Should the president go ahead and declare a national emergency?

TKDB

@whiteflame

You're off topic.

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

@whiteflame

You're off topic.

"You're off topic"

Oh, the irony.

Says the guy with 218 irrelevant arguments on your current account and 311 on your old account @TTKDB totaling 519 irrelevant arguments

whiteflame

TKDB said:

@whiteflame

You're off topic.

This is just... I mean... Do you know what the word irony means? Because this is textbook irony.

I'm doing everything I can think of to push you on-topic. You've presented your opinion that the president should be able to declare a national emergency over illegal immigration. We have now all asked (repeatedly, I might add) why illegal immigration should be perceived in this manner and not any other issue that leads to a substantial death toll and harm to the country. You've repeatedly deferred on that question. So, I will try one more time. Why, in your opinion, should illegal immigration and no other issue (like gun control, climate change or the opioid crisis) be deemed a national emergency?

WordsMatter

@TKDB I'm going to reply this exact thing to you every single time until you respond to it.

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.

Or would you rather talk about the border wall plan going right through the middle of a space X facility, robbing then of their land and the jobs. Or the F-35 manufacturing plant in New Mexico costing our military Jets and 500 jobs for that town. How do you think an emotional argument could be made for those employees that depend on that job?

MayCaesar

@TKDB

Wait a moment. Are you saying that simply travelling to the border and "seeing it for oneself" is enough to make a qualified judgement of the situation as a whole? Is that not similar to saying that to understand the crime situation in Detroit, you should visit Detroit? Because I have been both in Detroit, and at the border, in both within the last 2 months, and had not seen anything that required attention. Should I make the conclusion that the respective problems do not exist?

I have had a student from Honduras, which at the time ranked #2 in murder rates worldwide. He had never heard of anyone he personally knew killed, so he probably should make the conclusion that Honduras is completely safe, following your logic.

There is a reason the term "anecdotal evidence" exists. To understand the situation as a whole, you need to look at the statistics, not at the individual cases - as you seem to be doing. Some rancher has been affected by the crime coming from illegal aliens, and that is enough for you to support the declaration of national emergency.

You keep confirming my point over and over: you do not understand statistics. You fish for some individual cases that make for loud headlines, and hope that the loudness of the impact noise will compel others for massive action. And it is working, unfortunately.

piloteer

@whiteflame

If an interesting discussion is want you want, then I will try and dish one up for you. I find fault with the idea that "emergency powers are exceedingly important in a country where normal legislative processes are slow". I question where the power to declare a state of national emergency came from in the first place because it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution that anybody can do that, even the president. I question whether anybody can legally disregard all the laws, and even suppress our civil liberties for the sake of a supposed emergency. Understandably there are circumstances that warrant immediate action, but I question whether the ability to declare a national emergency should or can fall solely on one person. Not to say that the ability to declare an emergency should be an act of congress because I do agree that swift action may be needed in some circumstances, but you yourself pointed out the problem with the subjectivity of what can or cannot be considered an emergency. Did the people of the United States really believe that this power wouldn't eventually be corrupted?

whiteflame

@piloteer

From what I’ve read, the power to declare a national emergency was initially given by Congress through the National Emergencies Act of 1976. It offered no definition of what an emergency is, and I find that very problematic. Even if we acknowledge the wide degree of diversity inherent to what is an emergent and urgent issue, I think it’s still necessary to employ some objective standards based on Congressionally and Judicially validated criteria. As I’ve stated in this discussion, I do believe it’s possible to set reasonable limits without dramatically affecting our ability to respond to a wide array of emergencies, though what I stated is not particularly specific, nor does it prevent abuses of this power.

And that’s where we run into trouble. I think we can define reasonable limitations, though for the life of me I don’t know where or how they should be imposed. I suppose that’s not the major issue, though. The question is, should we err on the side of rapid action during an actual emergent crisis, or err on restricting the power of the executive in power to take such actions when unreasonable?

The reason I side with the former over the latter is that we do have meaningful ways to restricting presidential power, even when they declare a national emergency. Trump is getting sued by a tremendous number of people and organizations, and his efforts to transfer money from defense projects to his wall are not likely to hold up in court. Perhaps the silver lining here is that, because the courts are now going to hear challenges to the abuse of this power, we will see substantial restrictions imposed on that power. Whatever those restrictions will be, I think it’s necessary to keep this power in the hands of the president and allow for it to be used in a wide range of cases. Abuses will happen regardless of how tightly the power is restricted, but responses to emergent issues, particularly those that are incredibly dangerous, aren’t going to have much the way of viable replacements. I will say that I don’t agree with all such efforts to enhance presidential power (the War Powers Act is ridiculously ), but so long as a president cannot act in direct opposition to their legislature, I see no reason why emergency response should not be in their hands.

piloteer

@whiteflame

My argument isn't necessarily that we should not give the president the power to declare an emergency, my argument is that their perhaps be other people involved who can disallow this action to be initiated if it seems to be an abuse of power. For instance, the speaker of the house, and the majority and minority leaders. Even perhaps allowing a governor of the state or states to refuse a declaration of emergency be imposed in their respective state if they feel it's not warranted. I feel putting the sole decision in the hands of one person to be able to halt the liberties of the constitution is reckless. Perhaps emergencies can be broken down into categories, then from there, the response will be initiated appropriately. Like for instance, weather related, terrorism or any state of war, fiscal crises, natural disasters other than weather related (earthquakes, tsunamis), man made crises, and whatever else can be thought of or is yet to be seen.

whiteflame

@piloteer

I’d mostly agree with you, in that I think there should be controls in place that prevent presidents from making this decision and being able to execute it entirely on their own. I do agree that checks and balances must exist, so I think at least in the broad scheme, we agree on this issue.

I think where we might find disagreement is in the details of application. Depending on the body that we choose that have some kind of veto power over a given national emergency, we would have to decide if a majority is sufficient, if there can be some kind of negotiation over further action (i.e. must a president whose national emergency has been challenged drop the issue entirely, or is there room for discussion), and what happens should the balancing group be out of commission or not available. This is probably getting too far into the weeds, and I don't know that we could or should be suggesting specifics over how this will play out. What's more concerning to me is one of these two hypothetical scenarios:

Say a president becomes aware of a catastrophic problem, something that could broadly be agreed to be an emergency. They declare a national emergency. Now, let's say that the checks and balances involved in approving/denying that decision are composed of people who are largely opposed to said president. They've been challenging his agenda for years, and mistrust everything said president declares to be true. It would require too much time for the president to declassify the documents required to prove it to them, or maybe they would distrust the very evidence said president would provide, considering it to be doctored or unbelievable.

Or, let's say that said president becomes aware of a similarly catastrophic problem, and again, is required to go through these checks and balances. Trouble is that the solution he proposes is clearly going to be harmful to a subset of the population. It's the only way to address said emergency, but the damage it will do is substantial. Now, let's assume that that subset of the population is part of the group that must approve this national emergency status and response. We can look at this one of two ways: either they may have an out-sized voice in a decision that affects a much larger proportion of the country, or they may be such a small minority of the decision-making process that they are basically unable to affect the outcome, effectively treating them as unwilling means to an end.

These are just two scenarios that come to mind, both of which would damage the efficacy of such a system, though in very different ways. Again, I don't know that there's a single answer to this. I don't know that we should be aiming to answer what should happen in these specific scenarios. My view is that we can simply set down a principle: should we generally favor the president's power to implement a national emergency, or should we favor the checks and balances that keep them in check? I think I'd generally support the former.

piloteer

@whiteflame

I would agree that we're in agreement in broad sense, but I still find that we're in disagreement on the details of how checks to the presidents power can or should be in place. First off, the problem with the people who could oppose the presidents power being "out of commission" or "unavailable" is going to be a problem no matter how you slice it. That's still a problem now. What if something unspeakably terrible happened and a president is out of commission, and unfortunately so are the next 5 people in line who the decision would rest on? Personally, I think giving the leaders of congress the power to declare an emergency if the president cannot, is an idea that could be tossed around, but I do agree that this part of the discussion is just gonna bog us down in the weeds.

If a presidents emergency declaration is opposed out of spite, I don't think it's all too troublesome to get the leaders of congress the required security status to let them see classified information. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's happened before. Perhaps the decision may come down to a vote among the president and the leaders of congress, or perhaps with the aid of an emergency commission. I would concede the president should have the power to declare that it must be a rushed decision on the part of everybody involved, but that probably goes without saying since it will be an emergency situation that's being discussed. Furthermore, leave us not forget that any governor of any state can also declare an emergency in their state and mobilize the national guard. They don't nessecariily need the liquid assets to pay for it right away, and they can always appeal to the president or congress to help with relief funds and other types of aid. I personally don't think the opposition out of spite scenario is as bad as you portray it to be. If someone stops the president from declaring an emergency, but the governor or governors of the States involved declare an emergency in their state, whoever it was who opposed the president should expect to not have that position for much longer. If the governor or governors appeal to the president or congress for relief and it is granted, not only will the veto of the president have been sidestepped, but that person will have to answer to the people of those States and the entire country. It would not be in anyone's best interest to oppose an emergency out of spite.

As far as your second scenario goes, I'm kinda in the dark as to what type of situation that may be that you're talking about. You may need to use an analogy to bring me up to speed here, and personally, I think a governors power to declare an emergency still covers this unless it is taking place in Washington D.C. Then the mayor would also have the power to declare an emergency. But I'm not gonna lie, I'm not quite sure what kind of situation you're talking about here. That's not your fault, I sometimes have problems with reading comprehension.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

I've been through Michigan, St Joseph, and was shown how some of the neighborhoods around the Great Lake, are dilapidated, and are slowly rotting away, because the families who once lived in them, moved away, because the people there kept voting Democrat, and those same Democrats taxed the people right out of those neighborhoods.

And I've been through San Antonio, and there are thousands of immigrants there, which of them might be legalized citizens, or illegal aliens, I dont know??

What I know is this, some of the immigrants, have been coming into the United States, since the 1980's, and because of the Border wall situation, 11-22 million illegal aliens are in the US today.

And it would seem that those same illegal aliens, have various supporters, looking the other way, and making themselves accessories to the fact, that they're enabling those illegal aliens to be in the US illegaly, when they shouldn't be here without going through the legalization process, to begin with?

I guess cheap labor, and future votes, make it ok, to in,a sense, maybe look the other way, in the face of the IRCA law, along with maybe, the other immigration laws, that are on the books?

"Wait a moment. Are you saying that simply travelling to the border and "seeing it for oneself" is enough to make a qualified judgement of the situation as a whole? Is that not similar to saying that to understand the crime situation in Detroit, you should visit Detroit? Because I have been both in Detroit, and at the border, in both within the last 2 months, and had not seen anything that required attention."

TKDB

https://www-washingtonexaminer-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/border-rancher-weve-found-prayer-rugs-out-here-its-unreal?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&_amp=true&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#aoh=15504177945699&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/border-rancher-weve-found-prayer-rugs-out-here-its-unreal

"Border rancher: 'We've found prayer rugs out here. It's unreal' "

"LORDSBURG, N.M. — Ranchers and farmers near the U.S.-Mexico border have been finding prayer rugs on their properties in recent months, according to one rancher who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by cartels who move the individuals.

The mats are pieces of carpet that those of the Muslim faith kneel on as they worship.

"There’s a lot of people coming in not just from Mexico," the rancher said. "People, the general public, just don’t get the terrorist threats of that. That’s what’s really scary. You don’t know what’s coming across. We’ve found prayer rugs out here. It’s unreal. It’s not just Mexican nationals that are coming across."

Her comments were part of a larger conversation about how many in the region believe migrants are coming to the U.S. illegally from all over the world, not just Central America.

Border Patrol and its parent agency, Customs and Border Protection, did not respond to multiple interview requests. But CBP's Arizona region issued a statement on Twitter Wednesday that said agents had arrested people from across the world over the past five days.

The rancher, who lives with her family in a remote, southwestern part of the state, said the discoveries raise questions about how many people who illegally entered the U.S. in Hidalgo County, N.M., traveled thousands of miles from overseas to sneak across the southern border.

She is one of just a few hundred residents of Animas, N.M., a tiny town that sits between the international border and the Border Patrol's Lordsburg Station, which is 95 miles north of the boundary.

New Mexico rancher US border Washington Examinerjpg

(Anna Giaritelli / Washington Examiner)

A New Mexico rancher speaks with theWashington Examiner about migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019.

The few hundred residents there have no local police department. They rely on the Hidalgo County Sheriff's Department and U.S. Border Patrol to help when they need it, but otherwise count on tips and support from one another because of the 40 miles that separate the community from the county headquarters in Lordsburg.

The rancher and six other residents of Animas told Washington Examiner this week that migrants from places other than Mexico and Central America are arriving.

"I've talked to several agents that I trust. There’s not a lot that I do trust, but the ones I do trust, I talk to them," she said during a tour of her property. "What Border Patrol classifies as OTMs [other than Mexicans] has really increased in the last couple years, but drastically within the last six months. Chinese, Germans, Russians, a lot of Middle Easterners, those Czechoslovakians they caught over on our neighbor’s just last summer."

Billy Darnell, a cattle rancher in Animas, said his neighbor had 18 women and children from the Philippines show up on his property last year. Border Patrol was called to the scene and took the group in.

Bottle found New Mexico ranch US border Washington Examinerjpg

(Anna Giaritelli / Washington Examiner)

A New Mexico rancher holds a bottle found while touring her property near the U.S.-Mexico border, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019.

Government data indicates six known or suspected terrorists were caught trying to enter the U.S. from Mexico from Oct. 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018. However, the Trump administration has stated on several occasions that 3,700 people who were identified as coming from countries with terrorism problems have also been apprehended at that border.

"We’ve talked about the thousands — the thousands of terror watchlist individuals who traveled through our hemisphere last year," Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said on Fox News this month. "To pretend there’s not a danger on an unsecured border, on an open border, is just ridiculous. It belies common sense."

Customs and Border Protection

New Mexico

Mexico

Middle East

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBPArizona/status/1085597409403498496?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed&ref_url=https://d-23717472751154562932.ampproject.net/1902081532110/frame.html

From Twitter:

"In the last 5 days #YumaSector #BorderPatrol has arrested people from 7 countries trying to illegally enter the U.S. #NationalSecurity #SouthwestBorder China Guatemala Honduras Mexico El Salvador Nicaragua India"

The Border/ Barrier situation issues are growing by the day.

Take a look at some of the comments, on the Twitter commentary, below the featured story.

TKDB

https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/story/us-ranchers-deal-with-migrants-border-crossers-mexico/559702001/

From usatoday:

"The Wall, Land of shadows

The American West: In a peaceful scene, ranchers herd cattle near Rio Rico, Arizona. For decades, the reality was much uglier, marred by violence and strife related to proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border. (Nick Oza/USA TODAY NETWORK)

Sometimes, the border ranchers hear the horses whinny and see shadows moving silently past the barn. Or they ride over a ridge and stumble into cartel “drug mules” carrying pot stuffed in backpacks.

After more than a decade of outrage about border security, cattlemen and -women in the thorny southern Arizona outback have grown tired of recounting the memories. Fences and irrigation lines cut. Homes and sheds broken into. One of their own murdered in cold blood.

But in this land of dust and shadows, what most weighs on ranchers is not just what’s seen, but what’s unseen. The atrocities of years past, gone but not forgotten.

And just south of these ranches, on an imaginary boundary, a border wall that doesn’t yet exist."

whiteflame

@piloteer

Alright, let’s focus on the hypotheticals. Before I get into them, I just want to be clear about the assumptions I used going into this. You had previously said that it may be Congress or some other body (perhaps those states directly affected by the national emergency or representatives of other groups) who could be the balancing power in the equation, so I rolled with that. I didn’t automatically assume that Congress would be the sole control put in place here, hence why there might have been some confusion over my scenarios.

On the first scenario, the problem I have is not with the president delivering confidential information to Congress – you’re right, that does happen, with some regularity – but with the president disclosing said information to other groups. Admittedly, the president can choose to declassify any document they feel they need to declassify, but it comes with a risk, as the action coming from said national emergency may need to be covert in order to be successful. More declassifying may increase the risk of the action being ineffective or pointless. It’s also a possibility that the opposition will do everything they can to minimize a clear problem, and I can think of some examples of that having been done (though admittedly, not for clear emergencies). The bigger problem, though, is the distrust element. Whatever body is responsible for approving the president’s actions may simply not believe the facts they are presented, whether because they believe the president has doctored the data they provide, because they do not feel they are being presented the full picture, or any other reason. Particularly if a president has been vocal in the past about emergencies even when there is not apparent emergency, the approving body may well be skeptical, triggering a lengthy back-and-forth that may push the timeline of response too far to be effective.

You do bring up this notion of a governor declaring a state of emergency, and while I agree that that is a meaningful way to address things on a state-by-state basis, it’s not a meaningful response to a national problem. Moreover, it relies on individual governors coming to these conclusions themselves and having sufficient national guard forces (or whatever other resources they require) to combat the problem. Note that this isn’t a payment problem, it’s a resource problem, and if the president and Congress are already embroiled in a back-and-forth debate over whether a national emergency should be declared, they’re not likely to get national resources to back them for the same emergency writ small.

As for the second scenario, this is where my intro comes in. The situation is this: we have a problem that is national in scale but would require an onerous response from a given set of states. That response may require great sacrifice of those states but do so for some common general good that affects the other states. In effect, should those states have a choice in the matter? Should they be able to say “no” in response to a national emergency declaration? If this doesn't clarify what I'm getting at, we can get into analogies.

TKDB

Part 2

From the same USA today article:

"The Wall, Land of shadows

"Cochise County, Ariz.

Border ranchers, in a world without a wall

Dennis Wagner | azcentral.comUSA TODAY NETWORK

Across hundreds of miles, cattle ranchers tell remarkably similar stories, from flowing grasslands of the San Rafael Valley to gnarly peaks of the Atascosa Mountains to saguaro-studded desert.

Rounding up: Reed Thwaits ropes a calf at Atascosa Ranch in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. (Nick Oza/USA TODAY NETWORK)

Ranching is a heritage of land, a family legacy, a lifestyle. It’s a cycle of fence mending, cactus dodging and calf branding, measured by sweat and blisters.

Most families have been at it more than a century, isolated in wild, lonely, peaceful country with only the buzzing of flies and the bawling of calves.

These operations today run about 150,000 head of cattle in southern Arizona, an $18 million economic driver in Cochise County alone. Ranches and grazing leases account for much of the land area, and lifestyle.

The Ladd family's San Jose Ranch started up when Pancho Villa’s revolutionaries marauded along the border.

More than 120 years later, John Ladd runs cattle there, along 10 miles of border in Cochise County. He recalls a time when nearly all of the locals employed Mexican cowboys. “We had Loreto,” he says. “My dad sponsored him for citizenship, and always kidded that he was my brother.”

At a ranch near Nogales, Robert Noon offers a similar memory: “You had your wetbacks coming across,” he says, seemingly unaware that, for some, the word cuts like barbed wire. “They were actually looking for a job — not a handout. We’d give ’em a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and they were on their way.”

During the 1980s, perhaps 300 border crossers would pass through a ranch each month. They were meek and respectful, begging for water before heading north.

Security system: Safety is not an abstract concept for David Lowell, owner of Atascosa Ranch, where there have been break-ins and shootouts involving cartels and bandits. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered on his land. (Nick Oza/USA TODAY NETWORK)

Border ranchers: Cochise County Sheriff's Deputy Mike Magoffin eyes the international border in Arizona about six miles from the New Mexico state line. (Michael Chow/USA TODAY NETWORK)

$1 billion

The Border Patrol budget in 2000

$3.6 billion

The Border Patrol budget in 2016

And then the borderland slowly turned to hell.

In the ’90s, Ladd says, 300 migrants were crossing his land daily.

By the early 2000s, a boom was underway. More migrants, more border patrol, more fences.

Under the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, the U.S. Border Patrol nearly doubled the number of agents working on the southwestern border to over 17,000.

The Border Patrol budget has more than tripled, from $1 billion in 2000 to $3.6 billion last year. Beginning in 2006 under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the government also built about 700 miles of pedestrian and vehicle barriers. Obama’s administration also added millions of dollars worth of motion sensors, trail cameras, flood lights and other technology collectively described as a “virtual fence.”

But, because agents mostly patrolled many miles north of the Mexican boundary, ranches remained a no-man’s land where rival cartels and banditos waged war.

On his ranch near Rio Rico, David Lowell drew a “Map of Atrocities” to keep track of where shootouts occurred and bodies were found.

Then came the atrocities of 2010.

To the east, past Ladd’s spread, a rancher named Robert Krentz was killed. Authorities followed tracks from the murder site to the border, where they lost the trail. Officially, the killer has never been identified.

And to the west, in the backcountry of Lowell’s ranch, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was cut down in a gunfight with bandits.

Today, there’s a monument to Terry in the remote, tangled canyon where he died.

It is, in essence, a private memorial — almost impossible to find or access. Like so many pieces of the border story, it remains unseen.

Easy to climb: Cochise County Sheriff Deputy Mike Magoffin scales the border fence while on ranch patrol in Douglas, Arizona. The barricade is one of the more imposing fences in the area. (Michael Chow/USA TODAY NETWORK)

Deputy Mike Magoffin heads east out of Douglas, Arizona, his head on a swivel.

Magoffin stops to inspect footprints across the border road. The tracks are a day old, so he moves on.

Magoffin’s a deer hunter, and tracking smugglers or immigrants involves the same skill set and adrenaline. “It’s OK,” he adds, “as long as it doesn’t extrapolate into pulling the trigger.”

The radio picks up occasional chatter among Border Patrol agents. No word of immigrants or drug runners.

Magoffin pulls out binoculars and points to a boulder-strewn bluff on the Mexican side — a smuggler’s lookout post.

“I’m 100 percent certain we’re being watched right now by someone affiliated with the cartel,” he says.

He just can’t see them.

Wide open: John Ladd opens a gate on his Naco ranch, which borders Mexico. The 16,000-acre calf/cow operation has been in the Ladd family for 121 years, since the time of Pancho Villa. (Michael Chow/USA TODAY NETWORK)

Magoffin is on ranch patrol. When things got bad on the border, the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office created a team of deputies to help cattle growers deal with the immigrants, smugglers and Border Patrol.

For 25 miles, fencing is variable. Some areas are guarded by an 18-foot bollard-style barricade; others have only Normandy vehicle barriers. Magoffin steps up to the more imposing fence, scales it in a matter of seconds, then jumps back to earth.

The road ends atop a hill near the Mafioso Trail. From that point for 20 miles, the United States and Mexico are separated only by barbed wire."

TKDB

Part 3

From the same USA today article:

"The Wall, Land of shadows

Magoffin says this is probably the hottest smuggling zone. He dramatically peers in all directions, seeing no one. “It’s because of all the Border Patrol presence,” he says, sarcastically. Agents are rarely spotted. “We haven’t seen one since the Slaughter Ranch, about 40 minutes ago.”

Reminded that the number of agents roughly doubled during the past decade, Magoffin nods. “There may be more back at the station,” he allows, “but out here? It doesn’t look like it.”

Ranchers down here will tell you they despised the Obama administration, and helped vote Donald Trump into the White House.

Yet a funny thing happens when you ask them about the president’s famous promise of a “tall, powerful, beautiful” border wall.

Almost unanimously, they think it’s bad idea.

Ladd, a cowboy who looks like the Marlboro man and runs cattle along 10 miles of border in Cochise County: “Enforce our immigration laws first. Put Border Patrol agents in sight of one another (along the international line). If you have line of sight, you don’t need a wall.”

Manuel Solomon, a 71-year-old caballero, who has just finished castrating and branding calves near Rio Rico: “It won’t really matter. They (immigrants) will still come here. They’ll still climb it or go around it to find jobs.”

Noon, who works a couple cow-calf operations outside Nogales: “A wall is a wall. It’s going to stop some traffic, but they’ll find a way around it. … In the long term? It’s a major waste of money. And it’s kind of ludicrous to think Mexicans will pay for it.”

1 of 23

Border ranchers Manuel Salomon brands a calf at Atascosa Ranch near Rio Rico, Arizona. The staff and owner of the ranch have firsthand experience dealing with border security policies over the years. (Nick Oza/USA TODAY NETWORK)

Border ranches

These ranches have often been the sites of migrant crossings.

Source: maps4news.com

David Lowell, a rancher who also has a degree in mine engineering, estimates that a three-story concrete wall might eliminate 80 percent of the illegal traffic, adding, “That would be all to the good as far as we’re concerned.”

On the other hand, Lowell says, a barrier like the communist regime erected in East Berlin might work much better: “It would be two, sturdy, razor-wire fences with electrical currents and a road between them.”

“The wall without the agents won’t do anything,” Magoffin says. “If you tell me, ‘Everything you want is on the other side of the wall and I won’t look,’ I’m going over that wall.”

Ladd concedes that today’s rancher outrage is aimed mostly at how things used to be, not how they are.

Ladd has not seen migrants on the property since Christmas. No smugglers’ vehicles have come through in 18 months.

In fact, illegal immigration has been plummeting for years. Border Patrol data show 54,891 people were apprehended in southern Arizona’s Tucson Sector in 2016 — about one-tenth the number captured in 2000.

An even sharper decline this year has been attributed, at least in part, to prospective immigrant fears after President Donald Trump took office and signed executive orders to start planning for the wall. Overall apprehensions dropped by two-thirds in April.

Drive the border anywhere in this region and the story is the same. Rancher frustration is still real, palpable, even now that few crossers are around to be seen.

Walking the line: John Ladd walks along an 18-foot-tall section of the border fence. He says he hasn't seen migrants on his property since Christmas 2016, and it's been even longer since there was a sighting of a smuggler's vehicle. (Michael Chow/USA"

TKDB

@Zombieguy1987

What does the below have to do with the theme of the forum?

"Should the president go ahead and declare a national emergency?"

The illegal aliens have sexually assaulted and murdered United States citizens.

"You're off topic.

"You're off topic"

Oh, the irony.

Says the guy with 218 irrelevant arguments on your current account and 311 on your old account @TTKDB totaling 519 irrelevant arguments."

Do you have any words of condolences for the United States citizens who have burried their family members who were murdered by those illegal aliens?

Or what about the United States citizens who were sexually assaulted by those illegal aliens, do you have any words of compassion for them?

TKDB

Part 4

From the same USA today article:

"The Wall, Land of shadows

"Ladd hops in an old, red pickup truck and churns a 3-mile trail of dust to newly installed border fence. Thick metal slats, 18 feet high, are emblazoned with the words “Korean Steel.”

“This is probably 90 percent effective,” Ladd says. “It’s the best I’ve seen as far as design.”

A brisk wind blows from Sonora, making a “shwoooo” sound as it crosses through fencing and into the United States.

“That’s a wonderful sound,” Ladd says, smiling.

But in the wind is the whisper of the past, invisible but inescapable.

On Lowell’s ranch, cowhand Reed Thwaits maneuvers a Jeep over steep, rutted roads until he finally reaches a cattle tank and a giant mesquite.

This, he explains softly, is a so-called “rape tree.” It was once adorned with women’s bras and underwear. Coyotes would sexually assault some of the female migrants who hired them, leaving undergarments in the branches as trophies.

Amnesty International and other groups have concluded, based on interviews with migrants and health workers, that of female Central American migrants headed to the U.S., 60 percent or more are sexually assaulted.

The idea of specific rape trees is laced through ranchland lore, each one as universal as it is unverifiable.

Thwaits shakes his head. “Not a safe place to be … I’ve seen (immigrant) women crying like they had been raped, abused.”

There is nothing on this tree today — no underwear, no marker. There’s no easy documentation about this spot on the Map of Atrocities.

But the tree, and the land where it grows, remains draped with the power of the unseen."

The illegal aliens coming into the United States illegally is as wrong as can be.

If the illegal aliens are willing to break US laws, and murder and sexually assault innocent people, then those same illegal aliens shouldn't be in the United States.

How many more of the US citizens (being either sexually assaulted, or murdered,) does it take to maybe get the illegal alien supporters to look at the realities of those crimes that have been created by those illegal aliens, and to get and develop, some common sense, integrity, respect, self respect, and courtesy to exist inside of one's own consciousness?

No amount of cheap labor, or maybe an additional voter pool, is worth the crimes of homicide or sexual assault, are they?

Regardless of how some seem to appear to maybe be arguing from behind a hide position from across the border, from where they can't be seen.

And illegally crossing into the United States illegally, and breaking whatever laws they mindfully break, because of the various sanctuary cities, willing to give them sanctuary as a quiet reward for their migration efforts.

And the various businesses that will utilize them to do work for them under the table, in the face of the IRCA law?

piloteer

@TKDB

I fully welcome immigrants getting paid under the table. Americans ask for to much money and that makes costs go higher. If illegal immigrants didn't work on American farms, the cost of food would be astronomical. Forcing farmers to do backround checks to make sure nobody is an illegal immigrant is a violation of their constitutional rights. Their business is their property and they should be allowed to run it as they feel fit. Forcing anybody to pay a minimum wage is also a gross violation of every business owners rights to their property and using illegal immigrants is one way to combat this violation. Your argument is ignorant of consumers rights also. Minimum wage requirements violates consumers rights by not letting businesses be competitive and keep their prices as low as possible. Your argument is totally unconvincing. It's actually an argument for government control of business.

TKDB

@piloteer

"I fully welcome immigrants getting paid under the table."

Then you maybe have a problem with the IRCA law, along with maybe having a problem with ICE, and the US Border Patrol, and US customs then?

"Americans ask for to much money and that makes costs go higher."

Curious use of your own words.

"If illegal immigrants didn't work on American farms, the cost of food would be astronomical. Forcing farmers to do backround checks to make sure nobody is an illegal immigrant is a violation of their constitutional rights. Their business is their property and they should be allowed to run it as they feel fit."

The above businesses that you're lamenting over, are then breaking the IRCA law?

Along with getting into trouble with the IRS, over taxation issues?

@piloteer

Care to comment on the below points of view?

The illegal aliens coming into the United States illegally is as wrong as can be.

If the illegal aliens are willing to break US laws, and murder and sexually assault innocent people, then those same illegal aliens shouldn't be in the United States.

How many more of the US citizens (being either sexually assaulted, or murdered,) does it take to maybe get the illegal alien supporters to look at the realities of those crimes that have been created by those illegal aliens, and to get and develop, some common sense, integrity, respect, self respect, and courtesy to exist inside of one's own consciousness?

No amount of cheap labor, or maybe an additional voter pool, is worth the crimes of homicide or sexual assault, are they?

Regardless of how some seem to appear to maybe be arguing from behind a hide position from across the border, from where they can't be seen.

And illegally crossing into the United States illegally, and breaking whatever laws they mindfully break, because of the various sanctuary cities, willing to give them sanctuary as a quiet reward for their migration efforts.

piloteer

@whiteflame

Okay, now I understand your worry about letting governors stop a president from declaring an emergency in their state. If an outbreak of a contagious deadly pathogen warrants a state, or an entire region to be quarantined, then should a governor be able to dispell a declaration of emergency? Frankly, yes! First off, what if a president wants to quarantine a state because of an outbreak of the rhino virus (common cold)? We can argue that it would be absurd for a president to do such a thing, but with the pressidant being set by our president, how far off is that absurd scenario?(I gotta point out that, that was a nasty play on words right there in that last sentence and I'm totally satisfied with how it played out)Furthermore, this would be an extreme situation that no matter how it plays out, there's gonna be an immense backlash. Unfortunately, if a deadly pathogen required an entire state or region to be quarantined, it would be complacent to expect it to work. If a large amount of the population of a state were already infected, we'd pretty much have to assume that the disease has already traveled beyond any reasonable quaratine line. Basically, we'd already be "F'd" anyway. Even with the president having full control of the power to declare a national emergency, this extreme scenario would not go well for anybody. Giving the president sole power to trample on our civil liberties now because of the threat of the apocalypse latter doesn't seem all to reasonable. The power of a governor to declare an emergency in their state still covers this. A governor can close the border of their state to anybody who may be coming from an infected population, or they can close it to anybody at all. You could argue that this response may be too slow, but I fail to see how giving the president sole possession of the final word would somehow hasten the response.

I wasn't arguing that all of congress should be in on the choice to declare an emergency, only the leaders of congress. In this circumstance, nothing would really need to be declassified, the leaders of congress can be granted a special security status to hear the information. Also, I'm not arguing that the leaders of congress must always be a part of the decision to declare an emergency, I'm only arguing that they should have the power to step in if they feel the power is being abused. We're only working on the idea that there's going to be an opposition to the president if he/she declares a national emergency, but of course the hope is, if there's a clear and present danger, everybody involved would act accordingly. If we can't trust our leaders of congress to act civilly in a time of need, we as citizens have only ourselves to blame for putting them in that position in the first place. Our liberty requires proper, and constant maintenance. Just because some people believe that that duty isn't being fulfilled doesn't mean that full power needs to be turned over to one person (not to say that's what your arguing for, just pointing it out). How did emergency situations play out before 1976 when the president did not have the power to declare a national emergency? It seems like we did alright, especially in the face of situations that would have been considered emergencies today. And those emergencies weren't just medical emergencies, they were emergencies related to national security as well.

Sorry, I replied to your arguments in a totally backward manner, but I didn't want to lose my train of thought on my first argument, and I really didn't feel like rewriting the whole thing. My bad.

whiteflame

@piloteer

Alright, let's go through these responses. To start, I should be clear that so long as you are allowing individual governors to dispel a state of emergency, you're effectively denying the president any ability to create a state of emergency that involves any state or set of states without their consent. That's fine, let's get into the example of the outbreak.

Your first point about the rhinovirus is... confusing. If a president were to declare an emergency over a rhinovirus, it had better be one deadly rhinovirus - the common cold is not nearly dangerous enough to warrant this. I think there should be legal repercussions for declaring an emergency over something like this, as I've said before. The question is, should individual states have veto power over this kind of decision? Honestly, I don't think that's necessary. Judges can put an injunction on this kind of decision so long as the legal challenge is clear, so I don't see why a state needs to have any kind of veto power in this process.

If it was a deadly pathogen, I agree, quarantine might not be enough to stop the outbreak (though, let's be honest, these would be county-by-county, not state-wide). A quarantine would probably still be an effective first measure, though. And if the infection had already spread too far... well, now we're just getting into the weeds on this. I'm not specifically defending a quarantine as a measure, only the ability of the president to take action in dire times like this. Whatever those measures look like, if they harm certain states but benefit the country as a whole, I see reason to support it. If there's uncertainty, then we at least hope the CDC and NIH are informing those decisions, though in the circumstances you're describing, we're probably screwed.

I don't think it does us any good to talk about doomsday scenarios where we're too far gone to save ourselves. We're talking about emergencies that are solvable, to some degree. I don't see how a somewhat limited presidential power to respond to these emergencies is dramatically worse than a more limited version of the same power, which is what you've been suggesting. A governor can close borders, but they can't get the medications they need from other states. There are resources they simply won't have access to without national help. That's the main difference between using individual states and a national system. Whether we managed fine before 1976 isn't really what's at issue here, mainly because a) there were a lot of threats that I believe we handled very poorly before 1976, b) there are new threats that didn't exist before then, and c) just because we managed before doesn't mean everything will be just fine if we handle it in the same way in the future.

It was never really my point that everyone in Congress had to be in on it, only that delivering information to enough people stands to risk any covert nature involved. If it was just to leaders of Congress, that's not a problem, but if we're talking about delivering it to governors or leaders of various groups involved in such an emergency, then it becomes hairier. Also, given that they can "step in if they feel the power is being abused", that seems pretty generous, particularly for an opposing party who isn't all that keen on the president's actions to begin with. Seems like this kind of intervention, itself, could be abused. Of course, we don't want to believe this would happen, but there's every reason to believe it could, and I don't think blaming ourselves for putting them in office does anything to address that issue.

piloteer

@TKDB

Yes, I do have a problem with the immigration act of 1986 immigration reform act. I think the borders should be open and all immigration should be legal. Although, I should point out that your point has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Yes, I also have a problem with ICE and US border control and customs. Just because they're federal agencies doesn't mean I need to show them any respect. As far as I'm concerned, those aren't legitimate professions and they're entirely dependent on tax payers to function. Those jobs should be shuddered as much as possible to lessen the strain on taxpayers. But again, none of this has anything to do with this debate.

When I said Americans ask for to much money, I thought I was using my own words. If I was quoting anybody else, it was not intentional.

I think that illegal immigrants coming over the border is as RIGHT as can be, and you offer no real evidence that it's not beneficial to the country.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant#endnote-003.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175. The second one shows that violent crime rates drop in areas where illegal immigrant populations have gone up. And the first one shows that illegal immigrants commit less violent crimes than native born Americans. You haven't shown any realistic evidence that shows why a national emergency should be declared. None of this has anything to do with the disscusion on this thread. I'd also like to point out that in the last paragraph of your "argument", you said "And illegally crossing into the United States illegally". I'm just pointing that out for the sake of your embarrassment, and the sake of my entertainment. Thanx

TKDB

@piloteer

I don't care what the CATO Institutue writes in regards to the illegal aliens issue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

"The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6]chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.[nb 1] In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute.[6][7] Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence.[8] According to the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report(Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania), Cato is number 15 in the "Top Think Tanks Worldwide" and number 10 in the "Top Think Tanks in the United States".[9]

"Motto: "Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace"

"The Cato Institute is libertarian in its political philosophy, and advocates a limited role for government in domestic and foreign affairs. This includes support for abolishing minimum wage laws; opposition to universal health care; the privatization of many government agencies including Social Security, NASA, and the United States Postal Service; abolishing child labor laws; and a non-interventionistforeign policy."

Here's the conclusion from the webpage that you shared:

"Conclusion

The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 16 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015. The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 7.9 percent and 77 percent below that of native-born Americans for sex crimes and larceny, respectively. For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 50 percent below that of native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 66 percent below that of native-born Americans."

They aren't the individuals running the United States of America, are they?

The President is responsible, along with every single political representative who is governing from their individual political office's.

"You haven't shown any realistic evidence that shows why a national emergency should be declared. None of this has anything to do with the disscusion on this thread. I'd also like to point out that in the last paragraph of your "argument", you said "And illegally crossing into the United States illegally". I'm just pointing that out for the sake of your embarrassment, and the sake of my entertainment."

Here's some evidence, that the CATO Institute, probably hasn't written anything over yet?

(Unless some are maybe calling the sexual assault victims, liars?

Maybe some believe, that the homicide victims families, are lying about their family members being murdered by the illegal aliens?

Maybe some believe, as well, that the ranchers are lying about the tresspassing being done on their individual properties, by some of the illegal aliens, as they tresspassed on those ranchers properties?)

https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/story/us-ranchers-deal-with-migrants-border-crossers-mexico/559702001/

Part 4

From the same USA today article:

"The Wall, Land of shadows