California tells Trump that lawsuit over border wall is 'imminent'

[VincentRJ]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If you would have quoted the post in full, you would have seen there are many reasons not to build the wall.

Of course there can be many reasons not to build the wall. No money is the obvious one. I saw the list of them in the post. But my question is, 'what is a more effective way to tackle the problem of illegal immigration?', and I'll add to that, 'why is, whatever is proposed, likely to be more effective?'

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

You mean that 400,000 per year enter/get caught and that more people (deflection) overstay visas (completely separate issue) than illegally cross the border? That’s still four hundred thousand people and hundreds of billions in tax payer dollars. Border security is minuscule in comparison. 

 

The entire post was full of deflection and not a single solution. 

 

Not to mention the cute little ad-hom at the end about how conservatives blame all their problems on immigrants, which is a garbage take and nothing more than liberal race-baiting. 

 

 

 

Well aren’t you thirsty. You didn’t refute anything. 400,000 bodies per year and your Democrats wanted to reduce ICE detention beds.

 

Spare me. 

Don't tell me what I mean.

 

I mean that you changed the content of his post by only quoting and reacting to part of it.

[Thainesss]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Don't tell me what I mean.

 

I mean that you changed the content of his post by only quoting and reacting to part of it.

 

Or what? 

 

And I didn’t quote his post, someone else did. Doesn’t matter anyway as there’s nothing wrong with quoting part of a post that you want to reply to. Someone wants to type a giant wall of text that I have to scroll 3 times on my phone to get through, you better believe they are not getting quoted in full. That’s ridiculous.  

[WyrldTraveler]

11 hours ago, keemapoot said:

Actually, Clinton started this in the modern era. It was steadily expanded by Bush and Obama. Nixon set the groundwork for the move. 

 

The US Constitution is a beautiful document. I've studied it in depth. It's meant to be a living document though, and its intent is to preserve the balance of powers. Let's remember that no matter who is President and no matter which party is in power.

The original document was indeed unique, but it must be understood in context with other documents, notably the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (1973) District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, The Treaty of Paris (1783), the original Declaration of Independence (1776) and the predominant law dictionaries of their respective eras, to fully comprehend what is written.

 

There are reasons why courses such as Government and Civics are taught at the ages when hormones are raging at their highest levels.  What were you thinking about most at that tender age?  Maybe you missed something?

[johnnybangkok]

5 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

You mean that 400,000 per year enter/get caught and that more people (deflection) overstay visas (completely separate issue) than illegally cross the border? That’s still four hundred thousand people and hundreds of billions in tax payer dollars. Border security is minuscule in comparison. 

 

The entire post was full of deflection and not a single solution. 

 

Not to mention the cute little ad-hom at the end about how conservatives blame all their problems on immigrants, which is a garbage take and nothing more than liberal race-baiting. 

 

 

 

Well aren’t you thirsty. You didn’t refute anything. 400,000 bodies per year and your Democrats wanted to reduce ICE detention beds.

 

Spare me. 

You want solutions? I’ll give you that as well. 

The ONLY reason illiagal immigration is an incentive in the US is there is a vast amount of employers willing to pay for illegals. There are procedures in place to try and combat this but guess what? They are massively underfunded. $3 billion would probably help a lot to combat this never mind the $20-70 billion Trump is proposing for a very ineffectual wall that only serves as a destraction for things he has personally benefitted from in his past and continues to do so with his current business dealings.

Cheap labor fuels America. It started with slavery and continues with prisoners (second only to China). From argriculture to manufacturing it has been a source of cheap labor that undercuts competitors and keeps America “efficient “. But the problem is it puts Americans out of jobs (ones they turned their nose up to mind you), but when you pitt them both against each other, the masses get distracted. 

America doesn’t mind illegal immigrants. The Republicans just don’t  like it when they come of voting age. Buts that’s when they use them to  become political pawn. And you keep falling for it. 

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course there can be many reasons not to build the wall. No money is the obvious one. I saw the list of them in the post. But my question is, 'what is a more effective way to tackle the problem of illegal immigration?', and I'll add to that, 'why is, whatever is proposed, likely to be more effective?'

A ,more effective and cheaper way? That's easy. Put enough funding into E-Verify to make it an effective tool. And then make it a serious crime punishable with a prison sentence for an employer to hire undocumented workers. 

[Redline]

20 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Doubtful Trump is losing sleep over this frivolous lawsuit... 

He should be losing sleep about the Southern District of New York’s investigation

[Redline]

13 hours ago, TunnelRat69 said:

say no??  To what??  -  nothing you have any control over, the ball is not in our court.  Ho Hum, two more years to wait for four more years of Trump Presidency!!   Ka Ching!!

What? I guess you don’t realize there are many more investigations going on than the special council’s ????

[Redline]

Why did Trump hire illegal immigrants up until a couple weeks ago?  At most of his properties ????

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

A more effective and cheaper way? That's easy. Put enough funding into E-Verify to make it an effective tool. And then make it a serious crime punishable with a prison sentence for an employer to hire undocumented workers. 

Good. Thanks for that. At least you've described an alternative solution.

 

I'm not American, but I get a sense that the main issue with illegal immigration in the USA, and elsewhere, is not so much the provision of cheap labour, which can make American products more competitive, but the potential increase in the crime rate.

 

Imprisoning people is expensive, and what happens to the other legal workers in a company when the employer is put in prison for 'perhaps' mistakenly hiring a few illegals? What about the legal costs of determining who is to blame? 
Wouldn't such a system also increase the incentive for illegals to seek identity fraud, and provide more work for criminal gangs who specialize in identity fraud and other illegal activities? Is it likely that a fairly honest bloke who is prepared to work as a cheap farm labourer might decide to work for a criminal gang instead, for the sake of survival?

 

I agree that normal checks and procedures should always be in place, but by themselves they might not be sufficiently effective. A more practical solution might be to have both a wall and more stringent E-Verification.

 

You don't make a country great again simply by providing more work for more lawyers, unless the lawyers are working for overseas people who bring money into the country. ????
 

[keemapoot]

Well, Trump is getting the massive litigation he expected, wanted and provoked. It's guys like him that give lawyers a bad name. Here he is causing more needless litigation, conflict and legal expenses in public life than he did in private life, unbelievably.

 

California AG: At least 13 states suing over Trump's national emergency

Quote

New Jersey, Colorado, and Connecticut all confirmed to NBC News they are a part of the lawsuit.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/california-ag-least-13-states-suing-over-trump-s-national-n972796

[doggie1955]

23 hours ago, keemapoot said:

He has the right to do this. The big issue and problem is that this right has been slowly and steadily expanded and slightly abused by recent Presidents, but nobody has abused this right so flagrantly as Trump. In a way this is good, because now the Supreme Court will get to define what are the limits to Presidential power. You Trump supporters should be very careful what you wish for, and Pelosi put it best. Imagine gun rights or other health care or other democratic policy items in the cross hairs (pun intended), and you may not like this or any other President to have so much discretionary power.

 

It's time to get this defined. No President should be able to abuse his power.

Build the Wall...

[keemapoot]

2 minutes ago, doggie1955 said:

Build the Wall...

Two or more wrongs don't make a right. Wake up. Stop this nonsense now, do you really want your President to have more power than the other 2 co-equal branches of government? Before you answer that, remember your next President might be a liberal.

[doggie1955]

Stop giving aid to all the country's in the world, now it's time to help Americans with there own tax money...

Quote

 

 

[Thainesss]

9 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

You want solutions? I’ll give you that as well. 

The ONLY reason illiagal immigration is an incentive in the US is there is a vast amount of employers willing to pay for illegals. There are procedures in place to try and combat this but guess what? They are massively underfunded.

 

Hmmm...

 

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

A ,more effective and cheaper way? That's easy. Put enough funding into E-Verify to make it an effective tool.

 

Weird. Almost like you guys are too busy being oblivious and going all BuT TrUmPS WaLl aNd rAcISm!!1!1

 

How does additional funding AND making it MANDATORY sound? 

 

But nope. Dems couldn’t even rally around that. 

 

On Feb. 19, 2018, President Donald Trump released his proposed 2019 fiscal year budget, beginning Oct. 1, 2018.

 

In his proposal, President Trump allocates $23 million to be invested in expanding the E-Verify program to mandatory nationwide use.

Since 1996, E-Verify has been voluntary for most employers.

 

https://www.govdocs.com/mandatory-e-verify-included-trumps-2019-budget-proposal/

 

 

[bristolboy]

39 minutes ago, doggie1955 said:

Stop giving aid to all the country's in the world, now it's time to help Americans with there own tax money...

 

Declared an emergency and then said there wasn't one.

[candide]

1 hour ago, doggie1955 said:

Build the Wall...

Nice try but fake news again! ????

 

Obama's emergency declarations were aimed at blocking property of "certain persons" involved in crises abroad — Ukraine, Burundi, Venezuela, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Yemen, and Libya, among other countries. He also used the declarations to punish the Russian government and transnational organizations.

 

[Thainesss]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Declared an emergency and then said there wasn't one.

 

Fake news. 

 

[Thainesss]

2 hours ago, keemapoot said:

Two or more wrongs don't make a right. Wake up. Stop this nonsense now, do you really want your President to have more power than the other 2 co-equal branches of government? Before you answer that, remember your next President might be a liberal.

 

Two or more wrongs dont make a right? Obama was wrong several times but you guys were speechless as your messiah did what he wanted, but now that you got your 8 years... ...Youre going to put the responsibility on Trump when he does the same? 

 

You dont get to cry about the "co-equal branches of government" and "power" after Obama ruled with a "pen and a phone" for 8 years. 

 

 

[Thainesss]

19 minutes ago, candide said:

Obama's emergency declarations were aimed at blocking property of "certain persons" involved in crises abroad — Ukraine, Burundi, Venezuela, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Yemen, and Libya, among other countries. He also used the declarations to punish the Russian government and transnational organizations.

 

All the other national emergencies and billions spent on foreign countries - Liberal Silence. 

 

Trump getting a comparatively minuscule about of money to secure the border inline with DHS & CBP Requests that Democrats obstructed and played politics over - Unprecedented. 

 

Blatant, glaring hypocrisy and a rather ridiculous argument. 

[candide]

7 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

All the other national emergencies and billions spent on foreign countries - Liberal Silence. 

 

Trump getting a comparatively minuscule about of money to secure the border inline with DHS & CBP Requests that Democrats obstructed and played politics over - Unprecedented. 

 

Blatant, glaring hypocrisy and a rather ridiculous argument. 

If you don't understand the difference between aid (giving money) and seizing properties, it's surely not me who is ridiculous (or hypocrite, in case you just pretend not to understand).

 

Most of Obama's emergency declaration were about blocking assets, not spending billions.

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/ap-fact-check-declaring-emergency-for-wall-not-so-ordinary/4786955.html

[Thainesss]

12 minutes ago, candide said:

If you don't understand the difference between aid (giving money) and seizing properties, it's surely not me who is ridiculous

 

This money you like giving away, where does it come from? 

 

Whos property is getting seized? 

[candide]

30 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

This money you like giving away, where does it come from? 

 

Whos property is getting seized? 

You can check by yourself in the list. ALL national emergencies by Obama (except the one about H1N1 pandemic) were SANCTIONS, not aid. For example blocking properties of Gaddafi or criminal organisations. So the post I initially responded to was 100% fake news.

https://www.voanews.com/a/ap-fact-check-declaring-emergency-for-wall-not-so-ordinary/4786955.html

Oops!

Here's the list

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

 

[keemapoot]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

Two or more wrongs dont make a right? Obama was wrong several times but you guys were speechless as your messiah did what he wanted, but now that you got your 8 years... ...Youre going to put the responsibility on Trump when he does the same? 

 

You dont get to cry about the "co-equal branches of government" and "power" after Obama ruled with a "pen and a phone" for 8 years. 

 

 

I'm not sure where you've been, but for my part, I've been part of the movement of people complaining about Presidential expansion of powers since Clinton. Yes, I got to cry about it when Clinton was in power, and yes, I get to cry about now, especially with this lunatic in power. BTW, Obama was never even close to my messiah. Is Trump yours? I hope not, that is sad.

 

But I will say this about all the last 3 Presidents (Obama, Bush W. and Clinton) who have expanded this power: they were all wrong to do it, and each one of them set up a precedent for continued lopsided power in the executive office, where it never should have resided to such an extent. Two of these past mentioned Presidents were legal scholars and should have known better. Bush was no scholar, but in spite of being inarticulate, he was at least a Bush, and had a modicum of intelligence. Going back even further, we can trace expansion of Presidential power back to Kennedy, but we can look to Nixon as the first to openly abuse such power.

 

Trump is just an abomination of a President and does not deserve to be mentioned in the same paragraph as the aforementioned honorable Presidents (excluding Nixon), though I think Nixon was one of the most intelligent and competent we've ever seen even if a crook. Trump is as Presidential and has as much gravitas as the bricks and mortar that will go into his showpiece wall. He needs to be stopped and this wrong expansion of Presidential power grabbing needs to be stopped. 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/power-and-the-presidency-from-kennedy-to-obama-75335897/

[bristolboy]

54 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

This money you like giving away, where does it come from? 

 

Whos property is getting seized? 

So now taxation is "seizure of property?"

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So now taxation is "seizure of property?"

 

You seem confused. 

[metisdead]

Troll/bickering posts and replies have been removed. 

[zydeco]

1 hour ago, keemapoot said:

But I will say this about all the last 3 Presidents (Obama, Bush W. and Clinton) who have expanded this power: they were all wrong to do it, and each one of them set up a precedent for continued lopsided power in the executive office, where it never should have resided to such an extent.

Congress let them do it. Congress has the power to stop it but will not. Congress is too busy giving up its constitutional authority to the presidency, the courts, federal agencies, and even private ones. Frankly, I'm not sure Congress does much of anything significant anymore other than collect a paycheck.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

You seem confused. 

You are confusing.

[VincentRJ]

I'd like to discuss the ethics of Trump's proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border.
I'm not American, but Australian, so I'm not very familiar with American practices and lifestyles. However, in Australia, most people have fences or walls surrounding their property, whether it's a suburban home or a farm, and I assume that is also the case in America.
Some properties are in gated communities, surrounded by a high wall, with access only through a gate which opens after entering a specific pin number.

 

Many owners of properties keep dogs, and put warning signs to deter any intruders, like, 'Beware of dangerous dogs', or, 'This property is continuously monitored by video cameras', and 'Private property; Intruders will be prosecuted', and so on.
I assume this situation is similar to that in the USA, is it not? However, Australia is a large island and doesn't have a land border with another country. Even without a land border, we have had a lot of trouble with refugee boat people who have paid smugglers to 'unsafely' transport them to Australia, often with loss of life at sea. But let's not get into that discussion.

 

The issue that concerns me is the 'apparent' hypocrisy of those who are against the building of the wall along the Mexican border. I say 'apparent' because I don't know their precise circumstances. Perhaps someone like 'Bristolboy', on this forum, who is clearly against the building of the wall, actually lives on a property with no fence or wall, grows fruit trees in his garden, and allows anyone to walk into his garden and help themselves to the fruit. I don't know.

 

However, if those who are against the building of the wall, are not also against surrounding their own property with a secure fence and gate to deter intruders, then it seems irrefutable that such people must be hypocrites when they attack Trump's agenda to build a wall along the Mexican border.

 

Just a point for discussion. ????