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.

 

Trump declares national emergency over wall

page: 21
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

They let a single terrorist group in to teach us a lesson.



Please.

It is amazing that some folks think that the danger of terrorist attacks is something we can stop with a wall.

The danger is that AMERICANS are for sale ideologically, financially, morally and just as vulnerable to being radicalized as anyone else and perhaps a little more likely to be batsh*& crazy than the average foreigner.

"They" don't need to sneak someone across a border anymore. That is very outdated thinking.

List of Terrorist Attacks since 2010.
Tell me which ones were Illegal Immigrants sneaking across a border.

en.wikipedia.org...



That's right. Hence why we don't need to import more through illegal points of entry where there are no security checks and documentation required.


Then why not wall off Canada? That would be as equally effective in reducing risks from the non-existent illegal-immigrant-terrorist threat.


Canada is a first world country with relatively low population. Below the southern border are third world countries with relatively high populations. Do the math.


edit on 15-2-2019 by MadLad because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

No, my remarks are a constitutional reality and not one of those provisions left open to interpretation. Congress decides on appropriating funds, not the president.



Well yes I agree, unless there are provisions in place otherwise. Trump is piggy backing an active Obama NE that deals with cartels and other like situations. The money is already there approved by congress so this NE just gives Trump legal ability to dictate where it goes to, legal actions. This is not at any level over stepping his power as your left talking points might read.

You don't like it I understand, and so get over it... Pout, stamp your feet, call Trump a dictator... doesn't matter, so here is how it will all play out.

Trump will do the NE and the house will huff and puff and fight it, and even if it goes through the Senate Trump will veto it and that will take a majority vote to over ride his veto and that will not happen.

In the end Trump now gets 9.6 billion for his wall...win win...



edit on 15-2-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump may have shot himself in the foot with his press conference. He actually said "I didn't need to do this now. I could have waited".

That doesn't sound like an emergency.


That line is out of context... need to read the full statement...



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
My how short the collective memory is. Obama EO on Defense Preparedness gave the gov the right to seize any asset. It’s disgusting that Pelosi and others are saying Trump would set a new precedent.
Obama EO www.google.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

How to put this?

Walls do not effect drug traffic. No drug lord straps 10 Million dollars to an immigrants back and sends them through the desert with fingers crossed.

Trump's own DHS and DEA have made it clear that drugs come in through ports of entry (e.g. fake gas tanks or tankers with secret compartments filled with some chemical, planes and corrupt baggage handlers) Or sea where the coast guard is seriously understaffed and just last month said they only have the boats and manpower to intercept only 25% of suspected drug traffic they can spot on radar.
Now, if you are talking about modern drugs they come via shipments from Chinese chemical factories, if you are talking about Meth, Appalachia is the manufacturing center of the USA.

Secondly, criminals MS13 and other orgs also don't send people trudging through the dessert. They send them through ports of entry if they have good papers, if not they send them through tunnels or by boat, but more to the point they are multi-billion dollar enterprises and can easily recruit and employ legal Americans for work that needs to be done on American soil.

A wall fixes NONE of that. It is not only dumb campaign rhetoric, but it saps desperate resources from Law Enforcement and Coast Guard that could otherwise use it for more manpower, technology resources for Airports and Ports of Entry at the Border to detect drugs, DEA to disrupt and disassemble criminal orgs etc


So, the smugglers I've heard from shows like Drugs Inc. and even firsthand (I've worked with Latino's legal and illegal for about 40 yrs) that say the walls ARE a problem and present issues for getting their drugs across the border are full of it?

Who should I believe? People that do this for a living or someone like you that read some most likely skewed story off the internet?

Smugglers have started splitting up their cargo into smaller amounts due to increased security. Cartels don't like losing their drugs by the ton and smaller amounts of high dollar drugs are almost undetectable. Don't think for a second that drug mules that used to just walk across the border aren't deterred by a wall. We all know that drugs are going to find a way into the US regardless, but to say a wall does absolutely nothing to curtail drug smuggling (as you stated) is an ignorant mentality.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Your lying again
Reasearch the law
There is a specific outline FOR JUST THIS

Or how else are natinsl disasters funded so quickly genius?

Its in the same usc 50

Or you can continue to spout ignorant bs.

Usc 10 2808 authorization to move military construction money in the event of a national emergency




edit on 15/2/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

Why would the cic have to justify anything to the sec def or the sec army?
They follow his orders.



Correct.

But according to your own post and link
"no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act."


The two provisions he can apply are (1)

One allows the secretary of defense to start a military program if it is needed to support armed forces.

The problem here is that there is no real evidence that the armed forces need a wall to support them. Instead, the reverse may be true, you need armed forces to build a wall.


AND (2)


The second statute allows the secretary of the Army to direct troops and resources “that are essential to the national defense.”

Here, again, we have a problem. There is scant evidence to indicate that a border wall is in fact essential to the national defense.


He has no "provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act" that would survive a 30 minute court hearing.

So his "Emergency Declaration" is rhetorical fluff about as likely to happen as MEXICO paying for the wall.

You are dsft
Usc 50 encompasses all he can do
He just has to notify congress
Then congress can act if they dont agree
He also has to file paperwork annualy to continue it


This isnt nearly as hard as you are trying to make it

Why havent the lawsuits been filled?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
no more pineal glands and young blood for the "illuminated"



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Check and mate.






posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
That line is out of context... need to read the full statement...


lol

Everything he says is 'out of context.'

Then provide the context, please!


(post by mtnshredder removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

How to put this?

Walls do not effect drug traffic. No drug lord straps 10 Million dollars to an immigrants back and sends them through the desert with fingers crossed.


Drug traffic isn't what is at stake. Who seriously cares about drugs?

Terrorism is. If you can smuggle whole buses full of human beings across the border, then you can smuggle whole terrorist cells across.




Trump's own DHS and DEA have made it clear that drugs come in through ports of entry (e.g. fake gas tanks or tankers with secret compartments filled with some chemical, planes and corrupt baggage handlers) Or sea where the coast guard is seriously understaffed and just last month said they only have the boats and manpower to intercept only 25% of suspected drug traffic they can spot on radar.
Now, if you are talking about modern drugs they come via shipments from Chinese chemical factories, if you are talking about Meth, Appalachia is the manufacturing center of the USA.

Secondly, criminals MS13 and other orgs also don't send people trudging through the dessert. They send them through ports of entry if they have good papers, if not they send them through tunnels or by boat, but more to the point they are multi-billion dollar enterprises and can easily recruit and employ legal Americans for work that needs to be done on American soil.


People on the terror watch lists aren't likely going to come in through a port of entry.

And tunnels are usually not used to move people, because they cost quite a lot to set up. Each single person who goes through that tunnel is one more person who knows the secret. It only takes one person letting the secret out, and the entire effort of digging it will be lost forever.

So tunnels are only viable for moving inanimate objects back and forth. A kilo of drugs won't talk.




A wall fixes NONE of that. It is not only dumb campaign rhetoric, but it saps desperate resources from Law Enforcement and Coast Guard that could otherwise use it for more manpower, technology resources for Airports and Ports of Entry at the Border to detect drugs, DEA to disrupt and disassemble criminal orgs etc


It fixes the only real vulnerability we have, with respect to terrorists entering.

That's all we need it to do.

That would solve the national security issue. (That being the issue that is being invoked in order to build it. Remember?)



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

How to put this?

Walls do not effect drug traffic. No drug lord straps 10 Million dollars to an immigrants back and sends them through the desert with fingers crossed.

Trump's own DHS and DEA have made it clear that drugs come in through ports of entry (e.g. fake gas tanks or tankers with secret compartments filled with some chemical, planes and corrupt baggage handlers) Or sea where the coast guard is seriously understaffed and just last month said they only have the boats and manpower to intercept only 25% of suspected drug traffic they can spot on radar.
Now, if you are talking about modern drugs they come via shipments from Chinese chemical factories, if you are talking about Meth, Appalachia is the manufacturing center of the USA.

Secondly, criminals MS13 and other orgs also don't send people trudging through the dessert. They send them through ports of entry if they have good papers, if not they send them through tunnels or by boat, but more to the point they are multi-billion dollar enterprises and can easily recruit and employ legal Americans for work that needs to be done on American soil.

A wall fixes NONE of that. It is not only dumb campaign rhetoric, but it saps desperate resources from Law Enforcement and Coast Guard that could otherwise use it for more manpower, technology resources for Airports and Ports of Entry at the Border to detect drugs, DEA to disrupt and disassemble criminal orgs etc


If what you say is true, then you should have no issue with a one time investment to insure for all time that they don't go through places that aren't ports of entry eh?


I mean, a wall by itself doesn't require manpower and resources after all, since no one will be trying to breach the wall.
edit on 16-2-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:09 AM
link   
This is the best thing to happen to the Democrats because he is only looking out for his base which are the minority.

The majority of America does not want wall and by placating only his base, he is showing every other American he does not care about what they want.
edit on 16-2-2019 by Rokal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump may have shot himself in the foot with his press conference. He actually said "I didn't need to do this now. I could have waited".

That doesn't sound like an emergency.


This is what he said:

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time, I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.”

Emergencies often require a speedy response. Let’s not forget how the media loves to twist things for political ends.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:21 AM
link   
# he should employ Trumpzilla to crush any attempts to breach the wall.


Tissue?



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
# he should employ Trumpzilla to crush any attempts to breach the wall.


Tissue?


I can’t wait for any attempts to breach the wall.
That’s gonna be comedy tv.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234
Everything he says is 'out of context.'

Then provide the context, please!


Maybe if you actually listen to it...lol



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

Yeah the emergency was so dire that as soon as he was done announcing it he left for a weekend of golf in Florida.
Ba dump bump.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

No what he just did was guarantee that he would be in yet another legal battle just when he should be getting ready to campaign for a second term.
Ann Coulter called it. The national emergency is we have an idiot for a president.
Ba dump bump...




top topics



 
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join