crisis and Democrats need to work with Trump. Either they work with us to fix our damn border and bring this crisis to a close or I will view them as nothing but traitors and treasonous dogs they are. Here is a video completely off topic to make people laugh and to calm anyone's nerves down after seeing all the information regarding the crisis of the migrant caravans. (To the mods, don't worry, no nudity or anything that breaks the rules. Just a funny video about bootleg anime dating sims that ruined our childhood heroes.
 

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Uncle Sam

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I would have thought it obvious, based on your quotation of John Tanton in post #491 ? 

Because a white supremacist said something you found appealing ??  That was more wishful thinking on his part than it was fact based argument. 

I also find the position that folks of latin origin bringing that culture to California resulting in the end of society to be one wholly ignorant of the history of California and the US in general. Take a road trip folks, you'll be amazed at what you could learn.

[Farmer77]

11 hours ago, South Alabam said:

I think he is saying it is "Liberal" to stay. It will never switch back.

Its a big state. Im in deep red AZ and I can see California from my front door, its just as rednecky on that side of the border as it is on this side