Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I didn't have to do this." - Donald Trump, talking about declaring a national emergency.
Stephen Miller must have face-palmed when Trump off script from the teleprompter speech and said this.
I can't picture Stephen Miller face-palming when he's upset. Kicking puppies or torturing children, sure.
From a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court has already provided a roadmap for brushing aside Trump's public statements undermining his own rationale. From Roberts' opinion in Trump v. Hawaii:
The Proclamation, moreover, is facially neutral toward religion. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by reference to extrinsic statements—many of which were made before the President took the oath of office.
....
[W]e may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.
In lay terms, it doesn't matter to the conservative justices if the President contradicts himself, as long as someone on his staff can craft a facially plausible justification for his actions. In other words, "Ignore the orange dancing clown, and focus on the mission."
"I didn't have to do this." - Donald Trump, talking about declaring a national emergency.
Stephen Miller must have face-palmed when Trump off script from the teleprompter speech and said this.
" I dont have to do this" He should take this attitude when considering wasting millions every weekend to be flown down to play golf. And people want 6 more years of this guy.
Just another one of the liberal talking points day in and day out in here. They constantly deflect from the 30,000 still entering our border illegally every month with the visa over stayers when the discussion is about the wall. They also act like the number of border crossers are nothing just because it may be down from the past. Just how lame are these people?
You make it sound like these 30,000 are pouring in to the United States about to take up residence. These are the border-crossers who are apprehended, with now expedited returns to Mexico. The data are a proxy for those who are not caught, per DHS a much lower number. The trends are a measure of demand to cross the border, which is clearly down.
I can't picture Stephen Miller face-palming when he's upset. Kicking puppies or torturing children, sure.
From a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court has already provided a roadmap for brushing aside Trump's public statements undermining his own rationale. From Roberts' opinion in Trump v. Hawaii:
The Proclamation, moreover, is facially neutral toward religion. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by reference to extrinsic statements—many of which were made before the President took the oath of office.
....
[W]e may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.
In lay terms, it doesn't matter to the conservative justices if the President contradicts himself, as long as someone on his staff can craft a facially plausible justification for his actions. In other words, "Ignore the orange dancing clown, and focus on the mission."
I haven't yet read any recent analyses ... would what you wrote (the bold) go to "justification for his actions" in declaring the national emergency? Trump appears to have wide latitude to act under the NEA ... but is any door opened to examining if the action is "justifiable" given the facts of the matter? Data addressing whether or not there is, in fact, a crisis on the SW border that a wall would ameliorate?
Some time ago I did see a law blog article (or maybe another source?) postulating that door would be opened once the constitutional issue that this was a Congressional end run became relevant to Court determinations.
The point is
[1] there are better and more cost efficient ways of handling this than spending money on a vanity project, and
[2] the premise that it is a national emergency is a false one, which makes Trump guilty of deliberate misappropriation of funds and overreach.
Just what are these better and more cost efficient ways of deterring illegal entry when the good barriers have already proven to be 90% effective? You've got one that is 100% effective? Vanity project? Was it a vanity project when congress approved the actual wall bill back in 2006?
We've had a serious emergency at our southern border for decades now. It's just accelerated with thousands marching in caravans up to our border in recent months. How is building those good barriers a misappropriation of funds and an overreach when they've already proven to work and both the Border Patrol and Homeland Security want them and also say they work?
Me thinks you have a vested interest in illegal immigration and that's why you don't want a physical barrier to reduce illegal immigration. It's been obvious for some time now and I think I know the reason why.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They constantly deflect from the 30,000 still entering our border illegally every month with the visa over stayers when the discussion is about the wall. They also act like the number of border crossers are nothing just because it may be down from the past. Just how lame are these people? 
