• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there a border crisis? Depends on how you measure it.

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,465
Reaction score
19,290
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From The Christian Science Monitor

Is there a border crisis? Depends on how you measure it.
​

The crisis on the United States-Mexico border is real, not manufactured, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told a House committee earlier this month. The crisis is “real, serious, and sustained,” she told lawmakers, and likely to get worse as the weather warms up.

Between October and the end of March, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is on track to apprehend more migrants entering the country illegally than during the entire 2017 fiscal year, she said, adding, “Our capacity is already severely restrained, but these increases will overwhelm the system entirely.”

Her statements came amid a widespread questioning of President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border last month. The president has been transparent that the declaration is a way to go around Congress to secure funding for a border wall, a signature campaign promise, that the legislature denied. Congress voted to end the emergency – with some critics claiming there is no crisis by pointing out that apprehensions are near historic lows – but Mr. Trump overruled it with the first veto of his term.

So is there a crisis on the southern border?

The numbers do show a surge in apprehensions in recent months:

COMMENT:-

No one ever uses statistics that show that they need a SMALLER piece of the budget pie, but that also doesn't mean that the statistics they do use are totally incorrect.
​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From The Christian Science Monitor

Is there a border crisis? Depends on how you measure it.
​

The crisis on the United States-Mexico border is real, not manufactured, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told a House committee earlier this month. The crisis is “real, serious, and sustained,” she told lawmakers, and likely to get worse as the weather warms up.

Between October and the end of March, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is on track to apprehend more migrants entering the country illegally than during the entire 2017 fiscal year, she said, adding, “Our capacity is already severely restrained, but these increases will overwhelm the system entirely.”

Her statements came amid a widespread questioning of President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border last month. The president has been transparent that the declaration is a way to go around Congress to secure funding for a border wall, a signature campaign promise, that the legislature denied. Congress voted to end the emergency – with some critics claiming there is no crisis by pointing out that apprehensions are near historic lows – but Mr. Trump overruled it with the first veto of his term.

So is there a crisis on the southern border?

The numbers do show a surge in apprehensions in recent months:

COMMENT:-

No one ever uses statistics that show that they need a SMALLER piece of the budget pie, but that also doesn't mean that the statistics they do use are totally incorrect.
​
Click to expand...

Shrug...

Who cares?

When it come right down to it, the person declaring the emergency is the one who gets to say that the emergency exists. Congress took their shot at negating the emergency...and failed. If anyone else thinks they have standing and can prove there is no crisis, they can take THEIR shot through the courts. Until there is a court case and it is ruled on, the emergency stands.
 
Mycroft said:
Shrug...

Who cares?

When it come right down to it, the person declaring the emergency is the one who gets to say that the emergency exists. Congress took their shot at negating the emergency...and failed. If anyone else thinks they have standing and can prove there is no crisis, they can take THEIR shot through the courts. Until there is a court case and it is ruled on, the emergency stands.
Click to expand...

Indeed, "Der Leader" gets to make the laws.
 
Mycroft said:
Shrug...

Who cares?

When it come right down to it, the person declaring the emergency is the one who gets to say that the emergency exists. Congress took their shot at negating the emergency...and failed. If anyone else thinks they have standing and can prove there is no crisis, they can take THEIR shot through the courts. Until there is a court case and it is ruled on, the emergency stands.
Click to expand...
The above is true and accurate, and a nice succinct synopsis.

I'd only add that the funding bill Trump signed supposedly contains significant poison pills, and we have no idea what they are or if they affect policy outside of the funds in the bill. I imagine Trump has no political upside to speak to any clauses that handicap him in the appearances of building his wall.

In addition, the eminent domain issues will tie this project up in court for quite awhile.

It's for the reasons above, that I believe we will see little substantive progress in building this wall anytime soon, particularly during this Presidential term.
 
Chomsky said:
The above is true and accurate, and a nice succinct synopsis.

I'd only add that the funding bill Trump signed supposedly contains significant poison pills, and we have no idea what they are or if they affect policy outside of the funds in the bill. I imagine Trump has no political upside to speak to any clauses that handicap him in the appearances of building his wall.

In addition, the eminent domain issues will tie this project up in court for quite awhile.

It's for the reasons above, that I believe we will see little substantive progress in building this wall anytime soon, particularly during this Presidential term.
Click to expand...

I think we'll find that those eminent domain issues will be moot, considering the laws that have emergency provisions that take effect because of the National Emergency declaration.
 
Mycroft said:
Shrug...

Who cares?

When it come right down to it, the person declaring the emergency is the one who gets to say that the emergency exists. Congress took their shot at negating the emergency...and failed. If anyone else thinks they have standing and can prove there is no crisis, they can take THEIR shot through the courts. Until there is a court case and it is ruled on, the emergency stands.
Click to expand...

Would you be in favor of an amendment that limits the president's power to unilaterally declare a national emergency?
 
lwf said:
Would you be in favor of an amendment that limits the president's power to unilaterally declare a national emergency?
Click to expand...

No.

1. The power that the President has to declare a national emergency doesn't come from the Constitution, therefore an amendment is unnecessary.

2. If you mean to talk about the LAW that Congress passed that gives the President the power to declare a national emergency, I am not in favor of that. There's a reason Congress gave the President this power...there are limits to this power....Congress has the ability to affect any declaration that is made. I don't see the problem.

You should keep in mind that the power the President has is not absolute. Congress can negate the declaration...there are limits to what the President can do after he declares an emergency. I'd have to see what sort of changes you would propose and then decide if they are useful or not.

Also, keep in mind that changing the National Emergencies Act changes it for EVERY subsequent President. Think carefully before making changes, lest you hamper future Presidents and their ability to deal with future emergencies.

I am fundamentally against knee-jerk legislation. It usually turn out badly.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, "Der Leader" gets to make the laws.
Click to expand...
He gets to use the authority granted to him from congress to use his discretion to determine what constitutes a national emergency.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
I think we'll find that those eminent domain issues will be moot, considering the laws that have emergency provisions that take effect because of the National Emergency declaration.
Click to expand...
My understanding is an emergency order is not a blanket order, but must be enacted using specific provisions Congress enumerated, and they must be specified in Trump's order.

In his order Trump used "10 U.S. Code § 2808", which seems to apply to the funding of military construction, but nowhere in that statute or Trump's formal order did I see any clause related to the government confiscation of private citizens' properties.

Now I must admit I'm no lawyer, but I have not seen anything like you suggest in Trump's specific formal order. Check it out, and read the statutes themselves; everything's easily available via a cursory Goggle search.

Also - if this were truly an emergency and Trump had the authority to confiscate our properties, I believe the wall would already be getting built and the confiscation started.

Like I said - I'm no lawyer; I could be wrong. But this national emergency looks like a PR charade, to me.
 
Chomsky said:
My understanding is an emergency order is not a blanket order, but must be enacted using specific provisions Congress enumerated, and they must be specified in Trump's order.

In his order Trump used "10 U.S. Code § 2808", which seems to apply to the funding of military construction, but nowhere in that statute or Trump's formal order did I see any clause related to the government confiscation of private citizens' properties.

Now I must admit I'm no lawyer, but I have not seen anything like you suggest in Trump's specific formal order. Check it out, and read the statutes themselves; everything's easily available via a cursory Goggle search.

Also - if this were truly an emergency and Trump had the authority to confiscate our properties, I believe the wall would already be getting built and the confiscation started.

Like I said - I'm no lawyer; I could be wrong. But this national emergency looks like a PR charade, to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer either, but the way I see it the government already has the ability to engage in eminent domain proceedings. Trump doesn't have to cite any special emergency provisions in any law to do that. In the case of a court challenge, however, he WILL, then, cite applicable special emergency provisions and ask that the challenge be dismissed.

In other words, the special provisions don't become necessary until there is a court case.
 
Mycroft said:
No.

1. The power that the President has to declare a national emergency doesn't come from the Constitution, therefore an amendment is unnecessary.

2. If you mean to talk about the LAW that Congress passed that gives the President the power to declare a national emergency, I am not in favor of that. There's a reason Congress gave the President this power...there are limits to this power....Congress has the ability to affect any declaration that is made. I don't see the problem.

You should keep in mind that the power the President has is not absolute. Congress can negate the declaration...there are limits to what the President can do after he declares an emergency. I'd have to see what sort of changes you would propose and then decide if they are useful or not.

Also, keep in mind that changing the National Emergencies Act changes it for EVERY subsequent President. Think carefully before making changes, lest you hamper future Presidents and their ability to deal with future emergencies.

I am fundamentally against knee-jerk legislation. It usually turn out badly.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was thinking. The more precedent that is set for the current president to make a unilateral decision on what constitutes an emergency, the harder it will be to challenge future presidents who use the power. What argument will Congress have if a future president declares a national emergency in order to bypass Congress and seize tax dollars to pay for dealing with something that results in even more American deaths than illegal immigration? What if that something is firearms deaths or alcohol related deaths?

I'm not arguing that the current and future presidents don't have that power. I'm asking if they should.
 
lwf said:
This is exactly what I was thinking. The more precedent that is set for the current president to make a unilateral decision on what constitutes an emergency, the harder it will be to challenge future presidents who use the power. What argument will Congress have if a future president declares a national emergency in order to bypass Congress and seize tax dollars to pay for dealing with something that results in even more American deaths than illegal immigration? What if that something is firearms deaths or alcohol related deaths?

I'm not arguing that the current and future presidents don't have that power. I'm asking if they should.
Click to expand...

The precedent is already established. Every President since the Act was made law has made unilateral decisions on what constitutes an emergency. And every Congress has the power, under the Act, to negate the declaration made by the President. This is nothing new.

This current Congress tried to negate Trump's declaration. They failed. Sorry, but that's the way the cookie crumbled this time.

If a future President declares an emergency and the future Congress disagrees with the President, they have the same power...under the Act...to deal with it. However, that future President may need to deal with a situation that everyone agrees is an emergency. Do you really want that President to NOT be able to deal with it quickly?
 
Mycroft said:
The precedent is already established. Every President since the Act was made law has made unilateral decisions on what constitutes an emergency. And every Congress has the power, under the Act, to negate the declaration made by the President. This is nothing new.

This current Congress tried to negate Trump's declaration. They failed. Sorry, but that's the way the cookie crumbled this time.

If a future President declares an emergency and the future Congress disagrees with the President, they have the same power...under the Act...to deal with it. However, that future President may need to deal with a situation that everyone agrees is an emergency. Do you really want that President to NOT be able to deal with it quickly?
Click to expand...

It is a useful power. But it's also ripe for abuse. Maybe it would make sense to take away the president's veto power when it comes to Congressionally overturned national emergencies?
 
lwf said:
It is a useful power. But it's also ripe for abuse. Maybe it would make sense to take away the president's veto power when it comes to Congressionally overturned national emergencies?
Click to expand...

This has already been dealt with.

Procedure for new emergencies and rescinding emergency declarations

The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency.

After presidents objected to this "Congressional termination" provision on separation of powers grounds, and the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983) held such provisions to be an unconstitutional legislative veto,[16] it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution.

A joint resolution passed by both chambers requires presidential signature, giving the president veto power over the termination (requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses in the case of a contested termination).[17] The Act also requires the President and executive agencies to maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

So...if Congress tries to remove the President's veto power, they'll get slapped down by the Supremes again.
 
Mycroft said:
This has already been dealt with.



So...if Congress tries to remove the President's veto power, they'll get slapped down by the Supremes again.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. But this is descriptive of how the laws on the books work, not proscriptive of how they should work. This is what would (probably) happen, but is this what should happen? If the president wants emergency declaration powers, (which are not in the constitution) maybe he or she needs to submit to the possibility of a legislative veto of that particular declaration?
 
lwf said:
Thanks for that. But this is descriptive of how the laws on the books work, not proscriptive of how they should work. This is what would (probably) happen, but is this what should happen? If the president wants emergency declaration powers, (which are not in the constitution) maybe he or she needs to submit to the possibility of a legislative veto of that particular declaration?
Click to expand...

You are acting like this is something a President wants. The National Emergencies Act is something that Congress wanted.

Look. I fully understand you think Trump is taking advantage of the Act. Fair enough. That's your opinion.

All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for...you might get it and you might not like it.
 
Mycroft said:
You are acting like this is something a President wants. The National Emergencies Act is something that Congress wanted.

Look. I fully understand you think Trump is taking advantage of the Act. Fair enough. That's your opinion.

All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for...you might get it and you might not like it.
Click to expand...

I would like it if Congress had veto power over national emergency declarations. If a democrat president tried to declare a national emergency in order to get the funds to enact stricter gun control, I would want Congress to have the power to veto this. I want to get what I am wishing for. I suggest that it is you who ought to be careful what you wish for.

National emergencies should not be controversial. If a hurricane decimates a coastline, or mudslides bury entire communities, or a foreign power attacks our power grid, there would be no controversy over declaring a national emergency. Congress wouldn't even need to be involved. If a majority of Congress rejects the premise of a national emergency, then no national emergency ought to be declared, and if it is, Congress should be able to veto it.
 
lwf said:
I would like it if Congress had veto power over national emergency declarations. If a democrat president tried to declare a national emergency in order to get the funds to enact stricter gun control, I would want Congress to have the power to veto this. I want to get what I am wishing for. I suggest that it is you who ought to be careful what you wish for.

National emergencies should not be controversial. If a hurricane decimates a coastline, or mudslides bury entire communities, or a foreign power attacks our power grid, there would be no controversy over declaring a national emergency. Congress wouldn't even need to be involved. If a majority of Congress rejects the premise of a national emergency, then no national emergency ought to be declared, and if it is, Congress should be able to veto it.
Click to expand...

Funds aren't going to enable a Democratic President to enact stricter gun control. Doesn't matter if an emergency is declared or not.

Seriously...I don't think you have the faintest idea just what a President is able to do under the National Emergencies Act.

Seems to me your only beef with this whole thing is political. As I said...be careful what you wish for.
 
Chomsky said:
The above is true and accurate, and a nice succinct synopsis.

I'd only add that the funding bill Trump signed supposedly contains significant poison pills, and we have no idea what they are or if they affect policy outside of the funds in the bill. I imagine Trump has no political upside to speak to any clauses that handicap him in the appearances of building his wall.

In addition, the eminent domain issues will tie this project up in court for quite awhile.

It's for the reasons above, that I believe we will see little substantive progress in building this wall anytime soon, particularly during this Presidential term.
Click to expand...

And when some construction IS started, you can count on a whole lot of the construction materials being stolen and sold in Mexico - just like the concertina has been.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm not a lawyer either, but the way I see it the government already has the ability to engage in eminent domain proceedings. Trump doesn't have to cite any special emergency provisions in any law to do that. In the case of a court challenge, however, he WILL, then, cite applicable special emergency provisions and ask that the challenge be dismissed.

In other words, the special provisions don't become necessary until there is a court case.
Click to expand...

You are correct that the US government has the right to exercise "eminent domain".

You are wrong if you think that the right to exercise "eminent domain" means that the government has the power to simply take property without proper compensation, or without actually establishing the need to take the property.

You are wrong if you think that the right to exercise "eminent domain" means that the government has the power to take AND USE property until all questions regarding proper compensation or actual need to take the property have been settled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom