https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-n...ephen-miller-how-is-this-a-national-emergency Chris Wallace repeatedly asked Stephen Miller to explain how "I didn't need to do this," justifies a national emergency and to find a single previous instance where a president sought funding for a specific project, got rejected by congress, and then declared a national emergency in response. For that grilling, Chris Wallace faced a wave of backlash from Fox Viewers, several demanding that he move to CNN because he refused to lob softballs for a trump appointee. But one of the most interesting aspects of Stephen Miller's defense was his inadvertent revelation of a massive weakness found in Trump's declaration. Miller said, Trump is relying on a national emergency to get access to ~3.6 billion in military construction funds. It is true that "national emergencies" are not very well defined by the statutory language, but the statute upon which Trump is relying - 10 U.S.C. 2808 - does provide some very specific definitions for "military construction" and "military construction projects." They are improvements to a “military installation,” and a “military installation” means facilities like a “base, camp, post, station, yard, [or] center.” And if there is no war zone? No military installation to fortify? Trump is essentially arguing that this statute permits the use of military construction funds to build a permanent civilian structure (because it will be permanently manned by civilians, not the military) in order to protect troops that are deployed there on a temporary basis in peacetime along the border of an allied nation. "I didn't need to do this. I just wanted to do it faster. That's all."
I just wish some sensible solutions were on the table Everify, employer penalties, birthright citizenship to non citizens, ending governmental benefits to illegals — things that would actually stop people from coming here. How many people will this stop:
It would very well delay them, to allow the said agents to apprehend the suspects. Identifying an illegal alien is crucial to being able to apprehend them.(And even the trials we give them, is too much(money and cost) for people that we have otherwise ZERO, nada obligation. We do not have a single obligation towards them. The emergency is in these people coming over in the hundreds of thousands(even after the decreased amount is taken into account) and our resources governing the border are basically being tied up. There's your emergency. What I sincerely wish, is that instead of holding "obligations" for the rest of the world, they would obligate themselves to the US Citizens who actually elect them, and the union they are charged with actually protecting.
LOL! I watched that interview. Miller destroyed Wallace's talking points then handed him his ass on a platter.
OP username doesn't check out... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2801 "(d) This chapter (other than sections 2830, 2835, and 2836 of this chapter) does not apply to the Coast Guard or to civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers." I guess those states the just filed suit didn't read all of 2801 either.
60,000 apprehended a month, drugs killing our citizens, human trafficking, more than one migrant a day dies while trying to cross. Dems, nothing to see here.
What did you think you were proving with this citation? Are you trying to imply that the wall is a coast guard or a civil works of the Army Corps of Engineers?
A wall has been tried in multiple areas and it simply does not work, Especially not partial walls — and they do nothing for the 2/3’s of illegal immigrants that come here through visa overstays or at border checkpoints. Active policy that makes them unable to work or collect benefits will make fewer of them come and will impact all forms of illegal immigration. Not just the brown people that seem to be the actual target with many of the pro-wall crowd.
I'm anti-illegal Asian, even yes European, anti-illegal Oceanic immigrants, etc all of the above. This idea that it's certain immigrants? No, I'm sorry. The burden period, regardless is too great on the nation-State. We've sacrificed to "the rest of the world". For the last 35 years, the American Nation indentured itself to the "world community". We are saying we're tired of it, indiscriminately and with absolutely no exceptions. It appears our Liberal American neighbors don't understand(and in true irony let's quote women): No means NO. Period. So E-Verify? Sure have at it. Screening? Yeah. Jailing corporations that hire illegals? Sure. All of the above. And if they overstay their visas, we locate and immediately deport. I have absolutely zero exceptions for those who come illegally.
We are saying we are tired of it by building a partial wall that will affect — at most 1/3rd (and that would be with a full 2,000 mile wall) — of illegal immigration... that makes sense... If a few hundreds of miles of border that the prototypes of have constantly failed breach tests says that then we have completely failed as a nation Thats the problem, no one is supporting these cost effective solutions and we have have instead doubled down on stupidity
Wallace was the one sitting there speechless when Miller body slammed his viewpoint all over the room. It is ineluctable logic to point out that the intent of the military is to secure the borders of this nation. They fight overseas to prevent terrorists from spreading to areas where they can get access to the nations borders. Therefore, it is impossible to refute using that logic that using military funds to protect the borders of this country is appropriate usage. Also, nowhere in 10 USC 2808 does it use "very specific definitions". Here, I'll show you: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808 (a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated. (b) When a decision is made to undertake military construction projects authorized by this section, the Secretary of Defense shall notify, in an electronic medium pursuant to section 480 of this title, the appropriate committees of Congress of the decision and of the estimated cost of the construction projects, including the cost of any real estate action pertaining to those construction projects. (c) The authority described in subsection (a) shall terminate with respect to any war or national emergency at the end of the war or national emergency.
If you are trying to argue that trump's wall falls under subsection (d), then you are saying that trump is not relying on 2801 for his authorization. And that statute is explicitly the one he is using for his authority. So you must failed. Twice.
I support them. I supported E-Verify as early as 2016. I can't speak for others on this issue. I can speak for myself and why I've gone "far right wing". The United States has paid to the tone of billions of dollars, be it their use of our medical and welfare assistance programs, and then the foreign aid to these nations. We, US Citizens(including yourself) bore the burden of that sacrifice. Now, if others want to bare that burden then that's on them. Great for their altruism. But not everyone(IE: Goverment funds=taxpayer dollars) should be obligated to be so altruistic. Especially when both Liberals/Conservatives would rather put that money on their various pet projects(social programs/military bloated budgets) rather than our towns, cities and communities. America deserves better than to have our treasury be used for non-American purposes. People agreed to Social Security, because it was a form of payback. Funds that go towards our roads, bridges, highways and parks are for mutable use for everyone. But when our funds go to 'X' and when 'X' is not a citizen(and the only valid argument therefore being to make 'X' a citizen), it insults everyone. It's like a country club that no longer operates as a country club. That's exactly how AOC sees it. And I'm absolutely livid. Especially when there's a legal path to being a part of our country club. Get rid of the backlogs? Sure, yeah, let's do that.(Government has backlogs on absolutely everything and that's probably the first thing we should tackle.). But to have our 'club' called America be invalidated because it's the most charitable thing to do? No. The USA and its taxpayer dollars are not a charity case.
Oh I completely agree with you, everything you posted actually. I just don’t think a few hundred miles of walls will help. First thing we need to do is end birthright citizenship followed by completely shutting down sanctuary cities and ending all federal assistance to those here illegally. Making our laws as hostile as possible to illegals would prevent many of them from ever leaving their home towns. A wall — that has stopped very few if any.
I'll just sit back and watch you be wrong again. Will probably take a few dozen pages for it to sink in.
