2000.00 Dog defeats 5 billion dollar wall
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...istory-n965486


Customs and Border Protection officers said Thursday they discovered 254 pounds of the drug hidden in a floor compartment of a truck loaded with cucumbers.


the majority of those against the 5 billion dollar wall have been saying this all along ... its the port of entry stupid

who is saying that if we build the wall, we don’t need people
and dogs at points of entry?

trumps plan, which includes the wall, also calls
for more agents at ports of entry. so it has something i’m there you like!

yet again, you’re responding to something that no one is saying.

the people
crossing illegally, aren’t always using ports of entry. that’s what the wall is for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wayne...try to elaborate and explain exactly what your point here is...this should be fun :hihi:

Thanks for exposing this crazy story. Wow!
Tear down the wall and build a kennel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you better or else you will get primaried out of the Trumplican Party.
At some point either Trump keeps ordering Congress to act at his bidding or they realize they are a separate and equal branch of government. Nothing to fear here.
Graham added: “He has all the power in the world to do this. To my Republican colleagues: stand behind him and, if you don’t, you’re going to pay a price.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It does raise the question, if it’s so easy to carry get drugs over an open border why do they primarily smuggle them through guarded ports of entry?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Geez - In the end does it matter if someones child dies from an overdose of drugs smuggled in by a vehicle through a border checkpoint, or in an illegal immigrants backpack walking through our border. Come on guys - think.

The argument so often used is, "If we could just do one thing to keep another family from the heartache of an overdose, shouldn't we do it?"

A multi-pronged effort is needed.

He best we can do is in a stalemate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what about the hundreds of thousands of illegals who cross annually, at places other than ports of entry?

why did barriers work in San Diego and Yuma?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We have spent at least 1.5 Trillion dollars in the War on Drugs.
We have not made a dent in the problem, so it is pretty obvious that law enforcement is incapable of stopping the drug trade and claiming that the wall will do something of consequence to drug addiction is unlikely.
There are things we need to do for Border Security that all agree on and that would be the starting point for negotiations.
Just stomping your feet and yelling Wall is not negotiating.
I've been involved in negotiations for a long time and rarely have seen just making demands work and when it did, there was not a next negotiation. The relationship was over. Period

we’ve spent more that that in the war on poverty, and we haven’t put a dent in that either.

rather than speculating wildly on what the wall will or won’t do, why can’t we look at what happened in places that enacted walls, like san diego and Yuma?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you ever get tired of "pissing into the wind"?

Meanwhile while so many idiots on this site spend 24/7 bitching and complaining just like the bias media and while a goberment shut down is going on, Trump just keeps getting the job done 👍

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/02/01/...uary-2019.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a record
This is the 100th straight month that jobs have increased.

Simple spending 2000 thousand dollars on dog is easier and more effective then a 15 billion dollar wall

I thought conservatives were all about old technology a dogs as old as it gets 15billion is a lot of dogs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again making comparisons of things that are not comparable

One effort is clearly done for a more honorable and noble cause than the other .. both are needed but objectives are clearly different
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why not both? Too much security?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because for some reason with them, it has to be one or the other. if anything other than a wall ever does anything good, that means walls don’t work. Capisce?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ask Trump why not both
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you "Trumped" them with that question.

everything you wrote is BS ..fed to you on a spoon from the right .. did you forget that we have the ability to record information the times it was said and who said it? And who’s wall your now trying to represent... is not the Wall Trump wants ..

this repackaging of Trumps statements and actions by you and other has been going on since he got elected Help yourselves and just admit you’re mistake .. you supported a undignified egotistic thin skinned vindictive liar . Who’s inner circle has plead guilty in bunches.. disrespects his intel people because the tell the Truth attacks the press the FBI

But what about those judges. That called selling ones soul
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’d guess because it’s easier to put 254 pounds of drugs in a car on a road than on a migrant's back in the desert
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. trump wants a wall, and he wants better security at ports of entry. he wants both. not just the wall.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here are some of that recorded info I mentioned
How Trump's wall has evolved

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0e27f2bd1820

so what he’s asking for now, isn’t identical to what he originally wanted. so what? maybe what he’s asking for now, is better?

guess what? democrats also aren’t saying the same thing today about the wall, that they said in 2013 ( when they all supported it.). so you’re ok when democrats change, but trump cant?

i honestly have no idea what you’re saying. other than trump
is wrong, obviously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If going from 19% to 12% is nothing, then you are correct.

If Trump negotiated instead of demanded it could get done.
Starting a negotiation with demands won't work.
He's the President of the USA, not the dictator of a banana republic.
Furthermore he cannot just have the military seize land without congressional authorization.


President Trump recently announced he could invoke national emergency powers to divert military funds to build his long-promised border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, since Congress won’t give him $5 billion in funding. He said he would grab the land “under the military version” of eminent domain “fairly quickly” — the Fifth Amendment power to seize private property for a public use upon just compensation.

But Trump’s threat of using the military to acquire land for a massive federal project is nothing new or extraordinary. What is extraordinary, however, is Trump’s assertion that he can unilaterally order the military to build the wall, including seizing land, by declaring a national emergency without statutory authorization, let alone evidence of a legitimate emergency.


Let’s start with the basic question. Can the military use eminent domain to seize private land along the border for Trump’s wall? Yes, of course. The United States has a long tradition of authorizing the military to seize private land for a federal project.

In 1864, Republicans and Democrats had a heated debate over a bill to fund the construction of a military arsenal in Rock Island, Illinois. The bill, controversially, also proposed to authorize the first instance of the federal power of eminent domain. Finally, after months of floor debates, it was Vice President Andrew Johnson who went to Congress to broker a deal. He wanted Congress to authorize the secretary of war (today the secretary of defense) to seize private land to build the arsenal. It worked. The bill passed and was later signed by President Abraham Lincoln.

Today, Congress has delegated the power to seize private property to many military branches, including the Army Corps of Engineers to construct military bases and the Department of Navy to acquire land for airfields and gunnery ranges. For example, it took 15 years for the Army Corps of Engineers to seize the land for the famous Truman Dam. Likewise, the Department of Navy filed thousands of eminent domain cases to acquire land for the Chocolate Mountain Gunnery Range during World War II.

If Congress passes a budget that includes Trump’s $5 billion in border wall funding, then technically it is possible that the Army Corps of Engineers could begin seizing land and constructing the wall. The Corps regularly works alongside the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to acquire land along the border for security purposes, most notably the fencing installed during the Bush and Obama administrations.

One problem, though, is the volume of land that needs to be acquired to build Trump’s “Great Wall” is vast. One-third of the land is owned by the federal government, while the rest of the land is owned by states, private property owners or Native American tribes. That will be no easy task, especially in Texas, where the vast majority of the land is privately owned.

The bigger problem, however, with Trump’s “military version” of eminent domain is the implication that he can divert military funding to order the military, most likely the Army Corps of Engineers, to seize land and construct the wall without statutory authorization. This is where Trump finds himself at a roadblock.

As Bruce Ackerman, law professor at Yale Law, rightly notes in his recent op-ed in the N.Y. Times, the Supreme Court has invalidated variations of the emergency power in its 1953 Youngstown v. Sawyer ruling, striking down President Truman's seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War as lacking implicit or express constitutional and statutory authority. However, while the Youngstown ruling restricted the "presidential" power to take private property during a national emergency, without statutory authorization, the court’s majority opinion did not explicitly restrain the "government" power to seize private property during a national emergency. The ruling noted that the president does not have the power to order the military to seize private property and that the power is the "job for the Nation's lawmakers, not for its military authorities."

If Trump wants the military to seize land for the construction of his wall, he should follow President Lincoln’s lead from 1864 by signing onto an appropriate congressional authorization that direct funds to and expressly authorizes the secretary of defense to order the Army Corps of Engineers to act.

Otherwise, Trump may be abrogating his constitutional authority by ordering the troops to go it alone in seizing land along the border.

wdmso, pete, spence - what about the border agents? do they know anything about what works and doesn’t work? when they say barriers will help, they’re lying for trump? they’re all racists, even though many are latino? or they just don’t know as
much about borders as chuck schumer? or
maybe, just maybe, they know something about what they’re talking about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why not just mine the border then?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Designated Decoy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device