The "National Emergency" Thread

[Numark3]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

A wall does not prevent people from seeking asylum through the legal means available at ports of entry. In fact, a wall would help those people by forcing them to go through the ports of entry rather than risk crossing illegally. 

 

Fair, but in practical senses, few have the resources or time to seek asylum legally.  Our country’s acceptance of asylum seekers is far below what it needs to be imo.

 

Quote

The wall really isn't about immigration. It's about stopping trafficking and smuggling from a tactical/strategic perspective while acting as a deterrent for possible illegals. Conflating the wall with immigration is Trump's biggest shortcoming on this issue. But it's the only way he can get traction, since no one in the media or DC wants to talk about trafficking - or didn't want to talk about it until Trump forced their hand. 

 

That alone is interesting... 

 

I mean, the wall is inherently tied to immigration...whether or not that is its purpose.  Even if it has nothing to do with immigration, it clearly has an impact on it.

 

and my point was, in regards to sex trafficking, even if it precludes it from occurring here, would the victims be free?  Or are they still going to be victims elsewhere?

 

Quote

 

It's really simple. Do you believe that every person on the planet has an inherent right to be an American if they so choose? If you do, then this statement makes sense. If you don't, then you should be able to see why it's problematic. 

 

 

At minimum, I think every single person potentially facing violence and sexual assault is entitled to live here.   It only takes a short trip to El Salvador or Guatemala to be concinced a lot of good people are facing extreme poverty and are victims of crimes.  In all honesty, my views are much higher broader than that.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Crayola64

[BringBackOrton]

49 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

It's a 4chan thing. Somewhere, they decided that anyone who is against Trump is an "NPC" or "Non-Player Character", because in their strange minds there is no way anyone could have a different opinion unless they had been brainwashed and been thoughtdumped by "the liberal media"

 

It is all the more hilarious that the people who like to use that phrase never have a original idea in their head, and can't be bothered to find independent sources or hard data to back up their ideas.

Says the guy going with the “I know you are but what am I?” defense.

[Teddy KGB]

1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

A WALL WILL DO NOTHING TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME OR DRUG/HUMAN TRAFFICKING

 

 

 

Have all the Mexicans been training with Vince Carter and Zach Lavine ?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Trump is hurting this country.  His lying and ignorance of the issues, which so many have overlooked or claimed is harmless, is costing us and will soon be costing us all even more.  If a wall fixed all the problems as he claims, everyone would be for it but nearly everyone knows that it won't really do what he claims.  Humans are amazingly ingenious and will just attack the next weakest point.  Certainly any major drug dealer or any terrorist with a brain will not be stopped.  Halting demand from the US, just like with the drug problem, would be far more effective in deterring illegal immigration.

 

Got any other uses for $ billions?  Supporters often imply that this is not a great deal of money and we should basically humor him.  If we do that, then what is the next national emergency he concocts and from where does he re-appropriate that money?  Soon we will be hearing how we can't afford Social Security but we can afford foolish spending to humor the fool, right?

 

The only thing that can stop him are his supporters, unfortunately, and they are in so deep they no longer seem to be able to tell right from wrong.

Good Lord Bob, this reads like a script from  Jussie Smolltte's One Man play. 

 

Toughen up, tuck your ***** back in and bide your time while your fave prez is not in office.  Many Trump supporters did just that during the 8 long years of socialist stupidity  and many folks of all stripes rode the wave during the Bush years before. 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

.......IT’S A TWO-WORD ANALYSIS: “BECAUSE TRUMP.”

 

 

[grinreaper]

27 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Do you only think with us verse them mind?  I didn’t mention Obama.  I didn’t mention if I thought it was constitutional (I have no idea and don’t care that much).  I just asked if you could see the argument against it.  You responding by talking about Obama says it all.

Did you object at the time?

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Fair, but in practical senses, few have the resources or time to seek asylum legally.  Our country’s acceptance of asylum seekers is far below what it needs to be imo.

 

 

I mean, the wall is inherently tied to immigration...whether or not that is its purpose.  Even if it has nothing to do with immigration, it clearly has an impact on it.

 

and my point was, in regards to sex trafficking, even if it precludes it from occurring here, would the victims be free?  Or are they still going to be victims elsewhere?

 

 

At minimum, I think every single person potentially facing violence and sexual assault is entitled to live here.   It only takes a short trip to El Salvador or Guatemala to be concinced a lot of good people are facing extreme poverty and are victims of crimes.  In all honesty, my views are much higher broader than that.

“Potentially facing?”

 

what! What!

 

Anyone who “potentially” may face violence is ENTITLED to be a US resident. What the *****

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

Fair, but in practical senses, few have the resources or time to seek asylum legally.  Our country’s acceptance of asylum seekers is far below what it needs to be imo.

 

Agreed. Which is why we need larger immigration reform, or at least an honest debate on the issue. Both parties have failed to do that for decades... because both parties profit from illegal immigration in many ways. 

 

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

I mean, the wall is inherently tied to immigration...whether or not that is its purpose.  Even if it has nothing to do with immigration, it clearly has an impact on it.

 

It's only tied to it from a standpoint of rhetoric. Which I've never agreed with. Most immigrants who are seeking to get to the US for legit reasons do so through a port of entry. The only time they don't is when they're uniformed about the process and/or taken advantage of by coyotes who promise them crossing illegally is better/safer. 

 

The wall in question, the one Trump's pushing for, is entirely meant to combat trafficking/smuggling routes.

 

If the conversation focused on that, rather than allowing immigration to enter into it (and all the partisan bickering on both sides that comes with that topic), the public would see more clearly why the debate over the wall is downright silly when you think about it without the partisans whispering in your ear. 

 

4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

At minimum, I think every single person potentially facing violence and sexual assault is entitled to live here.   It only takes a short trip to El Salvador or Guatemala to be concinced a lot of good people are facing extreme poverty and are victims of crimes.  In all honesty, my views are much higher broader than that.

 

What you believe in then is open borders. Resources are finite, as a country we do more good for the world than any other nation in human history, including helping those in need. We have millions of Americans living on the streets, millions of Americans living in poverty and dealing with the threats of violence and crime. Shouldn't our elected leaders first be looking to solve those issues rather than encouraging a system of open borders which will only drain resources from those endangered Americans and exacerbate the issue? 

 

We have a fundamental difference of opinion on this point - though we both want to help those in danger. 

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, grinreaper said:

Did you object at the time?

 

Iv never objected to the constitutionality of any national emergency, nor had any opinions on the constitutionality of any of them.  Including this one.  

 

I mean its totally irrelevant to  my point, but glad to answer your question.  Any other random questions?  Want to know how man cats I have?  Two.

 

[Foxx]

 

34 minutes ago, grinreaper said:

So, Obama's reallocation of 1.5 billion dollars so he could send cash to Iran was ok? Did you object at the time?

did he issue a NE to do so?

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Oooh, look, we have fact checking

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's not feels. It's facts. You haven't done the due diligence on this topic, yet want to be treated as if your statements are unimpeachable because they come from the media/dnc talking points/bought and paid for experts. You could, rather simply, do the due diligence yourself as I have and you'd see, rather quickly, how wrong you are on all of this. But you won't. 

Why? 

 

As for the bolded: They are? They're seeing through the two+ years of evidence and sources I provided (let alone the 15+ years of posting prior)? 

 

You just make stuff up. That's why you keep losing so badly in these discussions. 

 

 

Ahahaha….right. That's why I link to fact checks and independent journalists.

 

Speaking of which, here is some fact checking on today.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/feb/15/donald-trumps-news-conference-about-national-emerg/

 

"A big majority of the big drugs, the big drug loads don't go through ports of entry. They can't go through ports of entry."

Trump’s own government data undercut his claim.

Trump said he got his numbers from the Homeland Security Department. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is part of Homeland Security, reports that most of the drugs come through ports of entry.

CPB’s Office of Field Operations, working at ports of entry, seized 4,813 pounds of heroin during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2018, through Aug. 31, 2018. During the same period, U.S. Border Patrol, which works between legal ports of entry, seized 532 pounds of heroin.

The data also show that fentanyl, another opioid, was seized at ports of entry at a higher rate than at points between ports of entry. CBP recently intercepted a record amount of fentanyl worth $4.6 million at the Port of Nogales.

 

Oh look, hard facts provided by hard government data. But you'll just ignore it, call it a "talking point" and then keep on with your incessant droning on.

 

 

 

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Trump is hurting this country.  His lying and ignorance of the issues, which so many have overlooked or claimed is harmless, is costing us and will soon be costing us all even more. 

 

Please elaborate, with specific facts, how he has "hurt" the country, and what, exactly, he is "costing us".

 

...and no, your 'feelz' are not facts.

[Tiberius]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Please elaborate, with specific facts, how he has "hurt" the country, and what, exactly, he is "costing us".

 

...and no, your 'feelz' are not facts.

Crapping all over the constitution does hurt us. Or don't you agree? 

[Koko78]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Crapping all over the constitution does hurt us. Or don't you agree? 

 

So following the law as written by Congress is "crapping" on the Constitution?

 

Seriously, where was this outrage about an executive "crapping all over the Constitution" between January 2009 and January 2017? Your newfound patriotism and respect for the Constitution is laughable.

[Numark3]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Agreed. Which is why we need larger immigration reform, or at least an honest debate on the issue. Both parties have failed to do that for decades... because both parties profit from illegal immigration in many ways. 

 

Fully agreed.  This whole debate about immigration in this country would be taking place in a different league if our immigration system wasn’t a joke.

 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

It's only tied to it from a standpoint of rhetoric. Which I've never agreed with. Most immigrants who are seeking to get to the US for legit reasons do so through a port of entry. The only time they don't is when they're uniformed about the process and/or taken advantage of by coyotes who promise them crossing illegally is better/safer. 

 

I don’t know about majorities.  I just know enough people coming for good reasons that choose (or are sent) that path is significant enough for me.

 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

The wall in question, the one Trump's pushing for, is entirely meant to combat trafficking/smuggling routes.

 

If the conversation focused on that, rather than allowing immigration to enter into it (and all the partisan bickering on both sides that comes with that topic), the public would see more clearly why the debate over the wall is downright silly when you think about it without the partisans whispering in your ear. 

 

 

I think we just disagree on its net effect on immigration.

 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

What you believe in then is open borders. Resources are finite, as a country we do more good for the world than any other nation in human history, including helping those in need. We have millions of Americans living on the streets, millions of Americans living in poverty and dealing with the threats of violence and crime. Shouldn't our elected leaders first be looking to solve those issues rather than encouraging a system of open borders which will only drain resources from those endangered Americans and exacerbate the issue? 

 

We have a fundamental difference of opinion on this point - though we both want to help those in danger. 

 

Agreed, different views for sure.  Having known illegal immigrants that came here as children, and are now working professionals, it’s tough to see what resources or issues they exacerbated.  Some do, some don’t I suppose.  I’m not sure if the current homeless in this country would have been helped if it wasn’t for the illegal immigrants.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Oooh, look, we have fact checking

Ahahaha….right. That's why I link to fact checks and independent journalists.

 

Speaking of which, here is some fact checking on today.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/feb/15/donald-trumps-news-conference-about-national-emerg/

 

 

 

 

Oh look, hard facts provided by hard government data. But you'll just ignore it, call it a "talking point" and then keep on with your incessant droning on.

 

 

 

 

You keep missing the point. 

 

The point is I've personally been to the border. I've personally done the due diligence, spoken to officers and victims alike for going on two years now. I did this because I wanted to see fact from fiction first hand. And what I've learned, and what is echoed by nearly every working professional along the border, is that walls are needed to fight human trafficking. 

 

You can throw me study after study - but that's not going to move me off a position I've seen first hand - especially when the sources you give are dubious and partisan in nature. 

 

You call that "working off Feelz". It's not. I'm working off first hand experience I've had with trafficking, victims, perpetrators, and the men and women who fight them day in and day out. Walls work. That's not a debatable point yet you're trying to debate it without even thinking it through. 

 

Why? 

 

Because you made up your mind long ago that Trump is bad and everything he does must be bad as a result. You've prevented logic from entering your brain at nearly every turn. On this topic and on Russia especially. You keep getting proven wrong, at nearly every turn, yet you keep doubling down. 

 

Someday you're going to wake up and realize the people you put your trust in to be the conveyors of information, the authorities you trusted to tell you the truth, were lying to you and using you for their own benefit. They don't want you to think for yourself. Thinking for yourself makes you dangerous... 

 

Be a bit more dangerous, NPCinPhilly. You'll be amazed at what you'll learn when you go into the real world and talk to the people doing the work. You can do it today, even from the North East. Pick up the phone and make some calls. Ask to talk to border patrol agents. You'll be amazed at how willing they are to talk with you about this issue.

[Foxx]

14 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

At minimum, I think every single person potentially facing violence and sexual assault is entitled to live here.   It only takes a short trip to El Salvador or Guatemala to be concinced a lot of good people are facing extreme poverty and are victims of crimes.  In all honesty, my views are much higher broader than that.

how many people throughout the world might this include? the sheer numbers could potentially be staggering. just because they face harm in no way entitles them to become citizens of the US, sorry but it just doesn't. now, do they deserve the protections Americans enjoy, sure but that is an altogether different discussion.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Foxx

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Oh look, hard facts provided by hard government data. But you'll just ignore it, call it a "talking point" and then keep on with your incessant droning on.

 

This is the stupidest point you could latch onto besides "walls don't work". And it absolutely IS a talking point, and a poor one at that. 

 

You can't collect data off of drug/trafficking arrests which don't happen. Most of the drugs found are found at ports of entry because that's where they are positioned to search. No one counts or calculates the countless amounts of people and drugs that flow across the border and are never arrested or detained. 

 

Simple logic can explain this... yet you refuse to deploy it because you're in a hurry to be RIGHT rather than to be accurate. 

 

Shame. 

 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

So following the law as written by Congress is "crapping" on the Constitution?

 

Seriously, where was this outrage about an executive "crapping all over the Constitution" between January 2009 and January 2017? Your newfound patriotism and respect for the Constitution is laughable.

Following the law? Ok, he couldn't win an election to get this done, couldn't get Congress to fund it, so he is taking money from things raised for other purposes over a fake crisis. That's against the Constitution. 

 

Electing a black guy president was not unconstitutional 

[bilzfancy]

1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Would you feel different about gun control if your family was gunned down in a mass shooting spree?

 

Because that happens a hell of a lot more often than immigrants commit violent crime. The statistics are clear. I know I've been flogging this dead horse, but you have a much higher chance of being killed by a homegrown white nationalist terrorist or gun nut going on a shooting spree than to be the target of an immigrant committing a crime. 

 

PS: I almost forgot to mention: A WALL WILL DO NOTHING TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME OR DRUG/HUMAN TRAFFICKING

 

 

No, I wouldn't feel different,  like most true Americans I'm pro 2nd ammendment,  just 1 illegal immigrant killing an American is 1 too many