Should the president go ahead and declare a national emergency?

WordsMatter

In the rare instances where I find myself agreeing 100% with Rand Paul then you know there's something there. Spending is the job of Congress. Plus this would set a terrible precedent. In the future Democrats would be more justified in declaring gun violence or climate change as a national emergency. Executive action is not the way to go about massive expensive controversial policies. Personally I already believe the executive branch holds more power than they are supposed to and that power needs to be reigned in. I already don't like how almost every 8 years almost all executive actions get reversed entirely. It makes governing the country more difficult and sends a terrible international message. This would just be another step in the direction of too much executive power.

AlofRI

If there is a national emergency ANY President should. Being "attacked" by a bunch of , largely, women and children, does not a national emergency make. 
We have a reputation as compassionate people. Some wish to forget that and play "Follow the Leader", who is the most self-indulgent, unfeeling one I remember, and I've lived through 14 of them. 
It wasn't long ago that it was "required" by Republicans that all of U.S. go by the "doctrine" of Saint Reagan. HE was FOR immigration, FOR bringing in workers to do the jobs Americans couldn't afford to do. He said: "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally." (10/28/1984).

How the respected have fallen since Mr. Trump stirred the pot. I hope the Republicans can, once again, gain control of their Party from the "Trumpians". They were so much nicer.

whiteflame

Trump has, for better or worse, bucked a lot of the norms we took for granted all presidents would uphold, and while I feel a lot of them were net harmful, this one is particularly troubling. Even if you believe that illegal immigration is bad enough to meet the threshold of a national emergency, the precedent this sets is a very dangerous one: so long as a given problem can be deemed an emergency, the president may override the legislative branch to address it. I don't think we could set aside the fact that this particular national emergency is aimed at fulfilling a campaign promise, I don't think we can ignore the fact that there are other ways to go about addressing this problem with the support of Congress, and I don't think it's possible to diminish the importance of the funds he will be using, which will likely come from budgets aimed at supporting states who are experiencing actual emergencies (largely based on which state they are, as Trump has made clear).

However, even if we could treat these as non-issues, I don't see any way that we can justify appropriating funds in this way. Trump is dramatically altering the way that presidential power can be wielded, and is doing so in a way that further centralizes the power of the executive branch, diminishes the balance of powers with the legislative branch, and expands the capacity to use national emergency powers to a level where it can be used to justify almost anything. I'll be very interested to see how Republicans in Congress react to his decision to move forward with this.

WordsMatter

Mere hours and Pandora's box has already been opened.

Rep Earl Blumenauer, of Oregon’s third district, has filed a resolution to declare a national emergency over the climate crisis.

“What our country should be doing right now is focusing efforts on addressing a real national emergency and one of the most pressing issues of our time: the climate crisis,” Blumenauer said in a letter to Congress.

“If Donald Trump wants to start declaring national emergencies for fake crises, Congress should start to address the real ones, starting with climate change.”

Also let's add the Trump press conference quote "I didn't need to do this but I'd <b> rather</b> do it much faster"

MayCaesar

Instead of appealing to the ethics in politics (which is always a lost battle), one should ask why the president has such powers in the first place. Why is it that one person can legally do such things as shut the entire federal government down, push executive orders through while bypassing all the checks and balances, declaring national emergencies that allow the government to violate basic human rights of citizens, and so on? Is this how a proper republic should work? I do not think so.

Trump is right to use all the tools at his disposal in order to achieve his goals; in fact, so far he has shown an incredible restraint, given his character. Would anyone do otherwise in his place? He wants some things happen, and he can make them happen legally - so why not use this possibility? People have allowed such a strange system to occur in their government, and it is only reasonable for the governmental officials to use the system for their personal benefit.

Give me all the tools allowing me to remake the country's laws in my preferred image, and I will use them. I believe it is the same for almost everyone out there. Many of Trump's critics, upset with his overuse of executive power, were perfectly happy when a different president just as well used them to push his line. There are very few people who hold general principles above the circumstantial opportunities, and will break their principles as soon as they believe that it is for the greater good.

This is why we need checks and balances in the first place. You support the power abuse by someone you like - chances are eventually it will be done by someone you dislike. Either you do not allow the power to be abused by anyone, or you open a can of worms which, even if short-term beneficial to you, long-term will be your doom.

It all goes back to Lincoln and his anti-democratic actions. He justified them by the needs of the Civil War. He believed they were necessary to end slavery. Were they? Perhaps. Either way, it was inevitable that that precedent would eventually grow into something monstrous. And here we are, with a person who barely knows anything about politics at the helm of the world's leading superpower, essentially being allowed to play a king. This is a sad state of affairs, but hardly unexpected, and now is not the time to complain. The time for complaints ended many decades ago; now it is time to mature up and to own up to the mistakes that were made. 

TKDB

Human trafficking.

Illegal drug trafficking.

The murders and sexual assaults that have committed by some of the illegal aliens?

https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.foxnews.com/health/fentanyl-deaths-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp;amp_gsa=1&amp;usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#aoh=15502721273641&amp;csi=1&amp;referrer=https://www.google.com&amp;amp_tf=From %1$s&amp;ampshare=https://www.foxnews.com/health/fentanyl-deaths-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard

From Fox news:

"Fentanyl deaths from 'Mexican oxy' pills hit Arizona hard"

"Aaron Francisco Chavez swallowed at least one of the sky blue pills at a Halloween party before falling asleep forever. He became yet another victim killed by a flood of illicit fentanylsmuggled from Mexico into the Southwest — a profitable new business for drug gangs that has pushed the synthetic opioid to the top spot for fatal U.S. overdoses.

Three others at the party in Tucson also took the pills nicknamed "Mexican oxy" and police down by partygoers saved them by administering naloxone overdose reversal medication. But the treatment came too late for Chavez, who died at age 19."

The above article is sad and tragic, 

So, are maybe none of the above crimes worthy of a national emergency being declared over them?

WordsMatter

@TKDB wouldn't then gun violence be worth a national emergency? How about the opiate epidemic? Climate change? Should any future president be able to pull funds from wherever they like to do whatever they want to address these "emergencies?" 

What is the line between a problem and an emergency? How many murders, drugs, and sexual assaults makes an emergency? 1 of each? 

You can't just say drugs murder and sexual assaults are bad therefore any place that they come from constitutes a national emergency. There has to be some kind of standard. For me it would be something that is an active and current threat to reasonably topple the country in a short amount of time. All of the things I mentioned and illegal immigration would not fall in this category.

You mention fetanyl deaths from Mexico. Should the president declare a national emergency to infringe on Purdue Pharma's free market rights and directly interfere with their opiote production? After all prescription pills are the most abused form of opiates in America.

Lastly please use a better source than Fox news next time. If it's any news source that is on cable then I dismiss it.

whiteflame

For those who do support this declaration of a national emergency, I really just have to ask: where does the power to declare an emergency end? We can all agree that illegal immigration is a problem, and, depending on how you view it, we could even see it as a dire issue. The problem is that whole "depending on how we view it" part because that's a pretty broad and subjective way to assess a given issue and determine that it meets the threshold of a national emergency. @WordsMatter lays out pretty effectively what other issues may be viewed in the same light, listing divisive issues that may not achieve bipartisan support in Congress, but could easily be viewed as so massively damaging to the country as to warrant the designation of "national emergency."

So, where does it end? Admittedly, I don't think we can or should define the moment something becomes an emergency (mainly because awarding that designation should be done on a case-by-case basis, and some may not fall within general bounds of what we may now consider to be an emergency), but that makes it all the more important that presidents don't drastically overstep with this power. Emergency powers are exceedingly important in a country where normal legislative processes are slow, but what definitely sets them apart from other circumstances is two things: 1) a clear and immediate need that requires rapid action, and 2) a cause that Congress can at least begrudgingly agree to handle. If we don't set these boundaries, any president can simply enact their own legislative agenda by bypassing Congress entirely and declaring a national emergency, stripping funds from whatever part of the defense budget they wish. 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Human trafficking is a real problem, but it's a moral & humanitarian challenge to the country not a National Emergency.  First, it can only be solved on the user-buyer side, because the overwhelming majority of the victims are not coming from Mexico, they are already inside the borders. They are american born, troubled young adults & teenagers who run away. In 2017, an estimated 1 out of 7 endangered runaways reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children were likely child sex trafficking victims.

• Of those, 88% were in the care of social services or foster care when they ran.

 A wall won't help them... Better social services will, better education will, give them a genuine sense of community free from bigotry & judgmental attitudes and it will definitely help them...

Illegal drug trafficking is evidently also a problem. But according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90% of heroin seized along the border, 88% of cocaine, 87% of methamphetamine, and 80% of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year was caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points. Drugs get in by the tons, hidden in toys, food, furniture, appliances, whatever they can think of really, as long as it can be shipped by container thus, port of entry... Drug lords don't waste time and resources trying to smuggle 500kg by sending 100 dealers, hidden in civilian groups, trying to smuggle 5kg each on foot, in difficult terrain, with risks to the merch, they're not idiots, that's not how they created a business worth billions... You can argue with facts as long as you want but the reality is that a wall can't solve this either. 

It's eerily fascinating to watch this tragedy unfold from the outside, it really is tragic... A once great republic being eaten alive by a fast growing malignant brain cancer... Trump's legacy won't be a wall, his presidency will be remembered as a national psychotic episode... 

TKDB

@WordsMatter

None of the below news articles are from Fox news.

https://www.abc15.com/news/state/fentanyl-deaths-from-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2019-02-14/fentanyl-deaths-from-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard

https://www-gjsentinel-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.gjsentinel.com/news/world/fentanyl-deaths-from-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard/article_61c710f9-5e70-5fe5-8e7b-fbec7b2e8361.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp;amp_gsa=1&amp;usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp;amp_tf=From %1$s&nbsp;

TKDB

@WordsMatter

Why not get on Twitter, and pose these questions to the President himself?

 "wouldn't then gun violence be worth a national emergency? How about the opiate epidemic? Climate change? Should any future president be able to pull funds from wherever they like to do whatever they want to address these "emergencies?"

"What is the line between a problem and an emergency? How many murders, drugs, and sexual assaults makes an emergency? 1 of each?"

"You mention fetanyl deaths from Mexico. Should the president declare a national emergency to infringe on Purdue Pharma's free market rights and directly interfere with their opiote production? After all prescription pills are the most abused form of opiates in America."

Your posed questions, could become a National debate, between you and Trump? 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

You could go on Twitter as well, and ask the President your posed statements, and have a National debate with the President as well? 

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

@Plaffelvohfen

You could go on Twitter as well, and ask the President your posed statements, and have a National debate with the President as well? 

This ^^^^^

Is off topic...

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

So, you concede the points then?  Good, thank you. 

Also, I don't tweet and even if I did, there's no point debating people who do not value honesty, facts & reality. 

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

@WordsMatter

Why not get on Twitter, and pose these questions to the President himself?

Because, the Don wouldn't actually care about the facts that a wall is ineffective, and he's opening Pandora's box when it comes to national emergencies 

 "wouldn't then gun violence be worth a national emergency? How about the opiate epidemic? Climate change? Should any future president be able to pull funds from wherever they like to do whatever they want to address these "emergencies?"

"What is the line between a problem and an emergency? How many murders, drugs, and sexual assaults makes an emergency? 1 of each?"

"You mention fetanyl deaths from Mexico. Should the president declare a national emergency to infringe on Purdue Pharma's free market rights and directly interfere with their opiote production? After all prescription pills are the most abused form of opiates in America."

Your posed questions, could become a National debate, between you and Trump? 

Pretty sure @WordsMatter wouldn't waste his time with the orange fool who denies climate change and thinks a wall will stop illegal immigration

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

@WordsMatter

None of the below news articles are from Fox news.

https://www.abc15.com/news/state/fentanyl-deaths-from-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2019-02-14/fentanyl-deaths-from-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard

https://www-gjsentinel-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.gjsentinel.com/news/world/fentanyl-deaths-from-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard/article_61c710f9-5e70-5fe5-8e7b-fbec7b2e8361.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp;amp_gsa=1&amp;usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp;amp_tf=From %1$s&nbsp;

No, those aren't but this is

TKDB said:

Human trafficking.

Illegal drug trafficking.

The murders and sexual assaults that have committed by some of the illegal aliens?

https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.foxnews.com/health/fentanyl-deaths-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp;amp_gsa=1&amp;usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#aoh=15502721273641&amp;csi=1&amp;referrer=https://www.google.com&amp;amp_tf=From %1$s&amp;ampshare=https://www.foxnews.com/health/fentanyl-deaths-mexican-oxy-pills-hit-arizona-hard

From Fox news:

"Fentanyl deaths from 'Mexican oxy' pills hit Arizona hard"

"Aaron Francisco Chavez swallowed at least one of the sky blue pills at a Halloween party before falling asleep forever. He became yet another victim killed by a flood of illicit fentanylsmuggled from Mexico into the Southwest — a profitable new business for drug gangs that has pushed the synthetic opioid to the top spot for fatal U.S. overdoses.

Three others at the party in Tucson also took the pills nicknamed "Mexican oxy" and police down by partygoers saved them by administering naloxone overdose reversal medication. But the treatment came too late for Chavez, who died at age 19."

The above article is sad and tragic, 

So, are maybe none of the above crimes worthy of a national emergency being declared over them?

Soooooooooooo… you contradicted yourself...

again

TKDB

The Border, where the illegal aliens have been illegally crossing into the United States, community such crimes as sexual assaults, murder, stealing from the ranchers who live along the Border.

So murder, sexual assault, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and it's viewed as no big deal?

There are US citizens doing all sorts of drugs, no big deal as well right? 

The President of the United States doesn't know what he's talking about right?

But the drug traffickers, the human traffickers, and the illegal alien criminals, what they say and do, would get interfered with, if a barrier was constructed and blocked their intry into the US I guess, because a barrier along the border makes them the real victims, right?

So keep the border open, because that's how some of today's modern human beings act, politely inhumane.

That's quite the gift, isnt it?

Amnesty is thick in the air? 

TKDB

@Zombieguy1987

You used my points of view again, to do your arguing for you?

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

The Border, where the illegal aliens have been illegally crossing into the United States, community such crimes as sexual assaults, murder, stealing from the ranchers who live along the Border.

Illegal immigration is an issue, I can agree to that, but it's NOT worth making a national emergency over.


So murder, sexual assault, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and it's viewed as no big deal?

No one on here is saying that the crimes illegals commit is "No big deal" the issue is Trump is opening Pandora's box when it comes to national emergencies 

There are US citizens doing all sorts of drugs, no big deal as well right? 

This is irrelevant to the debate 



The President of the United States doesn't know what he's talking about right?

No, he DOESN'T know what the hell he's talking about.

He thinks a WALL will stop the flow of illegal immigration! Nearly ~50 to 60% overstay their visas! What is a wall going to do about that!?

But the drug traffickers, the human traffickers, and the illegal alien criminals, what they say and do, would get interfered with, if a barrier was constructed and blocked their entry into the US I guess, because a barrier along the border makes them the real victims, right?

My god, you're making this so cringy.



No! They're NOT the victims, but do you really think a wall is going to stop criminals? This is like banning guns. criminals will still get guns by illegal means (Like the black market). As such, drug and human traffickers will just use other means to bypass the wall...

So keep the border open, because that's how some of today's modern human beings act, politely inhumane.

Based off the other garbage you spew I already explained the idiocy here 

That's quite the gift, isnt it?

Amnesty is thick in the air? 



God, you make this so hard

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

You used my points of view again, to do your arguing for you?



It's called counter arguing you numbskull! 

WordsMatter

@TKDB forget the wall for a second. Let's say in the future what is your criteria for a national emergency? 

TKDB

@WordsMatter

I'm not the President.

TKDB

@Zombieguy1987

It's called counter arguing you numbskull! 

Your counter argument is a lazy argument.

You used someone's argument, to make yours with.

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

It's called counter arguing you numbskull! 

Your counter argument is a lazy argument.

You used someone's argument, to make yours with.

So according to you, doing my way to refuting your arguments is LAZY!?

whiteflame

@TKDB

...Can't believe I'm going to try this again, but here we are. I sincerely hope you read some of this because you really don't seem to understand the basis for this discussion.

Let's start by getting one thing very straight. No one in this forum has argued that border security isn't a problem. No one in this forum has argued (at least within this forum) that a border wall isn't an effective solution. Within this forum, at the very least, we are all functioning under the assumption that illegal immigration is a big problem and that a wall could be an effective solution. To be absolutely clear about this, no one is arguing that illegal immigration is not an important issue, up to an including all the effects of trafficking and the deaths caused by immigrants, illegal and otherwise.

Alright? Do we have an understanding? I really hope so.

If you accept and respect the above, then there is absolutely no reason to keep on with this self-righteous indignation. I don't know what it is about the way you regard positions like ours, but no one is trying to minimize the harms of illegal immigrants here. So long as we are not doing that, I don't know why you're posting about our mythical attempts to diminish their effects on our society. We honestly haven't done that anywhere on this site, yet you seem to think we're doing it all the time.

But hey, let's keep the focus on this topic. Because so far, you haven't really addressed it.

In your first post on this topic, you proclaimed that the crimes of illegal immigrants warrant a national emergency. Many of us have questioned why you believe this to meet the threshold for a national emergency, yet your response has been that you aren't the president and that we should talk to Trump. Putting aside the fact that Trump will likely never speak with us directly or engage with us in a meaningful conversation over this issue, recall that it was you who stated that these crimes warrant a national emergency. You're the one who made that argument.

So, let's role-play. You are president for a day. You are imparted with all the powers that come with such a position, and can choose whether to declare national emergencies over a multitude of issues. What will you use as your standard for declaring such an emergency? Among the examples @WordsMatter gave you earlier, what would you consider to be an emergency, and what would not be an emergency? Again, to be clear, I'm not asking what Trump would do. I'm asking what you would do. If you would declare an emergency over illegal immigration to build a wall, where would you draw the line on further emergencies? Would you draw the line at all? Do you see a declaration of a national emergency over, say, gun deaths or opiates as similarly reasonable, and if not, why not? Remember, I'm interested in your opinion. Tell me how you would act.

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

@WordsMatter

I'm not the President.

Oh, the hypocrisy...

On your old account and this one, you ask people how they would handle the immigration issue, and when they say "I'm not the president" you say "Hypothetically speaking, what would you?"

But when someone else does the same thing you say "I'm not the president" so I'm going to play your game.

Hypothetically speaking, what do you consider to be a national emergency if you were president?

TKDB

The illegal aliens for years have been trafficking drugs into the United States.

The illegal aliens for years have been coming into the US illegaly for years, and they have the likes of a sanctuary city, providing sanctuary to them?

(Still haven't seen any interviews where some of the US citizens in those same cities, are OK with the illegal aliens being given sanctuary in those same cities, where some of the illegal aliens are getting sanctuary from them?)

The illegal aliens for years, have been killing and sexually assaulting innocent people for years.

The amount of drug addiction, drug overdoses, and now the "Mexican Oxy" is killing people in Arizona? 

A 19 year old kid is dead because of the Mexican Oxy?

The National Emergency is that some of  the United States citizens have been dealing with drug addiction issues, drug addiction overdoses, sexual assaults, murder, theft, there are statistics for those occurrences.

The primary problem to all of that, is because of the lack of a border barrier, or barriers, where they could physically be placed? 

If there had been a barrier in place after say 1990, would we be hearing about the lack of a border barrier now?

Three previous Presidents dealt with the border issues, in their own ways, to a certain degree: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

Now President Trump, is dealing with the Border wall, and border security, in his own way as well, and is garnering apparent backlash, over his efforts?

The problem is this, his efforts it would appear, (might or could) be viewed as an interference with the (evolving, or revolving) cash cow that the southern border has apparently become? 

The human trafficking, the illegal drug trafficking, and the cheap labor? 

So the downplaying of the above being called a National Emergency, it's understandable why some would express their stances against a border barrier or barriers being constructed, because they may or could interfere with those probable  cash cows?

WordsMatter

@TKDB so you also don't consider this to be an emergency because you aren't the president.

Also save your sad stories for elsewhere. That is a logical fallacy and therefore does nothing to advance your position. Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacycharacterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

whiteflame

@TKDB

Try as I might, I don’t see a response in this post to any of my questions. We already knew you agreed with the president that this is worthy of a national emergency. The question I and several others have posed to you is this: where do you draw the line on what suffices as a national emergency?

There are plenty of other problems that have a lot of statistics showing that they are problems. For guns, we have hundreds of mass shootings each year, the death toll from gun homicides and suicides remains in the tens of thousands, and guns dramatically worsen domestic violence disputes, victimizing mostly women across the country. For opiates, almost two-thirds of all drug-related deaths come from prescription or illicit opiates, totalling over 40,000 in 2016 and rising ever since. These death tolls are greater than anything you’ve cited thus far for illegal immigration, so do they warrant their own national emergencies?

TKDB

@WordsMatter

The mentioning of sexual assaults, the murdering of some of the US citizens, and some of the US citizens being addicted to illegal drugs, and maybe even overdosing on those same illegal drugs, you view those multiple crimes as this?

"Also save your sad stories for elsewhere. That is a logical fallacy and therefore does nothing to advance your position. Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacycharacterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence."

Mentioning of the sexual assaults committed by some of the illegal aliens, you view those facts as fallacies? 

Mentioning the murders, committed by some of the illegal aliens, you view those facts as fallacies? 

Mentioning the human trafficking, you view those facts as fallacies? 

Do you view the Presidents words as fallacies? 

MayCaesar

When Mugabe became the Prime Minister, although in practice the absolute dictator, of Zimbabwe in 1980, he unleashed a terror campaign on white farmers. White farmers would have armed people show up at their property, telling them that it is no longer theirs, or sometimes shooting them on sight. He justified it by the needs of time, by the necessity to purge the colonial heritage from Zimbabwe.
Many people, back then still having the ability to voice their opinions somewhat openly, pointed out how he was overstepping his intended powers. What was his primary response to those concerns? "The colonialists had been doing the same to us for centuries. And now you are siding with them. Spare me your moralism".
The outcome was not hard to predict: Mugabe become an unstoppable tyrant, holding the country a hostage for decades.

Now the same process is occurring in South Africa, with the same supportive argument: "The apartheidists did this to us for many decades. We are simply leveling the playing field now."

This is the danger of repeated precedents. Once something has become normalised in a given society, it becomes very hard to "de-normalise" it. Russia did not become the heaven for corruption in a flash, the caste system in India did not appear out of the blue within several years, and the nearly universal knee-bending to the authority in Japan was not a product of sudden change in mentality. All of these things took many years, decades, centuries to manifest, always starting with careful experimentation, and ending becoming the way of life in the society.

Trump is not the first to play with his executive powers around. The Founding Fathers did their best to try to prevent one branch of power to ever overwhelm the other two, but in order to make it so they themselves had to overstep their powers numerous times. Then Lincoln, in Caesar's style, essentially threw the Constitution away, justifying it by the necessities of war. Then Wilson made Constitution into his favourite toy. Then Roosevelt did not even try to pretend caring about what the Constitution says. 

The vast majority of those who criticise him for what he is doing, were just recently advocating for the same should their preferred candidate have taken the power. How about all the "Bernie bros" who wanted Sanders to use his executive powers to push through universal healthcare, heavy taxation, free public education, etc., which they knew would certainly be locked in the Congress? Or all those people who in plain words advocated for a rebellion against the government, when their candidate lost the election?

This is a systematic problem, and it has nothing to do with Trump, Obama, Wilson, Lincoln or anyone else. It has to do with the lack of diligence on the citizens' part, who allowed the government to grow into something very undemocratic and very unliberal. And who still want it to grow even more, for various reasons. I would even say that this is human nature: we tend to be opportunistic, using every advantage we can get to get what we want, conveniently ignoring that the precedents we are creating can and will eventually be used against us.

How many people in the world would let go of something they have wanted throughout their whole lives and can get right now, at the cost of slight overstepping of the boundaries of the legal norms? How many people have the foresight to see the possible consequences of such an action eventually being reversed and turned against them? Especially when those consequences are slim for this action alone?
It is not one or two persons going too far that normalise such behaviors. It is when every person throughout decades thinks that it is okay for them to slightly push the boundaries, that cumulatively the societal consciousness shifts significantly.

Look even at these discussions. They are not mostly about the possibility of the precedent of declaring a national emergence to push one's ideas through to be used as an excuse for similar actions by the future rulers. They are mostly about whether it is warranted in this particular situation or not.
I, on the other hand, think that this is not the main issue here. The main issue is the fact that the majority of people seem to see national emergence declaration as a political tool, rather than something to be taken very seriously and used only under exceptional circumstances. The shift in the collective consciousness has already occurred.

In Ancient Rome, Caesar using his legal dictatorial powers to stay in charge for an extended period of time triggered the fall of the republic and the creation of the tyrannical empire. Will something like this occur in the US eventually? I do not know. I think that the current political whirlwind will eventually end, everyone will calm down, take a deep breath, look back and say, "We do not want more of this. Let us play by the rules again." But there is also a chance that it, instead, will keep growing in size and eventually get completely out of control. And then, when extremists pushing anti-constitutional ideas left-and-right become the embodiment of the mainstream politics, rather than its occasional aberrations - then the future of the republic will be very dark.

TKDB

https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txcriminalalienstatistics.htm

"Texas Criminal Illegal Alien Data

The Department of Public Safety and local law enforcement agencies in Texas participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). Participation in PEP enables DHS to work with state and local law enforcement to take custody of individuals who pose a danger to public safety before those individuals are released into our communities. In Texas, PEP begins at the local level when an individual is arrested and booked by a Texas law enforcement officer for a criminal violation of Texas law. The arrested individual’s fingerprints are submitted to the Texas DPS and subsequently to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks. This same biometric data is also sent to DHS’ IDENT database so that ICE can determine the person’s immigration status and whether the individual is a priority for removal, consistent with the DHS enforcement priorities. The immigration status information is returned to DPS by DHS. The following report is based upon the status indicators provided to the DPS. For the purposes of this report, the term “criminal alien” refers to an individual who has been identified as an alien by DHS and who has been arrested for a state criminal offense, typically a Misdemeanor B or higher, committed in Texas.

Lawful Presence Determined Through PEP

According to DHS status indicators, over 279,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and January 31, 2019, of which over 189,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.

Between June 1, 2011 and January 31, 2019, these 189,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 295,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 539 homicide charges; 32,785 assault charges; 5,737 burglary charges; 37,234 drug charges; 403 kidnapping charges; 15,991 theft charges; 23,701 obstructing police charges; 1,660 robbery charges; 3,473 sexual assault charges; 2,170 sexual offense charges; and 2,976 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 120,000 convictions including 238 homicide convictions; 13,662 assault convictions; 3,158 burglary convictions; 17,930 drug convictions; 175 kidnapping convictions; 7,100 theft convictions; 11,336 obstructing police convictions; 1,013 robbery convictions; 1,710 sexual assault convictions; 1,153 sexual offense convictions; and 1,282 weapon convictions.

 
Enlarge chart

These figures only count individuals who previously had an encounter with DHS that resulted in their fingerprints being entered into the DHS IDENT database. Foreign nationals who enter the country illegally and avoid detection by DHS, but are later arrested by local or state law enforcement for a state offense will not have a DHS response in regard to their lawful status and do not appear in these counts. However, in addition to the PEP program, DHS actively adjudicates the immigration status of individuals incarcerated in the Texas prison system. From 2011 to date, the Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) has provided DPS with information on more than 26,000 individuals who were identified by DHS as in the country illegally while they were incarcerated at TDCJ. 10,306 of these individuals were not identified through the PEP program at the time of their arrest. DPS does not know the current incarceration status of the individuals identified while they were incarcerated nor when their alien status was initially determined."

Some facts from the "Texas Department of Public Safety."

TKDB

Some additional facts from the same website:

"Lawful Presence Determined While Incarcerated at TDCJ

Between June 1, 2011 and January 31, 2019, these 10,306 individual identified as illegal aliens while in prison, but who were not previously identified through PEP, were charged with more than 6,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 85 homicide charges; 792 assault charges; 485 burglary charges; 1,293 drug charges; 24 kidnapping charges; 316 theft charges; 644 obstructing police charges; 265 robbery charges; 532 sexual assault charges; 222 sexual offense charges; and 159 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 3,000 convictions including 63 homicide convictions; 480 assault convictions; 332 burglary convictions; 754 drug convictions; 11 kidnapping convictions; 188 theft convictions; 290 obstructing police convictions; 204 robbery convictions; 375 sexual assault convictions; 162 sexual offense convictions; and 72 weapon convictions.

 
Enlarge chart

Because DPS does not know the date these individuals were identified as illegal while in prison, the count of charges for which this population was arrested between June 1, 2011 and January 31, 2019 does not necessarily align with the size of the population of illegal aliens identified while in prison. A more accurate assessment can be seen when examining this population’s entire Texas criminal history and not just for offenses committed during this time period (see the Historical Datasection of this report). However, for this report, in order to be consistent with the timeframe utilized to provide counts of arrest and conviction for the population identified through PEP, we have limited the arrest and conviction counts for prison identified illegal aliens to the same June 1, 2011 to January 31, 2019 time frame used for individuals identified through PEP.

Report Notes

These figures do not attempt to allege that foreign nationals in the country illegally commit more crimes than other groups. It simply identifies thousands of crimes that should not have occurred and thousands of victims that should not have been victimized because the perpetrator should not be here. It is also important to note that these figures represent the minimum number of crimes associated with criminal illegal aliens:

• These figures only count arrests in Texas for state offenses. These individuals may have criminal records in other states.
• These figures only represent offenses and convictions that are associated with arrest events that occurred between June 1, 2011 and January 31, 2019.
• The criminal activity for individuals identified as illegal while in prison is under represented for this time period because they may have been incarcerated during the time frame used in this report.
• These figures do not count federal criminal charges.
• These figures do not include similar data for foreign nationals who are lawfully in the country and commit state criminal offenses.
• Individuals whose lawful presence was determined while in prison may or may not be currently incarcerated.

Historical Data

Because individuals identified as being illegally present in the country may have had a Texas criminal history prior to their immigration status being known to law enforcement, DPS has traditionally published criminal history data for an alien’s entire criminal history.

Lawful Presence Determined Through PEP

According to DHS status indicators, over 279,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and January 31, 2019, of which over 189,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.

Over the course of their entire Texas criminal careers, these 189,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 467,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 1,020 homicide charges; 52,685 assault charges; 14,963 burglary charges; 60,246 drug charges; 700 kidnapping charges; 28,998 theft charges; 41,261 obstructing police charges; 3,519 robbery charges; 5,620 sexual assault charges; 3,417 sexual offense charges; and 6,780 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 215,000 convictions including 467 homicide convictions; 22,849 assault convictions; 7,767 burglary convictions; 31,271 drug convictions; 288 kidnapping convictions; 13,720 theft convictions; 20,831 obstructing police convictions; 1,946 robbery convictions; 2,961 sexual assault convictions; 1,841 sexual offense convictions; and 3,035 weapon convictions.

 
Enlarge chart

Lawful Presence Determined While Incarcerated at TDCJ

From 2011 to date, the Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) has provided DPS with information on more than 26,000 individuals who were identified by DHS as in the country illegally while they were incarcerated at TDCJ. 10,306 of these individuals were not identified through the PEP program at the time of their arrest. DPS does not know the current incarceration status of the individuals identified while they were incarcerated nor when their alien status was initially determined. Over the course of their entire Texas criminal careers, these 10,306 individual identified as illegal aliens while in prison, were charged with more than 47,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 1,926 homicide charges; 5,538 assault charges; 3,645 burglary charges; 6,671 drug charges; 336 kidnapping charges; 2,674 theft charges; 3,701 obstructing police charges; 2,437 robbery charges; 2,948 sexual assault charges; 1,048 sexual offense charges; and 1,573 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 25,000 convictions including 1,135 homicide convictions; 2,791 assault convictions; 1,987 burglary convictions; 3,914 drug convictions; 144 kidnapping convictions; 1,272 theft convictions; 1,676 obstructing police convictions; 1,638 robbery convictions; 1,880 sexual assault convictions; 632 sexual offense convictions; and 621 weapon convictions.

 
Enlarge chart

Crime Records Service

• CRS Home
• Overview
• FAQ's
• Criminal History Reporting
• Fingerprinting Services
• Texas Data Exchange (TDEx)
• Texas Transnational Intelligence Center (TTIC)
• Misuse of Identity
• CRS Related Links
• Texas Uniform Crime Reporting
• Contact Us
• CRS Online Services
• Sex Offender Search
• Criminal History Search 

TKDB

@whiteflame

And again you are entitled to your individual opinion.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

And you are entitled to your individual opinion.

TKDB

@WordsMatter

You are entitled to your individual opinion.

whiteflame

TKDB said:

@whiteflame

And again you are entitled to your individual opinion.

See, this is when I really wonder if you're reading anything I'm saying. I'm not presenting my opinion. I've spent the last couple of posts asking what your opinion is. I want to know where you draw the line. I haven't yet said anything about you being wrong, I haven't challenged any assumptions you're making (beyond the one that makes you want to post all of these facts and figures that do not answer our questions), I've just asked you to tell me where you draw the line.

Just answer this question: should gun violence or the opioid epidemic be treated as national emergencies in the same way that the president is treating illegal immigrants as a national emergency?

piloteer

@whiteflame

Sorry to have to add fuel to the fire here, but I do not consider illegal immigration a "big problem". In fact, I find it to be beneficial for the country. I don't think it should be illegal.

whiteflame

@piloteer

That's fine, and I would say it's more complex as well, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm assuming it's a clear and obvious problem, since that seems to be @TKDB's sticking point.

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

Why sit on the fence when you can swimming in the canal?

Let's start by getting one thing very straight. No one in this forum has argued that border security isn't a problem. No one in this forum has argued (at least within this forum) that a border wall isn't an effective solution.

A Border wall is not an effective solution, neither constitutionally, legally, or financially.

The political end of this discussion is after the emergency has been declared, then Armed forces are stationed at the border between Mexico, and United States, on land, rented from ranchers for the permission to have camps on cite. Is the Executive office going to negotiate with Mexico to take the immigrants back, take part in their return to an embassy with Mexico, or work out a deal for access to return them on simple United States authority, meaning cost?

whiteflame

@John_C_87

Again, I agree, but for the sake of having a discussion over the declaration of a national emergency and not over illegal immigration and how to handle it, I'm trying to grant as many of his arguments as possible.

AlofRI

The actual problem isn't drug trafficking. The actual problem is the "free market" of drug USERS. If the mentally deranged population that NEEDS to "shoot up" would stop the stupidity, the problem would go away. A WALL will not stop stupidity, it's in the air!

MayCaesar

@TKDB

You talk as if opinions are just random world views independent on the reality around us. No, they are not. While I do not think there are "right" or "wrong" opinions, by the very definition of the word "opinion" - there are founded and unfounded opinions.

Founded opinions are based on extensive studies of statistical facts, patters between those facts, sciences related to those facts and so on. Founded opinions, whether leading to correct or wrong conclusions, always have a solid factual foundation.

Unfounded opinions, on the other hand, arise from emotions, biases, sloppy studies, intellectual laziness and so on. Again, they may lead to correct or wrong conclusions - but in this case it is a product of chance, rather than a result of possible flaws in one's reasoning, because the entire reasoning is flawed and its conclusion is logically detached from the foundation.

I am not a history professor, but I have studied history pretty extensively. When you have studied histories of hundreds societies, patterns start becoming noticeable. You see that something one society did and something another society did had a lot in common, and led to results that have a lot in common. You study more societies and see this pattern arising repeatedly. Then you know you are onto something, and then your opinion that this is how the world at large works becomes founded.

On the other hand, you seem to have just read a bunch of disjointed articles from heavily biased sources that often contradict themselves - and that is how your opinion formed. I am sorry, my friend, but "You are entitled to your own individual opinion" does not cut it. Opinions are subjective, but they are not equal in value. My or @whiteflame's opinions may not describe the reality well, but we have put far more thought and research into them, than you have into yours. You cannot just dismiss every opinion you disagree with as "it is just your opinion"; you have to look into the details of that opinion. Especially on a debate website, where debating opinions is pretty much the ultimate purpose of all of us. Or it is supposed to be, at any rate.

"I think apples are tastier than pears" - that is the sort of opinion that you can dismiss as "it is just your opinion". "We should declare national emergency" vs "We should not declare national emergency" - these opinions refer to much more substantial things, than just the individual preference.

piloteer

@whiteflame

Oh man. You are surely dedicated to convincing. You must have the patience of a saint. It's pretty tough to make a discernable sound inside an echoe chamber. 

WordsMatter

TKDB said:

@WordsMatter

The mentioning of sexual assaults, the murdering of some of the US citizens, and some of the US citizens being addicted to illegal drugs, and maybe even overdosing on those same illegal drugs, you view those multiple crimes as this?

"Also save your sad stories for elsewhere. That is a logical fallacy and therefore does nothing to advance your position. Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacycharacterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence."

Mentioning of the sexual assaults committed by some of the illegal aliens, you view those facts as fallacies? 

Mentioning the murders, committed by some of the illegal aliens, you view those facts as fallacies? 

Mentioning the human trafficking, you view those facts as fallacies? 

Do you view the Presidents words as fallacies? 

You really have a comprehension problem. I'm not disputing that those things happen. I'm disputing the fact that your emotional argument about them makes this a national emergency. Just because you can throw out sad stories doesn't mean it's a national emergency. The Crux of this argument is "is there situation at the border a national emergency." Your sad stories do nothing to support that it is an emergency. The facts that gun violence and opiate abuse lead to more death, violence and crime then the situation at the border, combined with the fact that few to no people believe that opiates or guns are a national emergency leads me to make this logical conclusion.

The situation at the border leads to problems in society.
Gun violence and opiate abuse leads to a greater number of problems in society.
Gun violence and opiate abuse are not national emergencies.
Therefore there situation at the border is not an emergency.

Please point out any fallacies in my above logical process.

whiteflame

@piloteer

More dedicated to having a good discussion over an important issue than convincing him that he's wrong. I'd honestly rather just have a normal conversation with @TKDB about his position and why he holds it instead of the repeated attempts to shut down conversation that he's inserted into discussions like this. He's incredibly fixated on the topic of illegal immigration to the point that anything else just vanishes into the background for him, and while that kind of focus is admirable in a way, it means he often misses the point. Then again, I'm rather convinced that he's not reading 90% or more of what any of us posts, so maybe it's just abject laziness. If it's the latter, then nothing I say will alter the situation substantially, hence I'm giving this one last shot. I'm... not optimistic.

WordsMatter

@MayCaesar you're entitled to your opinion on the existence of founded and unfounded opinions 

Plaffelvohfen

WordsMatter said:

Please point out any fallacies in my above logical process.

Maybe what he needs is a definition of fallacy, he may be using the word without knowing what it actually mean... 

Maybe a list and examples of fallacies would help him: 

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

Plaffelvohfen

WordsMatter said:

Please point out any fallacies in my above logical process.

Maybe he needs a definition of fallacy, he might be using the word without knowing what it actually mean...

So to help, here's a list and examples of the most common fallacies:

15 fallacies you should know before getting into a debate

TKDB

@WordsMatter

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5988297731001/#sp=show-clips

"Border rancher reacts to Nancy Pelosi calling border wall 'immoral' "

Listen to what the rancher says in this video.

He invited Nancy Pelosi, 5 years ago to come see what's going on along the border herself personally, but even at the airing of this interview, Nancy Pelosi still hasn't taken up the ranchers offer, of seeing the border, and the border situations for herself in person.

But at the same time, President Trump, has been to the border, and is aware of what's going on.

So, I'll take the ranchers words, for what he's experienced, and lived with when it comes to the border, and the President, at his words as well, being that they are both familiar with the border, and given the reality of that evidence, when Nancy Pelosi is in the news, for going to Arizona, and sees the border in person, I'm listening to this rancher, and the other ranchers, along with their wives, before I will listen to Nancy Pelosi's points of view in viewing the Border wall as (immoral?)