Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1162365)

Fascists love a dictator ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162363)

Trump has now decided that he needs to declare an Emergency.
I expect the House to pass legislation denying his emergency.
McConnell then is required to put it to a vote, no if ands or buts. If the Republican majority in the Senate ignores the Constitution and fails to pass it they will have ceded the power of the purse to the President and set a very dangerous precedent, that will be repeated in the future. Of course it won’t be over at that point, Trump would most likely veto it and then we would really find out if the executive branch controls all of Government.
All of us heard plenty of wailing about Obama’s overreaches on DACA and Libya to know that for the Republicans to not act on this is hypocritical at best.

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie (Post 1162368)

Maybe after you experience a family member get hooked on the drugs that are and have been flooding in from Mexico and they overdose & die, then you change your tune.
Maybe you need a family member killed by an illegal to change your tune.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie (Post 1162368)

Maybe after you experience a family member get hooked on the drugs that are and have been flooding in from Mexico and they overdose & die, then you change your tune.
Maybe you need a family member killed by an illegal to change your tune.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162377)

I also know people that have lost family members to gun violence which claims 100+ victims daily in this country, which is far more than murders by illegal immigrants and that’s not an emergency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie (Post 1162368)

Maybe after you experience a family member get hooked on the drugs that are and have been flooding in from Mexico and they overdose & die, then you change your tune.
Maybe you need a family member killed by an illegal to change your tune.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1162386)

Can’t fight the base with facts, they can’t believe the CDC’s stats that deaths can be attributed to 40% prescription opioids, 37% heroin and 46% fentanyl. Blame doctors and the US Pharmas for the first, the Mexican cartels for heroin and China for fentanyl. The DEA says most of the Mexican heroin is coming in by air and sea, but these facts don’t matter, this is and always has been all about a campaign promise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1162365)

Fascists love a dictator ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1162386)

Can’t fight the base with facts, they can’t believe the CDC’s stats that deaths can be attributed to 40% prescription opioids, 37% heroin and 46% fentanyl. Blame doctors and the US Pharmas for the first, the Mexican cartels for heroin and China for fentanyl. The DEA says most of the Mexican heroin is coming in by air and sea, but these facts don’t matter, this is and always has been all about a campaign promise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162377)

II also know people that have lost family members to gun violence which claims 100+ victims daily in this country, which is far more than murders by illegal immigrants and that’s not an emergency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1162383)

Last I heard the opiate crisis was supplied by American pharmasutical companies.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1162388)

The real National Emergency is the National Effing Debt.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1162391)

Not heroin.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1162397)

Heroine is easier and cheaper to get for people hooked on Oxy.

Fentanyl is cheaper and easier for drug dealers to use to screw over people wanting heroine.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1162388)

The real National Emergency is the National Effing Debt.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1162400)

You got that right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1162390)

Stupid argument. No one is saying that all crime is committed by illegals. But we can't kick out American citizens who are would-be criminals, and send them to Mexico. The federal government possibly could deport all those who are here illegally, and some feel they should. Before Trump was POTUS, we heard Obama, Pelosi, Hilary talk about the downside of illegal immigration and porous borders.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1162390)

The federal government certainly can deport all those who are here illegally, and many feel they should.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162406)

fixed it for you
Stupid reason for the reallocation of resources.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1162407)

How exactly do you deport 12 million people, many with families containing minor US citizens?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1162387)

First, how is it known that most come by air and sea? Is that a supposedly educated guess? If actual deliveries have been known to be happening, then they all should have been stopped. If the smuggling has been successful (undetected), as it apparently was, then how has it been determined which way it came?

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1162411)

.

How about a really simple answer, the experts at the DEA have studied the issue in depth.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1162412)

Now here's a question for you...if you are so confident in relying on the "experts at the DEA" to conclude that the wall won't help put a huge dent in the drug smuggling...how come you're equally quick to dismiss the "experts at the Border Patrol (including the guy Obama picked to head the entire border patrol), who say that a wall will certainly help with a host of problems?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1162371)

Nothing you have said here indicates that Trump's invoking of his emergency power would set a dangerous or anti-Constitutional precedent.

Use of emergency power spending does not cede the congressional power of the purse to the President. Congress can deny the money, unless it has already been designated and a majority does not revoke that. If Trump can find already allocated funds, and Congress does not deny his use of them, he can constitutionally use the money.

It can eventually go to the Supreme Court to decide. I'm sure you would have no issue with how the Court would decide it since you approve of the judicial right to "interpret" on the basis of personal opinion on what is right.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1162413)

I don't believe that's the case.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162416)

Name one case where a president has asked Congress for money, Congress has refused, and the president has then invoked national emergency powers to get the money anyway.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1162411)

This is pretty convoluted,

What's so convoluted about "First, how is it known that most come by air and sea? Is that a supposedly educated guess? If actual deliveries have been known to be happening, then they all should have been stopped. If the smuggling has been successful (undetected), as it apparently was, then how has it been determined which way it came?"

Three simple and related questions. One straightforward statement. No convolution. Sometimes, I think you just like to use certain words. Like "convoluted."

it's the same argument Stephen Miller tried to use when Wallace embarrassed him yesterday morning. How about the pineapple smuggling along the Rio Grande? What, never heard of it??? Exactly the point.

Now, here you are skirting the borders of convolution, becoming "extremely complex and difficult to follow." Is there some scuttlebutt about whether pineapples are smuggled here more by air and sea than by land? I'm not following your comparison. Exactly what point are you referring to?

How about a really simple answer, the experts at the DEA have studied the issue in depth.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1162418)

And here's what the head of the BP union had to say...

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-w...-patrol-union/

And here, a union survey of 600 agent sin two of the southern border's busiest areas, 89% support the wall.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-survey-finds/

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1162424)

Have these "experts" explained how they arrived at their conclusion? That shouldn't be difficult to lay out in order to convince us that their figures are correct. Oh . . . have the experts actually discovered some numbers/ratios about how much comes across the border and how much comes by air and sea? Can you point out what numbers they came up with?

Or do you just take their word, and, as Jim in CT pointed out, do you dismiss the words of other "experts."

And, if the smuggling of narcotics by the air/sea combination is stopped, would that mean that "the most" would then be by land? Or would it mean that no more illegal narcotics would be delivered here from south of the border, not even by land? What is the relevant point being made by claiming one method smuggles more than another?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162428)

Border Patrol and DEA seize about 775 tons of illegal drugs on the southern border and they say the great majority come thru ports of entry. I assume they know what they are talking about at least about where they apprehend the traffickers.
Assuming a human can carry 15 kilos which is a heavy load and likely means they could carry no water or food, it would take 60 people to carry each ton and a large number would be apprehended if any significant amount was moved that way. Border patrol and DEA would certainly be able to determine if that was happening, would they not?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162426)

And when the current head of the BP union got elected he immediately cozied up to Trump and changed the BP union position on the wall. (Jim, I thought you disliked unions) I posted the link to that previously.
Here is the text
The NBPC disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States. However, as long as we continue to operate under the current NBPS and ignore the problem that is causing illegal immigration, we realize fences and walls are essential.

Walls and fences are temporary solutions that focus on the symptom (illegal immigration) rather than the problem (employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens).

Walls and fences are only a speed bump. People who want to come to the United States to obtain employment will continue to go over, under, and around the walls and fences that are constructed.

Walls and fences will undoubtedly result in an increase in fraudulent documents and smuggling through the Ports of Entry.

Walls and fences do not solve the issue of people entering the country legally and staying beyond the date they are required to leave the country, a problem which will undoubtedly increase as more walls and fences are constructed.

The NBPC position regarding walls and fences is not due to a concern of losing our jobs if fences and walls are built. On the contrary, the NBPC realizes that walls and fences require just as much manpower to protect them. Border Patrol Agents witness what happens to walls and fences when there are not enough Border Patrol agents to protect them.
Now show me the survey, not some reporters opinion of what it said.
Surveys are all about the question, not the number of yes or no answers.
I believe the question was wall a barrier help yes or no
The BPs position prior to the election of a Trump ally as head was manpower was the #1 deterrent. A wall without manpower becomes holes with wall between them.

We have barriers at all populated areas, so a better question would be to pick 2 out of 3 for unpopulated areas
Manpower
Barrier
Electronic devices
That would be a far more interesting question than do you think walls help.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162426)

The NBPC disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States. However, as long as we continue to operate under the current NBPS and ignore the problem that is causing illegal immigration, we realize fences and walls are essential.

Walls and fences are temporary solutions that focus on the symptom (illegal immigration) rather than the problem (employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens).

I don't know the numbers, but a whole lot of illegals create their own communities and jobs. And they are magnets as places for more to come and find a place to settle. I suspect that the "problem" is more than employers hiring illegals. But, as the NBPC said, for the time being we have to focus on and treat the "symptoms" and build fences and walls which are essential.

Walls and fences are only a speed bump.

Speed bumps work, even though they only treat the symptoms.

People who want to come to the United States to obtain employment will continue to go over, under, and around the walls and fences that are constructed.

So are those women and children, who supposedly comprise the majority of illegal immigrants, coming here for employment?

Walls and fences will undoubtedly result in an increase in fraudulent documents and smuggling through the Ports of Entry.

That's only because walls between Ports would stop them.

Walls and fences do not solve the issue of people entering the country legally and staying beyond the date they are required to leave the country, a problem which will undoubtedly increase as more walls and fences are constructed.

The legal problem would increase because the illegal problem would be lessened. So should we, as I sarcastically said in my reply to your original posting of this article "better not solve the issue of people entering illegally because it will increase the problem of them coming legally."

The NBPC position regarding walls and fences is not due to a concern of losing our jobs if fences and walls are built. On the contrary, the NBPC realizes that walls and fences require just as much manpower to protect them. Border Patrol Agents witness what happens to walls and fences when there are not enough Border Patrol agents to protect them.

I believe the question was wall a barrier help yes or no
The BPs position prior to the election of a Trump ally as head was manpower was the #1 deterrent. A wall without manpower becomes holes with wall between them.

Yup, walls and more agents are PART of the essential solution.

We have barriers at all populated areas, so a better question would be to pick 2 out of 3 for unpopulated areas
Manpower
Barrier
Electronic devices
That would be a far more interesting question than do you think walls help.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1163416)

More "migrants" are crossing the border now:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mo...mage=BBOwDsq|1