Isn't declaring a national emergency the same as declaring martial law?

Or you can just pass the buck like Trump. But you won’t hold him to the same standard you espouse here.

 

There we go again, can't address the topic without your brain going *BBBZZZZT TRUMP*.

 

Your examples show the wall works. These people were caught because they had to deal with a wall.

 

Man, you really won’t hold a uniform standard to save your life. It really must cause you physical pain to not be a hypocrite.

 

What type of screen that is see through are you thinking of? I hope you can't put a small hole through it

 

Says the guy who goes "TRUMP!" in literally every topic on the board.

 

This thread of the debate is specifically about Trump’s economy is it not?

 

No, but the original topic was dumb.

 

They were not trying to cross the border!

 

Sure, right, the polled clear majority of us who oppose a wall are going to suddenly change our minds and have it be the deciding factor in our votes because Trump defied our opinion to do it. That makes sense..

 

You making claims out of thin air is not "debating", my friend.

I tried; you failed.

 

I'm sorry, I thought you could understand simple examples.

 

And I thought that you had a basis for your claims.

You're like Pigpen from the Peanuts---carrying around a cloud of goofy attempts at analogies.

 

I place the Constitution above the President, Congress controls the purse, not the President

 

look what republicans did with SC picks.... yes, if each side keeps pushing it further and further, soon we will have a socialist dictatorship... is that what you want?

 

Not true.
https://cis.org/Camarota/NonCitizens-Committed-Disproportionate-Share-Federal-Crimes-201116

 

Who said they were? They were moving drugs and thwarted due to the wall. The wall works.

 

Pssst . . . were you equally terrified when Obama declared a national emergency? Look -- it -- up.

 

I do . . . but then hate-filled leftist ANTIFA probably doesn't count.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lly-commit-more-crime/?utm_term=.ccf25297fbd8

Two charts demolish the notion that immigrants here illegally commit more crime

But the social-science research on immigration and crime is clear: Undocumented immigrants are considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens, with immigrants legally in the United States even less likely to do so. A number of studies published in the past several months clearly illustrate the consensus.

first study, published by the libertarian Cato Institute in February, examines criminal conviction data for 2015 provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety. It found that native-born residents were much more likely to be convicted of a crime than immigrants in the country legally or illegally.

"As a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56 percent fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015," author Alex Nowrasteh writes. "The criminal conviction rate for legal immigrants was about 85 percent below the native-born rate."

The data shows similar patterns for violent crimes such as homicide and property crimes such as larceny. The study did find that immigrants in the United States illegally were more likely than native-born people to be convicted of "gambling, kidnapping, smuggling, and vagrancy." But as those crimes represented just 0.18 percent of all convictions in Texas that year, they had little effect on overall crime rates.

published in March in the journal Criminology, looked at population-level crime rates: Do places with higher percentages of undocumented immigrants have higher rates of crime? The answer, as the chart above shows, is a resounding no.

States with larger shares of undocumented immigrants tended to have lower crime rates than states with smaller shares in the years 1990 through 2014. "Increases in the undocumented immigrant population within states are associated with significant decreases in the prevalence of violence," authors Michael T. Light and Ty Miller found.

That's just a simple correlation, of course, and it's well documented that many factors beyond immigration can affect the crime rate. So Light and Miller ran a number of statistical analyses to more clearly isolate the effects of illegal immigration from those other factors. Among other things, they find that the relationship between high levels of illegal immigration and low levels of crime persists even after controlling for various economic and demographic factors such as age, urbanization, labor market conditions and incarceration rates.

All told, Light and Miller sliced the data 57 ways to see whether there was anything they missed, but not one of their analyses showed any positive relationship between illegal immigration and crime. They concluded that not only does illegal immigration not increase crime, but it may actually contribute to the drop in overall crime rates observed in the United States in recent decades.

"Our study calls into question one of the primary justifications for the immigration enforcement build‐up," Light and Miller concluded. " … Any set of immigration policies moving forward should be crafted with the empirical understanding that undocumented immigration does not seem to have increased violent crime."

These two studies are far from the only ones showing that immigration, legal or otherwise, does not lead to rising crime. But the evidence they present is some of the strongest offered to date. The Trump administration, however, does not seem to be listening.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that the anti-immigrant chant of 'higher crimes' rests on factoring in crossing the border as a criminal act.

 

No, people on US soil picking up the thrown drugs were caught by border guards. How did the wall thwart the transfer of drugs from Mexico to the US where no one had any desire to cross that border? Do you think that all bags of drugs thrown over the border wall are discovered by border guards?

 

Its your story, so the floor is yours.

 

Worth repeating....

 

Christopher Steele .. a former British Intelligence Office with a specialty in Russia.

 

Put it in the courts.

Both parties are playing politics with this, instead of worrying about far more important matters.