Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@hank, I didn't answer your question and I apologize for that. In my view, the first concern is the security of the country and whether it is being addressed. In my opinion, it isn't. In this instance, I can see where the President may consider the security of the country, an emergency. And, in this situation may declare an emergency to use funds for an issue already voted on by Congress.
How can Congress do appropriations if there is no money to spend on either the wall or immigrants. Deficit problems have been kicked down the road for years. This all is going to come back and kick us ( the tax payer ) in the ass big time - no matter what they do.
I watched "Lincoln" last night, again. A career-performance for Daniel Day Lewis. Breathtaking, superb. Lincoln did not follow all the rules, but in his case there was an ACTUAL emergency. It's night and day, the comparison. Trump was "elected" by the anachronistic Electoral College, plain and simple. That institution needs to be put to death. And Trump? Jail, along with the rest of his unprincipled, lying tong.
Edited: This is what I saw as @BrianW’s response to my question:
“ suppose that will be an argument for the Supreme Court. And, I'll support whatever they decide.”
If @BrianW feels that way, than I applaud him and agree with him. We may disagree re the Prez and specific actions. But in the end, we’re a nation of laws. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, weather we agree or not. I too will respect the decisions of the courts.
With respect to border security, the recent trial of "El Chapo" Guzman was illuminating. The testimony and evidence revealed the history of many sophisticated and successful methods of transporting drugs into the United States. Trump's wall would have stopped exactly NONE of them.
Edited: This is what I saw as @BrianW’s response to my earlier question: “ suppose that will be an argument for the Supreme Court. And, I'll support whatever they decide.”
If @BrianW feels that way, than I applaud him and agree with him. We may disagree re the Prez and specific actions. But in the end, we’re a nation of laws. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, weather we agree or not. I too will respect the decisions of the courts.
I bumped my above (edited) response to @BrianW down here because I may have earlier responded to him in error.
Geez - Can’t imagine anyone wants to resort to street fighting over this. The Courts will have their say. That’s the USA.
I'd feel a lot better about the Supreme Court if it hadn't been the victim of politicization by both parties. I absolutely don't want a court that is predictable because of political bias. I much prefer not having any idea how or why the court will likely rule on any particular question. A truly independent third branch, as the founders intended.
I'd feel a lot better about the Supreme Court if it hadn't been the victim of politicization by both parties. I absolutely don't want a court that is predictable because of political bias. I much prefer not having any idea how or why the court will likely rule on any particular question. A truly independent third branch, as the founders intended.
I completely agree, but neither party appears to be capable of leadership. And, because of this lack of leadership, the needs of the people are perverted. Instead of making decisions regarding debt, immigration or a safety-net for the needy, issues are used simply to obtain re-election.
The incentives for Politicians are not aligned or conducive to creating good public policy. Instead of working for the country, they in large part, are simply working to get re-elected.
That's why I believe term limits and a balanced budget amendment are needed. We may not agree but this would realign the incentives (in my opinion).
I also agreed with Mitch McConnell's previous stance that this whole thing is a very bad idea because it sets a precedent that future Democratic presidents may take advantage of. Of course, that's no longer operative, since Mr. McConnell has once again sold his soul for the pittance of a miserable temporary "victory".
I also agreed with Mitch McConnell's previous stance that this whole thing is a very bad idea because it sets a precedent that future Democratic presidents may take advantage of. Of course, that's no longer operative, since Mr. McConnell has once again sold his soul for the pittance of a miserable temporary "victory".
I'd argue the abuse of the system is already widespread via 'Executive Orders'. And, the selling of ones soul is required for the existence of most Politicians.
Tweety Amin managed to shoot himself in both feet with that remark and didn't need Rudy Guliani's help to do it -- so I guess the toddler-in-tweet is growing up after all. EVERY legal challenge is going to use that quote in their briefs!
I lay the responsibility for the current lopsided political bias of the Supreme Court directly at the feet of Harry Reid, who in another short-sighted political maneuver eliminated the filibuster provision when considering the appointment of federal court justices.
I said at the time that this would come back to haunt us, as will Mr. McConnell's equally harmful attempt to modify the historical reasonably balanced political give-and-take for equally short-sighted reasons.
@BrianW - Your response was civil for sure. Thanks. There’s a lot of crossfire on this thread because the issue apparently aroused many on both sides. In fairness to you I’m posting your other response which I felt was also addressed to my question. Again, it too is very civil:
“@hank ... In my view, the first concern is the security of the country and whether it is being addressed. In my opinion, it isn't. In this instance, I can see where the President may consider the security of the country, an emergency. And, in this situation may declare an emergency to use funds for an issue already voted on by Congress.”
That’s a reasonable point of view Brian I suppose. But I think you’d have at least a more defensivible argument if you inserted “at the border” after “security of the country.”.
The reason is “national security” leaves the door wide open for this or a future President to do the same thing (subjugate Congress / divert appropriations) to build a couple expensive new warships, or a new naval base, or perhaps to fund an expensive new “white elephant” weapons system. All under the guise of national security.
Do we really want President Trump, or a future President Romney, Weld or Warren to possess the same degree of power? (intended rhetorically)
@hank, I agree it is a slippery slope. And, I'm sure other Presidents will do the same. However, I don't believe it is fair to view Trump as the first to use such a tactic. The immigration issue is very sensitive and I am sympathetic to those wanting to come here. However, there's no country that I can think of where you're allowed to cross the border uninvited.
I believe that if Politicians (Local, State and Federal) would simply do their job and enforce the laws, this wouldn't be an issue (or at least not as divisive).
Simply put, this is an issue Politicians (on both sides) like to use to keep us at each other's throat's. The Libertarian in me would want open borders. But, we simply can't absorb or assimilate all that wish to come.
Polls I see say that the populace is split evenly about the wall. I realize that there are ways to get around or under any wall. At the same time, our existence as a sovereign nation is paramount. I speak as a 3rd generation combat veteran. We dont need a tidal wave of illegal immigrants leeching off of us. Legal immigration? Im all for it !!
There are 60s- 70s emergencies since 1900ss...no body talk about them until now because it DT...we still have the active emergencies since 1980s related to sudan... How come no one talk about thst pres emergency?! If it's hc calling emergency everyone would be clapping...what about all inner Street kids got murdered by illegal drugs crossing borders and human trafficking which are purely preventable
For those who would support open borders but for the economic and/or social impact, for those who would support (more?) people entering legally, so long as leeches were excluded, you might read up on "White Australia" - the official government policy from 1901 into the latter half of the 20th century (it was dismantled in pieces, from 1958 to 1975).
Here's how Jack Lang, the Premier of New South Wales (an Australian state) in the 20s and 30s described the perceived need for this policy:
It was Australia's Magna Carta. Without that policy, this country would have been lost long ere this. It would have been engulfed in an Asian tidal wave. ...
It did not have its origin in any idea of racial superiority, or color prejudice. From the start it was a simple bread-and-butter issue. Australian workers were trying to defend their own living standards. They were trying to save their jobs. They knew that unrestricted immigration of colored races would mean the introduction of a kind of industrial Gresham's Law - the bad wages would put the fair wage out of circulation. The white Australian worker would soon be reduced to coolie levels. Having got rid of convict labor, they did not want to be reduced to the rice bowl. Yet that was the threat that was actually hovering over the people of this country. ...
While they had their origin in the anxiety of Australian workers to maintain their standards of living, the White Australia policy has more than justified itself on national security grounds. If this country had admitted Japanese even to the same degree that Honolulu admitted Japanese, what would our position have been in 1942?
I'd comment on how thin a veneer this is, but I think the true sentiment, um, leaches through.
@msf - Interesting anecdote re Australia you cite above. I’ve been scratching my head a lot in recent days wondering if we’d be experiencing the same angst were those immigrants at the southern border of the English speaking white caucasian variety? Don’t know. A provocative question for sure.
@msf, as humans, race is always an issue. However, I don't believe it is the prevailing issue, in this case. We need the ability to control our borders (I'm sure Canadian's share that view). We need to actively police those who have entered illegally. As another poster stated, we are a nation of laws. Then, we need an immigration policy that's applied in a thoughtful manner.
@hank, you present an interesting point of view, but I think you're a bit off base. I'm sure that in some cases we are infiltrated by those darn Canadian's, they're just harder to spot (Black or White).
Comments
In other news - water is wet.
NOTHING HERE - MOVE ON
“ suppose that will be an argument for the Supreme Court. And, I'll support whatever they decide.”
If @BrianW feels that way, than I applaud him and agree with him. We may disagree re the Prez and specific actions. But in the end, we’re a nation of laws. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, weather we agree or not. I too will respect the decisions of the courts.
Trump's wall would have stopped exactly NONE of them.
“I didn’t need to do this,” Trump said. "But I’d rather do it much faster."
It's an "emergency" but he didn't need to do this? Hello??
>> Seems like no one likes him except for the voters.
Some of them, sure; most not.
Geez - Can’t imagine anyone wants to resort to street fighting over this. The Courts will have their say. That’s the USA.
The incentives for Politicians are not aligned or conducive to creating good public policy. Instead of working for the country, they in large part, are simply working to get re-elected.
That's why I believe term limits and a balanced budget amendment are needed. We may not agree but this would realign the incentives (in my opinion).
I said at the time that this would come back to haunt us, as will Mr. McConnell's equally harmful attempt to modify the historical reasonably balanced political give-and-take for equally short-sighted reasons.
“@hank ... In my view, the first concern is the security of the country and whether it is being addressed. In my opinion, it isn't. In this instance, I can see where the President may consider the security of the country, an emergency. And, in this situation may declare an emergency to use funds for an issue already voted on by Congress.”
That’s a reasonable point of view Brian I suppose. But I think you’d have at least a more defensivible argument if you inserted “at the border” after “security of the country.”.
The reason is “national security” leaves the door wide open for this or a future President to do the same thing (subjugate Congress / divert appropriations) to build a couple expensive new warships, or a new naval base, or perhaps to fund an expensive new “white elephant” weapons system. All under the guise of national security.
Do we really want President Trump, or a future President Romney, Weld or Warren to possess the same degree of power? (intended rhetorically)
I believe that if Politicians (Local, State and Federal) would simply do their job and enforce the laws, this wouldn't be an issue (or at least not as divisive).
Simply put, this is an issue Politicians (on both sides) like to use to keep us at each other's throat's. The Libertarian in me would want open borders. But, we simply can't absorb or assimilate all that wish to come.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-eyes-8b-border-wall-funding-emergency-declaration
Last I checked money didn’t grow on trees.
Here's how Jack Lang, the Premier of New South Wales (an Australian state) in the 20s and 30s described the perceived need for this policy: I'd comment on how thin a veneer this is, but I think the true sentiment, um, leaches through.
@msf - Interesting anecdote re Australia you cite above. I’ve been scratching my head a lot in recent days wondering if we’d be experiencing the same angst were those immigrants at the southern border of the English speaking white caucasian variety? Don’t know. A provocative question for sure.