Trump's Wall...Not As Popular As He Thinks

[righteousrepublic]

Sixteen states sue Trump over border wall emergency

(Agence France-Presse) - February 19, 2019 - 11:23am

SAN FRANCISCO, United States — Sixteen US states sued President Donald Trump's administration Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to fund a wall on the southern border with Mexico, saying the move violated the constitution.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in California, said the president's order was contrary to the Presentment Clause that outlines legislative procedures and the Appropriations Clause, which defines Congress as the final arbiter of public funds.

The move had been previously announced by Xavier Becerra the attorney general of California who said his state and others had legal standing because they risked losing moneys intended for military projects, disaster assistance and other purposes.

Several Republican senators have decried the emergency declaration, saying it establishes a dangerous precedent and amounts to executive overreach.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia are party to the complaint seeking an injunction.

"Use of those additional federal funds for the construction of a border wall is contrary to Congress's intent in violation of the US Constitution, including the Presentment Clause and Appropriations Clause," the complaint said.

It added that Trump had "veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making."

"Congress has repeatedly rebuffed the president's insistence to fund a border wall, recently resulting in a record 35-day partial government shutdown over the border wall dispute," the document read.

"After the government reopened, Congress approved, and the president signed into law, a $1.375 billion appropriation for fencing along the southern border, but Congress made clear that funding could not be used to build President Trump's proposed border wall."

The complaint added that the Department of Homeland Security had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to evaluate the environmental impact of the wall in California and New Mexico.

Friday's declaration enables the president to divert funds from the Pentagon's military construction budget and other sources.

Read more at https://www.philstar.com/world/2019/02/ ... 96cS7f7.99


16 states sue Trump administration over emergency declaration

[righteousrepublic]

I have a question. If a wall were to be built who is going to be owner of it, We The People or Government? We The People through taxes give a lot of money to government. Therefore, the wall ought to be owned by We The People.

Now, according to Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, Government can only own the ten square miles in Washington DC, and land needed for ports and forts.

If Trump is about to steal land from private land owners along the Rio Grande, this alone is against the Constitution.

If We The People are paying for all this to happen should we be happy to use our tax dollars to strip people of their land and give Government free reign on it to do even more damage if they deem it necessary?

So who, exactly, would take ownership of it, anyway?


If we're going to defend the Constitution, shouldn't we defend all of it or only the parts that we like?


I believe We The People should handle the crisis, not Government. They have too much power as it is right now.
And if We The People are too lackadaisical to handle it, then maybe we deserve what we get. Already they have ignored the Declaration of Independence in getting rid of a despotic government.

[kittycat51]

It's not a surprise as to which states are suing...prominently liberal.

[Michelle]

The only border state suing is California.

The other border states seem to be ok with it, maybe because of the direct impact it has on their sovereignty as states. Not to mention crime and cost of social services being directly paid for from their state funds.

I have concerns about the wall and the declaration of an emergency to build it, to be sure. But, if we are going to argue that we can pay to rebuild areas in states after disasters for the benefit of our country, surely we can pay to stop or avoid "disasters" from the same funds under the same argument.

We can't have it both ways. We have to choose.

[PressingForward]

Blah,
Liberal states attacking the President, surprise surprise surprise. Funny how none of them had an issue with Obama.

[thestock]

That Americans by and large ignore the fact, or are simply unaware, that the Democrats all used to support border security until they realized their only chance to stay in power is to flood red states with illegals who will vote for safety net handouts at the expense of hard working Americans is truly staggering. The Democrats so obviously care about themselves not only more than the American people, but at their expense.....and what's even crazier is many Americans support them in this because they are so effective at making it seem like border security is just another rube Trump idea.

Our nation deserves the government it has/gets.......we are all asleep at the wheel it seems.

[harakim]

The only border state suing is California.

The other border states seem to be ok with it, maybe because of the direct impact it has on their sovereignty as states. Not to mention crime and cost of social services being directly paid for from their state funds.

I have concerns about the wall and the declaration of an emergency to build it, to be sure. But, if we are going to argue that we can pay to rebuild areas in states after disasters for the benefit of our country, surely we can pay to stop or avoid "disasters" from the same funds under the same argument.

We can't have it both ways. We have to choose.

New Mexico is also a border state, so it's 50/50

[Michelle]

The only border state suing is California.

The other border states seem to be ok with it, maybe because of the direct impact it has on their sovereignty as states. Not to mention crime and cost of social services being directly paid for from their state funds.

I have concerns about the wall and the declaration of an emergency to build it, to be sure. But, if we are going to argue that we can pay to rebuild areas in states after disasters for the benefit of our country, surely we can pay to stop or avoid "disasters" from the same funds under the same argument.

We can't have it both ways. We have to choose.

New Mexico is also a border state, so it's 50/50

You are correct that New Mexico is also a border state. I looked at the list to quickly.

2/16 is 1/8th of those suing.

If you mean there are 4 border states so 50/50, I would argue that California and New Mexico have the smaller borders with Mexico than either Arizona or Texas. Combined they look to be about 1/2 of Arizona's border with Mexico and maybe a 1/4 of the size of Texas' border with Mexico. Combine that with the fact that California has such a large population of Mexican's and illegals anyway, it is easy to see why they aren't eager to close the border.

[Arenera]

The only border state suing is California.

The other border states seem to be ok with it, maybe because of the direct impact it has on their sovereignty as states. Not to mention crime and cost of social services being directly paid for from their state funds.

I have concerns about the wall and the declaration of an emergency to build it, to be sure. But, if we are going to argue that we can pay to rebuild areas in states after disasters for the benefit of our country, surely we can pay to stop or avoid "disasters" from the same funds under the same argument.

We can't have it both ways. We have to choose.

I understand 398,000 illegal immigrants came into the US in 2018. Where did they cross the border?

[larsenb]

But building the wall is logical.

And Trump knows very well the states and those who oppose it.

[Arenera]

But building the wall is logical.

And Trump knows very well the states and those who oppose it.

Not logical, doesn’t even address the issue.

[Michelle]

But building the wall is logical.

And Trump knows very well the states and those who oppose it.

Not logical, doesn’t even address the issue.

Kind of.

Of course the most logical option is to get rid of welfare. . . but since that is not happening. . . yes, a wall is better than nothing.

[larsenb]

But building the wall is logical.

And Trump knows very well the states and those who oppose it.

Not logical, doesn’t even address the issue.

How not, in your view?

In my view, you build a very good physical barrier, it not only makes it hard for anyone intent on breaching it to do so, but primarily, it would prevent many, many, many from even attempting the journey in the first place. I.e., it would most definitely reduce the influx by upwards of 85-95%, at least.

Very logical. Almost QED

[Arenera]

But building the wall is logical.

And Trump knows very well the states and those who oppose it.

Not logical, doesn’t even address the issue.

How not, in your view?

In my view, you build a very good physical barrier, it not only makes it hard for anyone intent on breaching it to do so, but primarily, it would prevent many, many, many from even attempting the journey in the first place. I.e., it would most definitely reduce the influx by upwards of 85-95%, at least.

Very logical. Almost QED

You guys are really disappointing me. You need to expand your reading and understand. If a wall was up tomorrow, it would reduce the influx by 0%. What, how is that possible?

How many people are crossing the border illegally?
It's impossible to say for certain but apprehensions made by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents provide one measure.

CBP made a total of 396,579 apprehensions on the south-western border in fiscal year 2018, and 303,916 in 2017.
The number had fallen dramatically in President Trump's first year but rose again last year.

Looking at the wider picture, there has been a sharp fall in the number of people arrested in the last 18 years.
So, is there a current "crisis" of illegal immigration on the southern border?
"No," says Jacinta Ma, director of policy and advocacy for the National Immigration Forum, which advocates on behalf of immigrants.

"Even with the rise in apprehensions over the last year, it's way down from the early 2000s."
Do most illegal entries take place at the southern border?
Illegal border crossings are not limited to the southern border - in 2017, for example, there were also 3,027 illegal apprehensions along the Canadian border and 3,588 from the coastal border.
While cross-border migrants often make headlines, the largest number of illegal migrants settling in the US each year is those who stay in the country after their visas expire.

According to the most recent reports by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Center for Migration Studies, a non-partisan think-tank, the number who overstayed their visas has outnumbered those who crossed the border illegally every year since 2007.
In 2017, Canadians made up the largest group of these illegal migrants that entered by air or sea port of entry, followed by Mexicans (it should be noted that the majority of Canadians and Mexicans enter the US by land, and the DHS Overstay Report only provides air and sea overstay rates).

In 2016, there were a total of 739,478 overstays, compared to 563,204 illegal border crossings.
It's also important to note that, according to the Pew Research Center, overall the number of immigrants living in the US illegally has actually declined since 2007, in large part due to a dip in the number of people coming from Mexico. Apprehensions at the south-western border peaked in 2000, at 1.64 million.
In total, Pew estimates that in 2016, there were 10.7 million unauthorised immigrants living in the US.

How many people are attempting to cross legally?

Apprehension numbers released by the CBP include asylum seekers (a person who applies for refugee status at a US port of entry or from within the country).
In fiscal year 2018, 92,959 people were deemed to have made claims of credible fear" and asked for asylum at the border. That's a pretty big jump from fiscal year 2017, when 55,584 claims were made.
Kate Jastram, senior staff attorney for the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, says that families fleeing violence in Central America began to make up a much larger part of border crossings beginning in 2014.
She says that has more to do with conditions in those countries than any immigration policy implemented by the Trump administration

Single men from Mexico were by and large not seeking asylum, they were looking for work," says Jastram. "[Now] we have families and children specifically seeking protection."
In November, a caravan of 7,000 migrants arrived at the US-Mexico border, many claiming to be fleeing violence in countries like Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Mr Trump labelled the caravan an "invasion".
Overall, the rate of asylum denials is on the rise in the US, and has been for the past six years..

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canad ... ting-story

[larsenb]

But building the wall is logical.

And Trump knows very well the states and those who oppose it.

Not logical, doesn’t even address the issue.

How not, in your view?

In my view, you build a very good physical barrier, it not only makes it hard for anyone intent on breaching it to do so, but primarily, it would prevent many, many, many from even attempting the journey in the first place. I.e., it would most definitely reduce the influx by upwards of 85-95%, at least.

Very logical. Almost QED

You guys are really disappointing me. You need to expand your reading and understand. If a wall was up tomorrow, it would reduce the influx by 0%. What, how is that possible? . . . .

I think you are too easily disappointed.

"If a wall was up tomorrow, it would reduce the influx by 0%". Care to explain in your own words why this would be?

[Arenera]

Not logical, doesn’t even address the issue.

How not, in your view?

In my view, you build a very good physical barrier, it not only makes it hard for anyone intent on breaching it to do so, but primarily, it would prevent many, many, many from even attempting the journey in the first place. I.e., it would most definitely reduce the influx by upwards of 85-95%, at least.

Very logical. Almost QED

You guys are really disappointing me. You need to expand your reading and understand. If a wall was up tomorrow, it would reduce the influx by 0%. What, how is that possible? . . . .

I think you are too easily disappointed.

"If a wall was up tomorrow, it would reduce the influx by 0%". Care to explain in your own words why this would be?

Look above, I included quotes.

[InfoWarrior82]

Look above, I included quotes.

Would it be possible the reason for arrest numbers going down was because not as many were being caught? 300,000 on average caught over the last two years? Sounds like a big deal to me. Heck even if it were 250,000 this year, still sounds like a big deal.

[Arenera]

Look above, I included quotes.

Would it be possible the reason for arrest numbers going down was because not as many were being caught? 300,000 on average caught over the last two years? Sounds like a big deal to me. Heck even if it were 250,000 this year, still sounds like a big deal.

The point is a wall won’t stop them from coming in.

[InfoWarrior82]

The point is a wall won’t stop them from coming in.

I believe my point had nothing to do with a wall at all. Simply about whether or not they are being caught at the same rate.

[larsenb]

How not, in your view?

In my view, you build a very good physical barrier, it not only makes it hard for anyone intent on breaching it to do so, but primarily, it would prevent many, many, many from even attempting the journey in the first place. I.e., it would most definitely reduce the influx by upwards of 85-95%, at least.

Very logical. Almost QED

You guys are really disappointing me. You need to expand your reading and understand. If a wall was up tomorrow, it would reduce the influx by 0%. What, how is that possible? . . . .

I think you are too easily disappointed.

"If a wall was up tomorrow, it would reduce the influx by 0%". Care to explain in your own words why this would be?

Look above, I included quotes.

I was interested in your logic . . . your formulation of it, not 'info' supplied by BBC. When I see a BBC citation, I quickly run in the opposite direction.

[larsenb]

Look above, I included quotes.

Would it be possible the reason for arrest numbers going down was because not as many were being caught? 300,000 on average caught over the last two years? Sounds like a big deal to me. Heck even if it were 250,000 this year, still sounds like a big deal.

The point is a wall won’t stop them from coming in.

Such pessimism. My, my.

[righteousrepublic]

WATCH THIS REPORTER JUMP OVER THE BORDER "WALL"!!! The Orange Street News Tests Border Security!

[Arenera]

The point is a wall won’t stop them from coming in.

I believe my point had nothing to do with a wall at all. Simply about whether or not they are being caught at the same rate.

This is a good article, has graphs and shows fencing in place: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/68366269 ... ta-tell-us

Most undocumented immigrants didn't enter this country through Tijuana, where news cameras have captured images of thousands of immigrants seeking refuge during recent months.

And they didn't enter near the border town of McAllen, Texas, which the president visited Thursday during the 20th day of a partial government shutdown fought over constructing additional barriers on the Southern border.

When it comes to people in the country without proper documentation, the majority of them didn't cross the Mexican border at all. Most of them came to the United States legally — but then don't leave.

About 700,000 travelers to the United States overstayed their visas in fiscal 2017, the most recent year for which the Department of Homeland Security has published figures. DHS estimated that, as of Sept. 30, 2017, the end of that fiscal year, more than 600,000 of those travelers were still in the U.S.

During that same year, there were just 300,000 apprehensions along the Southern border, according to Customs and Border Protection — the lowest number since 1971.

The agency catches the highest number of undocumented migrants in the Rio Grande Valley sector of south Texas. This includes McAllen, where the president visited on Thursday.

In fiscal 2018, CBP apprehended 162,000 people in the Rio Grande Valley. None of the eight other Border Patrol sectors on the Southern border had even half of that activity.

"What we've been seeing over the past few months is a dramatic increase in families and kids," Andrew Meehan, CBP's assistant commissioner for public affairs, told NPR. "You have Border Patrol stations that are largely at capacity and are not equipped to handle the large surge of families and kids that have approached our border."

In 2017, the Border Patrol employed more than 19,000 agents, almost double the number in fiscal 2003. And the agency's budget grew from $263 million in 1990 to more $3.8 billion in 2016, according to the American Immigration Council. The budget for Customs and Border Protection — which includes the Border Patrol — has grown from $5.9 billion in 2003 to $13.2 billion in 2016.

At the same time, apprehensions at the Southern border have declined — from a high of more than 1.6 million in 2000 to just over 300,000 in 2017.

Despite consistently high apprehensions in sectors that do contain fencing, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said at the White House on Wednesday that "everywhere we put up a wall, illegal immigration has been reduced 90 to 95 percent."

Yet, CBP data shows that the number of people that agents have caught has decreased across the board — not just in areas where the government constructed barriers.

The sector of the Southwestern border with the fewest apprehensions, on the other hand, has almost no fencing. The Big Bend sector, starting in West Texas and extending about halfway down the state, is the largest individual sector guarded by CBP. The rough terrain of the mountain ranges and the Chihuahuan Desert make it a difficult place to cross. In fiscal 2018, CBP apprehended just 8,000 people there.

[InfoWarrior82]

Are you arguing that because apprehensions are down, means walls don't work?