Jump to content
BANGKOK 25 June 2019 19:16
Sign in to follow this  
rooster59

Judge blocks some funds Trump sought for U.S.-Mexico border wall

Recommended Posts

Judge blocks some funds Trump sought for U.S.-Mexico border wall

 

800x800 (7).jpg

FILE PHOTO: Workers replace a section of the border fence between U.S. and Mexico, as seen from Tijuana, Mexico, April 16, 2019. REUTERS/Andres Martinez Casares/File photo

 

The Trump administration must temporarily halt the use of some Defense Department funds for a border wall with Mexico, a judge ruled on Friday, because the money was not specifically authorized by Congress for construction of the barrier.

 

The order blocks the use of $1 billion from the Department of Defense in Arizona and Texas, out of $6.7 billion that Trump administration said it planned to direct toward building the wall.

 

"The position that when Congress declines the Executive's request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds 'without Congress' does not square with the fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic," Haywood Gilliam Jr, a U.S. judge in California, wrote in the order.

 

Separately, Gilliam denied a preliminary injunction against the border wall sought by a coalition of sixteen states, but said they could move forward with their case.

 

Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security, Pentagon and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

Trump has said the wall is needed to address a crisis of drugs and crime flowing across the border into the United States.

 

The ruling adds to Trump's frustrations with federal court orders blocking his initiatives for cutting illegal immigration, a policy area he will focus on in his 2020 re-election bid.

 

In February, after a protracted political battle and a government shutdown, Congress approved $1.38 billion for construction of "primary pedestrian fencing" along the border in southeastern Texas, well short of Trump's demands.

 

To obtain the additional money, Trump declared a national emergency and his administration said it planned to divert $601 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion earmarked for Department of Defense counternarcotics programs and $3.6 billion from military construction projects.

 

The House of Representatives, more than a dozen states and two advocacy groups asked U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland, California to block the transfer of funds to prevent the wall construction.

 

They argue the administration cannot use funds Congress has specifically denied and cannot construct a barrier that was not authorized, nor can the administration work outside the geographic area identified by Congress.

 

"This is a win for our system of checks and balances, the rule of law, and border communities," the American Civil Liberties Union tweeted.

 

The wall funding faced another court challenge on Thursday, in a case brought by the House of Representatives in a federal court in the District of Columbia. The lawmakers have said the diversion of $6.1 billion in Defense Department funds violates the separation of powers doctrine laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

 

(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Additional reporting by Makini Brice; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Grant McCool)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let me see, how about an APPEAL....... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A troll post containing a trolling representation of Trump has been removed. 

 

And some other troll posts have been removed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nerve of this judge! Fancy pushing things back towards the constitution. Sack the lot of them ..... oh but wait, trumps on strike isn’t he?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

You are confusing known knowns, with known unknowns and unknown unknowns. An easy, albeit rookie, mistake to make, but one which cleans blows your argument out of the water. Nobody has any idea how much narcotics were successfully smuggled over the open southern border due to the aforementioned unknown unknown conundrum.

That's what CBP statistics show and CPB officials think. It's not absolute proof but do you have any facts suggesting drug goes through areas where Trump wants to build a wall? I don't think so.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody know how drugs are smuggled into the US, it's the US Customs and Border Patrol officials. Here's what Gil Kerlikowske, a recent head of that organisation said about this:

 

Quote

... intelligence received from arrested smugglers and law enforcement partners in Mexico indicate that cartels clearly prefer moving high-profit narcotics through the busy ports of entry because their chances of success are better there.

 

[...]

"Regardless of the number of drug dogs and technology and intelligence, the potential of smuggling the drugs in through a port of entry is far greater. Your ability to be captured coming across between a port of entry is much greater," said Kerlikowske, now a professor of practice in criminology and criminal justice at Northeastern University. "It's very clear that (drugs) come through the ports."

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While continuing to fail in increasing security at  known and confirmed points of entry for drugs in particular.
Electronic and satellite surveillance of  remote border sectors. Asylum seekers front up wall or no wall. Tunnelers do  not.


Yes, I can see the caravans being gathered up and sponsored along the way digging a tunnel...

You guys want an open boarder, we don’t. If they were going to vote conservative you guys would have built the wall back when you promised President Reagan you would...
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll posts and replies removed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...