(01-05-2019, 03:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2019, 03:39 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Your mixing state and federal responsibilities. And you can bet movement has been made however large or small in those specific careers. As far as immigration, It isn’t new or special as it was an issue in 2008 and a huge crisis in 2014. Enough kicking the can down the road as it only becomes more problematic and expensive. If we take the term “wall” out of the equation there still isn’t enough funding being included for HHS. Heck we give other countries more money annually than what is being requested.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that we need to hire more border guards.
And I agree that we need more immigration judges and more staff at the places where we detain the immigrants to sort out which ones get to stay. I agree that we need to build more of these kinds of places.
I just really don't see how a new continuous, solidsolid is going to help. It seems extremely impractical, and simplistic, and arbitrary. So by all means take the wall out of the equation.
The barrier is part of the entire puzzle. None of those other pieces matter if folks just walk on through. For being extremely impractical and simplistic, it has received attention in every administration up to this point. Sixty-five other countries must also disagree with your overly simplistic point of view as they have adopted a “wall” system to define and separate borders. It’s completely viable and necessary as just a piece of the immigration system and infrastructure.
(01-05-2019, 03:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2019, 03:39 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Your mixing state and federal responsibilities. And you can bet movement has been made however large or small in those specific careers. As far as immigration, It isn’t new or special as it was an issue in 2008 and a huge crisis in 2014. Enough kicking the can down the road as it only becomes more problematic and expensive. If we take the term “wall” out of the equation there still isn’t enough funding being included for HHS. Heck we give other countries more money annually than what is being requested.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that we need to hire more border guards.
And I agree that we need more immigration judges and more staff at the places where we detain the immigrants to sort out which ones get to stay. I agree that we need to build more of these kinds of places.
I just really don't see how a new continuous, solidsolid is going to help. It seems extremely impractical, and simplistic, and arbitrary. So by all means take the wall out of the equation.
You forgot "immoral" in your list of adjectives.
I find this interesting. Speaker Pelosi interrupted Nielsen telling her she "rejects her facts"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-...your-facts
(01-04-2019, 11:33 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2019, 10:15 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Didn’t see it but if that was what he said then he is an idiot. If he said they would temporarily take control over the border/land after declaring a National Emergency, that is different than Eminent Domain.
But there never was an emergency situation at the border. Words mean things.
Define what you consider an emergency please.
For me, people crossing the boarder and undermining our minimum wage standards are an issue. Does this qualify?
(01-05-2019, 08:58 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2019, 11:33 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]But there never was an emergency situation at the border. Words mean things.
Define what you consider an emergency please.
For me, people crossing the boarder and undermining our minimum wage standards are an issue. Does this qualify?
Emergency means that it is more likely than not that a person will die or a military confrontation will begin unless something is done quickly.
But that's just a simple layman's meaning.
In legal terms, in the United States, the word emergency has many possible meanings, and most of them have to do with National defense.
I know the layman's definition does not apply to the situation at the border.
I don't have the time to really study the legal definition but after a quick scan I'm really skeptical.
If Mexico was massing an army at the border, that could be an emergency situation involving National defense. Preventing unarmed people from entering here and looking for work is a matter of law enforcement, not National defense
(01-05-2019, 10:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2019, 08:58 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Define what you consider an emergency please.
For me, people crossing the boarder and undermining our minimum wage standards are an issue. Does this qualify?
Emergency means that it is more likely than not that a person will die or a military confrontation will begin unless something is done quickly.
But that's just a simple layman's meaning.
In legal terms, in the United States, the word emergency has many possible meanings, and most of them have to do with National defense.
I know the layman's definition does not apply to the situation at the border.
I don't have the time to really study the legal definition but after a quick scan I'm really skeptical.
If Mexico was massing an army at the border, that could be an emergency situation involving National defense. Preventing unarmed people from entering here and looking for work is a matter of law enforcement, not National defense
What about when local politicians prevent local law enforcement from obeying laws? Is that a matter of national defense?
(01-05-2019, 11:26 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2019, 10:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Emergency means that it is more likely than not that a person will die or a military confrontation will begin unless something is done quickly.
But that's just a simple layman's meaning.
In legal terms, in the United States, the word emergency has many possible meanings, and most of them have to do with National defense.
I know the layman's definition does not apply to the situation at the border.
I don't have the time to really study the legal definition but after a quick scan I'm really skeptical.
If Mexico was massing an army at the border, that could be an emergency situation involving National defense. Preventing unarmed people from entering here and looking for work is a matter of law enforcement, not National defense
What about when local politicians prevent local law enforcement from obeying laws? Is that a matter of national defense?
Local law enforcement takes its orders from local politicians. It has always been that way. The president can not compel them. The only rule is they stand down if federal law enforcement shows up.
Many things could be "a matter of national defense," but the word "emergency" in all of its definitions implies something new. For instance, the President has the authority to ground all air traffic in an emergency. But it would make no sense if he let air traffic proceed as normal yesterday, for him to say there's an emergency and ground flights tomorrow, unless he learned about a new threat.
This is another reason we can't claim the situation at the border is an emergency. It's been the normal situation for decades. In fact, it's better now than it used to be.
The Egypt–Israel barrier refers to a border barrier built by Israel along sections of its border with Egypt. It was originally an attempt to curb the influx of illegal migrants from African countries. Construction was approved on 12 January 2010 and began on 22 November 2010. However, following increased insurgent movement across the southern border in 2011, Israel upgraded the steel barrier project to include cameras, radar, and motion detectors. In January 2013, construction of the barrier was completed in its main section. The final section of the fence was completed in December 2013.
While 9,570 citizens of various African countries entered Israel illegally in the first half of 2012, only 34 did the same in the first six months of 2013, after construction of the main section of the barrier was completed. After the entire fence was completed, the number of migrant crossings had dropped to 16 in 2016.
A number of countries, including the United States and India, have sent delegations to Israel to study border security and the various technologies used by the
IDF to secure Israel's borders, including the Israel–Egypt border. Some of these countries may implement these technologies as part of their own border fences.
The total cost for 152 miles was $450 million.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_barrier#cite_note-22][/url]
![[Image: image.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/HksrDY1x/image.jpg)
(01-06-2019, 12:15 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]The Egypt–Israel barrier refers to a border barrier built by Israel along sections of its border with Egypt. It was originally an attempt to curb the influx of illegal migrants from African countries. Construction was approved on 12 January 2010 and began on 22 November 2010. However, following increased insurgent movement across the southern border in 2011, Israel upgraded the steel barrier project to include cameras, radar, and motion detectors. In January 2013, construction of the barrier was completed in its main section. The final section of the fence was completed in December 2013.
While 9,570 citizens of various African countries entered Israel illegally in the first half of 2012, only 34 did the same in the first six months of 2013, after construction of the main section of the barrier was completed. After the entire fence was completed, the number of migrant crossings had dropped to 16 in 2016.
A number of countries, including the United States and India, have sent delegations to Israel to study border security and the various technologies used by the IDF to secure Israel's borders, including the Israel–Egypt border. Some of these countries may implement these technologies as part of their own border fences.
The total cost for 152 miles was $450 million.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_barrier#cite_note-22][/url]
Really great picture. It's a fence, not a wall
I like this new one in Turkey better...
![[Image: 1494273552219.jpg]](https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/28f58f/645/344/0/132/1000/664?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/05/08/1494273552219.jpg)
(01-05-2019, 05:24 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2019, 03:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sympathetic to the idea that we need to hire more border guards.
And I agree that we need more immigration judges and more staff at the places where we detain the immigrants to sort out which ones get to stay. I agree that we need to build more of these kinds of places.
I just really don't see how a new continuous, solidsolid is going to help. It seems extremely impractical, and simplistic, and arbitrary. So by all means take the wall out of the equation.
You forgot "immoral" in your list of adjectives.
Nah, people are immoral or moral. Walls don't have thoughts or feelings.
I've seen Democrats calling it immoral. That's an emotional appeal to their base. I wouldn't use that word here; I'm not a democrat.
(01-06-2019, 12:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2019, 11:26 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]What about when local politicians prevent local law enforcement from obeying laws? Is that a matter of national defense?
Local law enforcement takes its orders from local politicians. It has always been that way. The president can not compel them. The only rule is they stand down if federal law enforcement shows up.
Many things could be "a matter of national defense," but the word "emergency" in all of its definitions implies something new. For instance, the President has the authority to ground all air traffic in an emergency. But it would make no sense if he let air traffic proceed as normal yesterday, for him to say there's an emergency and ground flights tomorrow, unless he learned about a new threat.
There is no rule that orders local law enforcement to stand down. They may do it by choice because the Feds have better resources, but the Feds can’t come in and take over investigations despite what TV may tell you.
You never stop with those mental gymnastics. Since when has an “emergency” had a time frame on it? Unfettered immigration poses a risk to the economy and national security. This has always been undisputed until Trump said it.
(01-06-2019, 06:50 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2019, 12:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Local law enforcement takes its orders from local politicians. It has always been that way. The president can not compel them. The only rule is they stand down if federal law enforcement shows up.
Many things could be "a matter of national defense," but the word "emergency" in all of its definitions implies something new. For instance, the President has the authority to ground all air traffic in an emergency. But it would make no sense if he let air traffic proceed as normal yesterday, for him to say there's an emergency and ground flights tomorrow, unless he learned about a new threat.
There is no rule that orders local law enforcement to stand down. They may do it by choice because the Feds have better resources, but the Feds can’t come in and take over investigations despite what TV may tell you.
You never stop with those mental gymnastics. Since when has an “emergency” had a time frame on it? Unfettered immigration poses a risk to the economy and national security. This has always been undisputed until Trump said it.
The USA has no need for unskilled migrant immigration. We should seal the borders to any and all but those who can contribute to our society in a measurable and meaningful way. We all know it in our core, but votes have to be created one way or another. Meanwhile, I'm from the Federal Department of Communication. I'm going to need you and your
yokel local buddies off my jurisdiction.
(01-06-2019, 06:50 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2019, 12:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Local law enforcement takes its orders from local politicians. It has always been that way. The president can not compel them. The only rule is they stand down if federal law enforcement shows up.
Many things could be "a matter of national defense," but the word "emergency" in all of its definitions implies something new. For instance, the President has the authority to ground all air traffic in an emergency. But it would make no sense if he let air traffic proceed as normal yesterday, for him to say there's an emergency and ground flights tomorrow, unless he learned about a new threat.
There is no rule that orders local law enforcement to stand down. They may do it by choice because the Feds have better resources, but the Feds can’t come in and take over investigations despite what TV may tell you.
You never stop with those mental gymnastics. Since when has an “emergency” had a time frame on it? Unfettered immigration poses a risk to the economy and national security. This has always been undisputed until Trump said it.
I think you're getting technical.
The point remains that if federal law enforcement tells local law enforcement to get out of the way, the locals get out of the way, regardless of local feeling. See, for reference, Little Rock High School and the University of Mississippi, when each were forced to admit black students for the first time.
Whether or not a situation is an emergency depends on a variety of factors some of which have already been described here. These factors should be considered holistically with the others. And yes the time that the thing started versus the time that somebody decides to call it an emergency is absolutely one of those factors. You can call it mental gymnastics on my part but to I don't see anyone else here offering a more helpful definition. A helpful definition of "emergency" would apply to this situation and many others. A definition that just says, "no border, no country. Violate border, is emergency!" is begging the question. Do you have a more helpful definition, if you don't like mine?
(01-06-2019, 08:29 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2019, 06:50 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]There is no rule that orders local law enforcement to stand down. They may do it by choice because the Feds have better resources, but the Feds can’t come in and take over investigations despite what TV may tell you.
You never stop with those mental gymnastics. Since when has an “emergency” had a time frame on it? Unfettered immigration poses a risk to the economy and national security. This has always been undisputed until Trump said it.
The USA has no need for unskilled migrant immigration. We should seal the borders to any and all but those who can contribute to our society in a measurable and meaningful way. We all know it in our core, but votes have to be created one way or another. Meanwhile, I'm from the Federal Department of Communication. I'm going to need you and your yokel local buddies off my jurisdiction.
all the powers of the federal government are Supreme over the powers of the state governments, but obviously the rights of the people are Supreme over the powers of both. You and I both know let me have a right to free speech and communication that neither can touch. So what in the world are you talkin about right now?
We don't need to build an expensive barrier. We need to bring home our military men and women stationed overseas. Most of those countries don't even want us there. Work out a deal where those countries can use our military bases on a rental basis, thereby bringing in money to the U.S. I also build bases along our southern border for all branches of the military and I use them to continuously patrol the border daily. Making a strong military presence along the border is a much bigger deterrent to illegals than a wall.
Also, why are we keeping illegals in detention camps? I simply have them fill out the necessary paperwork for asylum, have them provide a contact number in Mexico and tell them they will be contacted when their case is ready. All cases will be heard in designated areas along the border to make it easier for the migrants to get to their hearings. After the paperwork is collected to start their asylum process, I release them back to where the came from, the Mexican side of the border. If Mexico wouldn't have let them into their country to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem. Tell Mexico to either fix their own border problems or be overrun with migrants from Central or South America, waiting for their cases to be heard in the U.S.
(01-06-2019, 09:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2019, 06:50 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]There is no rule that orders local law enforcement to stand down. They may do it by choice because the Feds have better resources, but the Feds can’t come in and take over investigations despite what TV may tell you.
You never stop with those mental gymnastics. Since when has an “emergency” had a time frame on it? Unfettered immigration poses a risk to the economy and national security. This has always been undisputed until Trump said it.
I think you're getting technical.
The point remains that if federal law enforcement tells local law enforcement to get out of the way, the locals get out of the way, regardless of local feeling. See, for reference, Little Rock High School and the University of Mississippi, when each were forced to admit black students for the first time.
Whether or not a situation is an emergency depends on a variety of factors some of which have already been described here. These factors should be considered holistically with the others. And yes the time that the thing started versus the time that somebody decides to call it an emergency is absolutely one of those factors. You can call it mental gymnastics on my part but to I don't see anyone else here offering a more helpful definition. A helpful definition of "emergency" would apply to this situation and many others. A definition that just says, "no border, no country. Violate border, is emergency!" is begging the question. Do you have a more helpful definition, if you don't like mine?
(01-06-2019, 08:29 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The USA has no need for unskilled migrant immigration. We should seal the borders to any and all but those who can contribute to our society in a measurable and meaningful way. We all know it in our core, but votes have to be created one way or another. Meanwhile, I'm from the Federal Department of Communication. I'm going to need you and your yokel local buddies off my jurisdiction.
all the powers of the federal government are Supreme over the powers of the state governments, but obviously the rights of the people are Supreme over the powers of both. You and I both know let me have a right to free speech and communication that neither can touch. So what in the world are you talkin about right now?
Lol, I guess you really do have a Twister card for posting. You talk so much about definitions and then write something so divorced from reality, like you have any real understanding of the relationships of law enforcement organizations. You just open up and gush your opinion as though the feds are all-powerful, yet here in our own state we are defying their edicts without consequence.
(01-07-2019, 09:10 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2019, 09:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're getting technical.
The point remains that if federal law enforcement tells local law enforcement to get out of the way, the locals get out of the way, regardless of local feeling. See, for reference, Little Rock High School and the University of Mississippi, when each were forced to admit black students for the first time.
Whether or not a situation is an emergency depends on a variety of factors some of which have already been described here. These factors should be considered holistically with the others. And yes the time that the thing started versus the time that somebody decides to call it an emergency is absolutely one of those factors. You can call it mental gymnastics on my part but to I don't see anyone else here offering a more helpful definition. A helpful definition of "emergency" would apply to this situation and many others. A definition that just says, "no border, no country. Violate border, is emergency!" is begging the question. Do you have a more helpful definition, if you don't like mine?
all the powers of the federal government are Supreme over the powers of the state governments, but obviously the rights of the people are Supreme over the powers of both. You and I both know let me have a right to free speech and communication that neither can touch. So what in the world are you talkin about right now?
Lol, I guess you really do have a Twister card for posting. You talk so much about definitions and then write something so divorced from reality, like you have any real understanding of the relationships of law enforcement organizations. You just open up and gush your opinion as though the feds are all-powerful, yet here in our own state we are defying their edicts without consequence.
The two liberal friends I have will kill you with college length dissertations that typically include at least one reference to Eisenhower that are so long and unreadable that you kind of just nod your head.