Trump, Walls, and Border Security

[rogue06]

What the left really means when they say they're for border security

00000000000000a00002.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Another win for the Trump administration:

Source: Judge Dismisses House Democrats’ Lawsuit Against Trump Border Wall

WASHINGTON, DC – A federal judge dismissed House Democrats’ lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s border wall, holding that the lawmakers lacked standing to bring the matter to court.

President Trump persuaded Congress to appropriate $1.4 billion for a border wall. He then also issued Presidential Proclamation 9844, exercising his authority under the National Emergencies Act to secure additional funding from three other federal sources totaling $6.7 billion more.

Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Democrats voted to sue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking an injunction against the Departments of Treasury, Defense, Interior and Homeland Security, to block construction of the wall. House Democrats argued the administration’s actions violate the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Department of Justice argued the House lacks standing to bring this political fight into federal court. House Democrats countered the Trump administration’s actions amounted to inflicting an “institutional injury” on Congress.

“The power of federal courts is not an unconditioned authority to determine the constitutionality of legislative or executive acts,” wrote Judge Trevor McFadden, quoting Supreme Court precedent.

“As the plaintiff, the House bears the burden of establishing standing,” the Trump-appointed trial judge continued. “The Court presumes that it lacks jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.”

Examining Supreme Court cases where Congress claimed previous administrations were injuring the legislative branch, the judge’s 24-page opinion reasoned that Congress had not exhausted the various tools at its disposal to stop the wall through the legislative process, and therefore had not suffered a concrete and distinct injury that conferred standing to bring this matter into court.

McFadden explained that “while the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority.”

The judge concluded that this is a political controversy that the Constitution requires the elected branches of government to work through with the various powers at their disposal, not a legal controversy that be decided by unelected federal judges.

House Democrats can now take this matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which currently leans to the judicial left. From there, the losing side may petition the Supreme Court to take the case, likely in 2020.

The case is U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin, No. 1:19-cv-969 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...p-border-wall/

© Copyright Original Source

[Leonhard]

How do people here propose that a wall even be built? The southern border isn't a straight path, and in at least one place the border runs along the middle of a river.

Are you guys comfortable with the idea of the US forcibly buying up a lot of land from private owners, and then effectively* ceding a portion of US soil to Mexico?


*I say effectively since in reality I think the US would just consider the lost soil on the other side of the wall their own still.

[Sparko]

How do people here propose that a wall even be built? The southern border isn't a straight path, and in at least one place the border runs along the middle of a river.

Are you guys comfortable with the idea of the US forcibly buying up a lot of land from private owners, and then effectively* ceding a portion of US soil to Mexico?

I'm asking this hypothetically as there isn't any tangible political will to get a wall like that built in the first place. The Democrats don't want it, and the Republicans don't want it. They had the House and Senate, and the President and arguably even the Supreme Court, and it still couldn't get passed.


*I say effectively since in reality I think the US would just consider the lost soil on the other side of the wall their own still.

Look up "Eminent Domain" as to how they can build it on private land.

But the idea is to build the wall where nature is not a natural barrier already.

This site is interesting as to where a wall currently exists, and where the gaps are. Even has video of the border.

https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall...ve-border-map/

[Leonhard]

Look up "Eminent Domain" as to how they can build it on private land.

That's pretty much what I meant. You'd be okay with the government deciding what some piece of land is worth and buying it from people? And then for Mexico to pretty much acquire whatever parts of the US happens to land on the other side of the wall?

Because it seems (to me) that this is pretty much what would happen, if a full coast-to-coast wall is built.

Or do you propose there being several privately controlled gates in the wall?

This site is interesting as to where a wall currently exists, and where the gaps are. Even has video of the border.

https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall...ve-border-map/

I will look at it when I get home when I get on a VPN, because it seems to present a European site without anything about border walls.

[Sparko]

That's pretty much what I meant. You'd be okay with the government deciding what some piece of land is worth and buying it from people? And then for Mexico to pretty much acquire whatever parts of the US happens to land on the other side of the wall?

Because it seems (to me) that this is pretty much what would happen, if a full coast-to-coast wall is built.

They will do whatever they have done in the past. If you look at that map site I gave you, there is already various types of border wall stretching from California to Texas. I am OK with them doing what they did for that.

Or do you propose there being several privately controlled gates in the wall?

I think there should only be specific border crossings at major highways, like they have now.


what the usatoday site shows:

ScreenHunter_.jpg

[Mountain Man]

I think comprehensive border security with some holes in it is vastly superior to the effectively no border security we have now.

[carpedm9587]

How do people here propose that a wall even be built? The southern border isn't a straight path, and in at least one place the border runs along the middle of a river.

Are you guys comfortable with the idea of the US forcibly buying up a lot of land from private owners, and then effectively* ceding a portion of US soil to Mexico?

*I say effectively since in reality I think the US would just consider the lost soil on the other side of the wall their own still.

The practicalities are often ignored in this discussion. You can't build a wall down the center of the river. Mexico won't let us build it on their side. That leaves our side, and far enough back from the river to avoid undermining due to flooding, effectively cutting the U.S. off from the Rio and (as you noted) ceding part of the U.S. to Mexico. Not to mention the extensive application of eminent domain that will be required to do any of this.

And there is a simple approach that avoids the entire need. Instead of spending billions on an infrastructure that will then need to be maintained, patrolled, and will still need supplementation by detecting systems, focus the money on the patrolling and detection (creating jobs) and the rest of the money on beefing up the immigration court system along the border so that asylum claims can be processed and concluded in a matter of days or a few weeks (again creating jobs). Supplement this with a stronger ability to process asylum claims at U.S. Embassies. Yes - it will require a lot of personnel - at first. But if the number who actually are granted asylum is relatively small, and the rest turned back in a matter of days, the word will go out that getting into the U.S. is an unlikely thing - and fewer will be willing to spend a fortune on Coyotes for a quest with a high probability of failure. As the tide slows, the personnel can be reduced accordingly.

The wall is and always has been a political stunt. It's an optic - designed to appeal to Trump's devoted base. He's not interested in real solutions. He's interested in claiming a win and being able to point to a "big beautiful wall" and crow.

[Sparko]

[RumTumTugger]

officer tatum is awesome he always hit the nail on the head when he goes off on what the left is doing wrong.