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.
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.
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.
As to the Secure Fence Act, where is this secure fence?
If you were to start revoking charters and chucking elected officials out of office civil war would almost be a guarantee, would it not?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pelosi has stated that she will give a grand total of $1 for any physical barrier along the southern border.
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.
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.
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.
Civil war will only enable the bastard aka bankers and corporations, aka the real power behind your ""politics"" to further their agenda.
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?
"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.
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.