It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Trump Says He May Declare a National Emergency to Get The US-Mex Border Wall Built.

page: 8
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
Concoct a national emergency for something that is in no way, shape or form a national emergency, to force his hand instead of following established law that exists to PREVENT any president from forcing their hand.

That sure is a nice ploy to instigate a civil war, innit? You have no idea how many military find that idea repulsive and are already willing to point to weapons at him for trying.


Neither do you. As usual a leftist is talking out of their butt. Trumps approval is through the stratosphere with the military.

Your little daydream is about as real as that one idiot celebrity that suggested that the military should overthrow Trump.




posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You do not need another citation. The entire government shutdown is over Democratic refusal to construct a physical barrier. The argument has been for months now that everyone who asks for asylum must be allowed to do so, given legal representation, and allowed to remain in the country unconstrained until a hearing years in the future. Illegal entry by definition does not permit vetting. Multiple judicial stays have been debated here ad nauseum where people were deported and then some judge demanded they be returned. Sanctuary cities are by definition the official protection of those receiving sanctuary. Catch and release is a well-known immigration policy under the Obama administration.

Citations are for questionable reports, not common knowledge.

As to the Secure Fence Act, where is this secure fence? As to the international treaties, what does that have to do with illegal immigration?

All I see are purty words concealing obvious actions. I care not for the words. I care about actions. If someone steals my car, them denying they stole it does not change the facts.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's tragic mate, RIP to the Man in question.

However, Police fall every day in the line of duty and not just at the hands of what you consider to be illegals.

People kill people, not just illegal immigrants that practice such spurious debauchery.

Hardly constitutes a national emergency because a police die in the line of duty, more like an everyday occurrence and a hazard of the job really, as unfortunate as that may be.
edit on 5-1-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Yes, it's tragic; all deaths are. But what makes it more tragic than normal is that the very government he was protecting is the one who allowed his killer to walk free from consequences for other criminal acts.

I said it before and I'll say it again: any municipality which openly refuses to comply with Federal law and national security should have their charter revoked and any elected official who willfully did so should be charged with sedition and have their citizenship revoked. Any state which does so should have their statehood suspended and be placed under martial law until the military can secure the state and oversee new elections.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well if your government starts doing those type of things i imagine it will only serve to inflame the situation even more.

If you were to start revoking charters and chucking elected officials out of office civil war would almost be a guarantee, would it not?

Nobody wishes to see such a thing happen over Trumps unimplementable spurious election promises now do they?



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



The entire government shutdown is over Democratic refusal to construct a physical barrier.


No, it is not. The Democrats support and continue to fund the Secure Fence Act. It's Trump's "super" border wall project that's not being funded, although, as I understand it, $1.3 billion was granted for "research and development", last year, which the Trump administration hasn't yet spent.



The argument has been for months now that everyone who asks for asylum must be allowed to do so, given legal representation, and allowed to remain in the country unconstrained until a hearing years in the future.


My argument is, and always has been that US law must be followed until it is no longer US law. Trump can't bypass US law, and blame it on Democrats, because he doesn't like the laws.



As to the Secure Fence Act, where is this secure fence?







posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

“We have the means to prevent murders from those coming into the country illegally by not letting them come into the country illegally. We do not have that capability for US citizens.”

Is that really the basis of the argument you want to support? Are you sure?

Let’s use that logic:

We have the means to prevent the murder of innocent Americans, by their fellow citizens, due to gun violence, by outlawing the private owner ship of guns and confiscating all privately held guns, as an imminent threat to national security under the auspices of a National Emergency.

(Please note that I DO NOT support such a measure; I think it would be stupid, unconstitutional, and wholly ineffective)

Thus we could prevent those gun-related death by the simple fact that there are no guns available to commit murders with.

Yeah, that’ll work.

Just as a large portion of the illegal immigration problem stems not from our southern border, but from our major airports; the result of “visitors” and “students” overstaying their visas. (Weren’t the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack here on visas? I don’t remember hearing anything about any of them hiking illegally into the US from Mexico)

And, even if we concede that such a draconian measure wouldn’t prevent All murders (perhaps not even all gun-based mutders) from occurring, should we therefore not make the attempt to prevent even the few deaths we could?

As you argued, do their deaths mean less because they are merely the few?

The same could be applied to deaths resulting from opioid addiction. Americans dying at the hands of other Americans (their suppliers), and in far greater numbers, each year (per the NIH), than have died at the hands of illegal immigrants in a quarter century.

We could prevent those needless deaths by tougher control of the pharmaceutical companies producing and distributing those drugs by the tons, but a wall/fence is more urgent?

So, it seems we DO have the “capability “ to actually prevent the needless deaths of Americans by other Americans, by methods arguably as effective (or ineffective) as this storied “wall”, but we simply refuse to implement those methods, for a variety of arguably valid (or invalid) reasons.

What else you got?



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


If you were to start revoking charters and chucking elected officials out of office civil war would almost be a guarantee, would it not?

Hoss... we're already in a civil war.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: shooterbrody

But that is not what Trump wants, he wants a wall. To secure the border, would mean that they would have to hire more people to do a job that is darn near impossible to do, to patrol some 3,000 miles, and work 24/7, and that is just one part, not including the waterways. This and have to do immigration reform a system that is lacking much, including funding and people.


Why would you have to hire people to patrol the border? The people you need are already employed by the US government.

The military.

Abandon Europe to the Russians and the Turks and bring every soldier home and fortify the southern border with 60 000 troops, tank divisions, landmines, drones and give the soldiers shoot to kill orders. Abandon the middile east completely too. An American soldier would much rather be stationed in the desert in Arizona than Kuwait or Saudi Arabia I'm sure.

Done deal.

Leave the bodies to rot as a message to the rest of the rabble.

Anyone that makes it through that gets 40 years in a prison in the middle of the Sonoran desert.

And 30 years for any employer caught employing an illegal. 30 years for every individual charge.

On top of all that any military or CIA that's caught smuggling or helping people bypass the border or bringing drugs in should face summary execution upon being caught. No trial, no appeals. Nothing.

Border problem solved immediately.



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

No mate that's simply not true, just like the rest of the world, you are in a class war, nothing civil about it just yet.

The division and distribution of wealth are what separates, not only your own people, but the rest of the people of planet Earth.

Which is the main reason you find yourselves in such a dilemma, and the reason those poor souls want to come to your nation in the first place.

Civil war will only enable the bastard aka bankers and corporations, aka the real power behind your ""politics"" to further their agenda.
edit on 5-1-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


No, it is not. The Democrats support and continue to fund the Secure Fence Act. It's Trump's "super" border wall project that's not being funded, although, as I understand it, $1.3 billion was granted for "research and development", last year, which the Trump administration hasn't yet spent.

Pelosi has stated that she will give a grand total of $1 for any physical barrier along the southern border.

As I understand it, I think a representative of the GoFundMe account is planning to go to her office and collect it.


My argument is, and always has been that US law must be followed until it is no longer US law. Trump can't bypass US law, and blame it on Democrats, because he doesn't like the laws.

As long as that doesn't apply to illegal immigration, correct? Every action Trump has taken to try and enforce immigration law has been opposed by the DNC.

Can we get some consistency here?

As for the tweet, where does it say anything about a fence being funded? It simply says progress was made for preliminary work on the wall, under a Republican House.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Well stated!

Poverty, or the desire to escape from same, breeds immigration.

Always has, likely always will.

After all, it was one of the major forces that led to the establishment of the US itself.

The impoverished of the “Old World” leaving their homes and, in some cases, even their families, behind, to seek, if not riches, than at least a better life in the new world presented by the promise of the US.



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar


We have the means to prevent the murder of innocent Americans, by their fellow citizens, due to gun violence, by outlawing the private owner ship of guns and confiscating all privately held guns, as an imminent threat to national security under the auspices of a National Emergency.

Nope.

A national emergency could be declared and martial law could be introduced, at which time all firearms could be confiscated. The check on this power is that a national emergency is by definition temporary, and any confiscation during the national emergency would have to be reversed once it is over. In other words, everyone would get their guns back when their rights were restored.

If Trump declares a national emergency at the border, he can proceed with construction by the military. Once the national emergency is over, he will have to stop construction. OK, fine. The wall will be there by then. The wall does not violate anyone's inalienable rights.

In two years, Trump will have to face the public. They will decide whether or not his actions were appropriate. If he were to confiscate all firearms, I doubt he would have the chance of a snowball in a flamethrower; there seems to be a lot of support for the wall.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Pelosi has stated that she will give a grand total of $1 for any physical barrier along the southern border.


"The Art of the Deal"! As I understand it, the original offer was $1.6, the same as last year's amount which hasn't been spent yet. Now, it's down to ZERO! Kinda like telling your kid about your Christmas plans, and then reneging on them because they misbehaved.



As long as that doesn't apply to illegal immigration, correct? Every action Trump has taken to try and enforce immigration law has been opposed by the DNC.


WRONG! Every action that Trump has taken to bypass US immigration law and the US constitution have been opposed by the DNC. Even the SCOTUS win that Trump finally got on his so called "Muslim Ban" was a watered down 3rd version, that didn't turn out to be what he originally proposed at all. "To ban all Muslims from entering until we figure what the hell is going on!



As for the tweet, where does it say anything about a fence being funded? It simply says progress was made for preliminary work on the wall, under a Republican House.


LOL There is no funding for Trump's wall. All that bragging he's doing is about actions and and done under the Secure Fence Act.



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




In two years, Trump will have to face the public. They will decide whether or not his actions were appropriate. If he were to confiscate all firearms, I doubt he would have the chance of a snowball in a flamethrower; there seems to be a lot of support for the wall.


Not if he's declared Martial Law. The 2020 election would be suspended if we'reunder Martial Law then.
'

edit on 5-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


Civil war will only enable the bastard aka bankers and corporations, aka the real power behind your ""politics"" to further their agenda.

You noticed.


TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: TheRedneck

“We have the means to prevent murders from those coming into the country illegally by not letting them come into the country illegally. We do not have that capability for US citizens.”

Is that really the basis of the argument you want to support? Are you sure?

Let’s use that logic:

We have the means to prevent the murder of innocent Americans, by their fellow citizens, due to gun violence, by outlawing the private owner ship of guns and confiscating all privately held guns, as an imminent threat to national security under the auspices of a National Emergency.

(Please note that I DO NOT support such a measure; I think it would be stupid, unconstitutional, and wholly ineffective)

Thus we could prevent those gun-related death by the simple fact that there are no guns available to commit murders with.

Yeah, that’ll work.

Just as a large portion of the illegal immigration problem stems not from our southern border, but from our major airports; the result of “visitors” and “students” overstaying their visas. (Weren’t the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack here on visas? I don’t remember hearing anything about any of them hiking illegally into the US from Mexico)

And, even if we concede that such a draconian measure wouldn’t prevent All murders (perhaps not even all gun-based mutders) from occurring, should we therefore not make the attempt to prevent even the few deaths we could?

As you argued, do their deaths mean less because they are merely the few?

The same could be applied to deaths resulting from opioid addiction. Americans dying at the hands of other Americans (their suppliers), and in far greater numbers, each year (per the NIH), than have died at the hands of illegal immigrants in a quarter century.

We could prevent those needless deaths by tougher control of the pharmaceutical companies producing and distributing those drugs by the tons, but a wall/fence is more urgent?

So, it seems we DO have the “capability “ to actually prevent the needless deaths of Americans by other Americans, by methods arguably as effective (or ineffective) as this storied “wall”, but we simply refuse to implement those methods, for a variety of arguably valid (or invalid) reasons.

What else you got?



Wow what a idiotic argument even coming from a open borders lib. Guns are protected under the 2nd amendment there is no amendment in the US constitution that says we have to allow people from other country's the ability to cross our borders undetected and stay.

Name one country that doesn't have citizens that kill other citizens?

Just because you have a few fly's in your house doesn't mean you say the hell with it and leave the front door wide open for more to come in.

1000's of deaths could have been prevented if our borders were secure, securing borders isn't the same as taking away a constitutional right this is a fact. I know your bleeding heart couldn't give a rats ass about American citizens who could have been saved if the government did its job.

The bottom line is you care more about people entering illegally than your own countrymen just like the Democrats. You believe the USA does not have the right to be a sovereign country and control its borders. And in my eyes that makes you and those like you the traitors that you so openly claim DJT is.



edit on 5-1-2019 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


"The Art of the Deal"! As I understand it, the original offer was $1.6, the same as last year's amount which hasn't been spent yet. Now, it's down to ZERO! Kinda like telling your kid about your Christmas plans, and then reneging on them because they misbehaved.

Ah, I see the disconnect here. Mommy Pelosi is punishing bad brother Trump for talking back.

Yeah, right...

I think you just refuted any further arguments you make today. Congratulations.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I'm honestly surprised it hasn't happened yet. Border patrol catches so many "special interest aliens," it's a wonder none of them have bee packing a dirty nuke or even IEDs. In Iraq, in 2006-7ish, Hezbollah was smuggling EFPs across the border with Iran. Those things were causing much death and destruction among our troops and they didn't have hardly any armor that could stop them.



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

Good.

The leftists have already declared the wall as "immoral".

That means any barrier is immoral.

They want open borders.



Why do people keep spouting this fallacy? You know it's not true - dramatizing this stupid wall with ridiculous comments like these won't make it a reality.

I think MOST Americans want immigration to be fair and legal. Very few want completely open borders, that proposition is just stupid.

Until Trump, border security and a wall was barely a consideration. Corporations took advantage of workers from Mexico in Napa, Florida, etc.. paying them a pittance. No one seemed to have a problem then. But Trump announces that the border situation in the U.S. is the same as in Europe (which is laughable untrue), and his sheep flock to his call and claim that we are all but doomed if a wall does't get immediately built.

What a load of bullcrap.




top topics



 
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join