Jump to content

The Wall.


Nanker

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

The Wall, prior to Trump's addition had stretches that were built out of items that were on hand such as Vietnam War era helicopter landing pads. These fences were easily penetrated but were erected in areas that naturally had a lot of influx from Mexico. They really never shut down the border but acted as a speed bump only.  Other sections only had gates across roadways that could be walked around by people on foot. The approach now is not to make the wall so tall, so thick and so difficult to get over or under that no illegal aliens can possibly get into the U.S. The new wall slows people down to the extent that after our sensors and cameras pick them up they can be caught. People can argue all they want about whether or not we are replacing wall or building new wall. At this point, what difference does it make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be appealed. The military defends the border, hence ...
 

Appeals court rules Trump administration lacked authority to shift military money to wall

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration illegally went around Congress in reappropriating the funds.
 

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it transferred $2.5 billion in military construction projects to build parts of the wall at the southern border -- a blow to the administration’s efforts to fulfill President Trump’s signature 2016 campaign promise.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration illegally went around Congress in reappropriating the funds. It ruled on a suit brought by a coalition of border states including California and environmental groups.


Why do I think it had more to do with  this? <_<
 

The court also ruled that the government was not in compliance with environmental regulations, and was therefore harming those who visit the region for nature-related activities including bird-watching and would also disturb wildlife.
 

</snip>

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

This will be appealed. The military defends the border, hence ...
 

Appeals court rules Trump administration lacked authority to shift military money to wall

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration illegally went around Congress in reappropriating the funds.
 

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it transferred $2.5 billion in military construction projects to build parts of the wall at the southern border -- a blow to the administration’s efforts to fulfill President Trump’s signature 2016 campaign promise.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration illegally went around Congress in reappropriating the funds. It ruled on a suit brought by a coalition of border states including California and environmental groups.


Why do I think it had more to do with  this? <_<
 

The court also ruled that the government was not in compliance with environmental regulations, and was therefore harming those who visit the region for nature-related activities including bird-watching and would also disturb wildlife.
 

</snip>

 

It is a standard ruling from the 9th Circuit: A place where they have only a passing acquaintance with the Constitution...

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

This will be appealed. The military defends the border, hence ...
 

Appeals court rules Trump administration lacked authority to shift military money to wall

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration illegally went around Congress in reappropriating the funds.
 

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it transferred $2.5 billion in military construction projects to build parts of the wall at the southern border -- a blow to the administration’s efforts to fulfill President Trump’s signature 2016 campaign promise.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration illegally went around Congress in reappropriating the funds. It ruled on a suit brought by a coalition of border states including California and environmental groups.


Why do I think it had more to do with  this? <_<
 

The court also ruled that the government was not in compliance with environmental regulations, and was therefore harming those who visit the region for nature-related activities including bird-watching and would also disturb wildlife.
 

</snip>

See the source imageSeems like mixed messages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...