Was the "Wall" a bipartisan issue Before President Trump made it a campaign promise? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Was the "Wall" a bipartisan issue Before President Trump made it a campaign promise?
in Politics

By all4acttall4actt 44 Pts edited August 4
Before President Trump made the "Wall" a campaign  promise  it was a bi-partisan issue.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744

If you follow the link you will see that 700 miles of boarder fencing was sponsored by Charles "Chuck" Schumer in the 2013-2014 Congress.

This is a list of who voted for it in Congress.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/s168

This is who voted for it in the Senate.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00168

So in 2013 the Democratic Party supported a fence (barrier, wall or whatever you want to call it) in 2013 under the Obama administration but is now completely against it.

I contend that the only reason that the Democratic Party now fights it is because they seem to want to fight the Trump administration about everthing.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • The issue maid against the American republic with a border wall is simple illegal as a immanent domain issue. Complex crimes are not legal crimes they are only not proven in court of law. It is not a realistic common defense against foreigner invasion for a nation as claimed. Walls serves no common united state as a overall global purpose to limit aggressive movement. The basic principle that outweighs a fence in overall service to the greater public good is a canal. Energy, water, and transportation all serve the common good of emanate domain in relationship to canal. A intentional obstacle to human movement does not common good of any kind. this goal can be met by collateral effort and not focused cost to the United State.

    Going back to both Reagan and Bush admiration any legal wall precedent died with the legacy left by a fallen Berlin wall. It is like a Nation trying to re-start the cold War ignoring truth, the cold war died due to the space race not human intentional efforts, it was an accident, advancements made any global destruction easily reachable without the costly expense of maintaining intercontinental nuclear missiles. The nature of World War has changed dramatically by the introduction of advancements in technology overall. In many ways not even full understood yet by the many societies which make up a world.


  • john_c _87

    I have gone back and forth as whether to respond to your.argument because there is a lot of it that I disagree with but it is completly off topic so I have decided not to.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    Ironically, it was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, who closed the borders in the first place. A part of the Democratic statist platform has been anti-free immigration for a long time. For example, in 80-s Reagan, a Republican, was the one pushing the most with the "Tear down that wall!", while Democrats conveniently sit back and said that it is none of our business what Soviets do in on their satellites' territories.

    It only changed after the Soviet Union fell, when Republicans lost their eternal enemy with closed borders, and Democrats became more interested in internationalism. So the parties switched stances. But even so, the advocacy for weak/open borders is a relatively novel phenomenon in recent politics.

    I do think that, should Hillary have won, Democrats would be much more conservative now as far as the border control goes. After all, Obama was very harsh in that regard, and Hillary at large ran on promises to improve upon Obama's ideas. Major parties always bow to their current leaders, so whichever policies the current president favors are going to define how their party as a whole evolves.
    all4actt
  • all4actt said:
    john_c _87

    I have gone back and forth as whether to respond to your. argument because there is a lot of it that I disagree with but it is completely off topic so I have decided not to.
    It is for the best, when no common defense can be made to the general welfare of American United State Constitution. It however is not off topic the fact is you are unprepared for this common defense of the republic, one which can form united state of political representative as though they are petulant children biding for attention of the public. Are disagreement rests specifically on the point of bipartidism itself stems from the idea of any was legality by use of domain issues of national security. To address a point directly a American Canal can be covered as a Congressional Armed Service the acquisitioning a portion of the Military spending throughout its construction.

    The fact is the idea of limiting civil liberties of Mexican's was always only on the principles of medical concerns over population illness including their own, and medical concerns All United States address in general not stated clearly to the public by the venting process of politics. The House consensus should have been made by Presidential state of the union on this constitutional matter.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collaborates to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats.
    https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention

    How far would you travel to find a better life? What if the journey took weeks under difficult conditions?  If you answered "Whatever it takes," you echo the feelings of the 12 million immigrants who passed through these now quiet halls from 1892 to 1954. Ellis Island afforded them the opportunity to attain the American dream for themselves and their descendants.
    https://www.nps.gov/elis/index.htm



  • john_C_87

    It is not that I am unprepared for the argument it is that the topic is the secure boarder was a non-partisan plan between Demoracts and Republicans before Trump made it an issue.  If anyone has an argument that prove differently I will be willing to engage.

    It is not a discussion of whether or not we should have open boarders.  

    As for President Ronald Regan he made a Proclamation that was mostly about maritime sovereignty but he stated:

    NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States of America 

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/05030.html

    We in the US have immigration laws that are used on both northern and southern boarders.  These laws are setup to protect the people of the nation as a whole. You could say that these laws need some changes and I believe they do.

    Open boarders mean letting anyone and everyone in.  This premise is unsafe for the greater population.  

    With the lack of health care in a lot of the poorer nations we take the risk of diseases and virus' being spread that haven't existed in the US for centuries.  So legal immigration screens for indivators of such health risk.

    Legal immigratin screens people for crininal backgrounds   This keeps out an element that none of us want in or society.  We have enough of or own homegrown criminals to deal with.

    They also attempt to assertain whether they are a threat to the nation.  Like blocking entrance to people who have known terrorism connection or on a terrorist watch list.
    Visa prgrams do the same.

    If only good healthy people who wanted to be American Citizen wanted to come in then open boarders wouldn't be an issue but that is not always the case.
     
    As far as a Wall being a necessity on the Southern Boarder I defer to the men and women that work the boarder everyday.  They say we need one and since they are the experts on what works and doesn't work in controlling the boarder I leave it to them.

    You said:

    The issue maid against the American republic with a border wall is simple illegal as a immanent domain issue. Complex crimes are not legal crimes they are only not proven in court of law.

    How are they illegal when both House and the Senate made them laws that were sighned by President Bush and President Obama.

    Laws are laws complex ( which by the way a lot of laws are complex) are legal until found otherwise in the courts.  Challenges to these laws are made all the time and have yet to change them.
  • How are they illegal when both House and the Senate made them laws that were signed by President Bush and President Obama.
    The simple answer before any complex detailing is a fence/wall is unconstitutional as a united state based on national security. A law is not a way to insure legislation as legal. There are two principles of public safety (1) the International Civil War. aka, Drug War, and (2) The medical standards set by united-state held on all constitutional participants of the American United States Constitutional union with disease control for the general welfare of America.

    NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States of America .

    The maritime zones recognized under international law include internal water, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the continental shelf, the high seas and the Area.


    https://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_maritime.html

    https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel

  • john_C_87

    I guess we will see if the fence/wall is unconstutional if it is ever challenged inthe Supreme Court.

    On what grounds would you argue, if given the opportunity, at the Supreme Court that the wall was unconstitutional.
  • I guess we will see if the fence/wall is unconstitutional if it is ever challenged in the Supreme Court.  It's doubtful it would matter how the Supreme court rules on the fence.

    The Supreme Court would never hear an argument of American constitutional alignment or not constitutional alignment, with no disrespect to the Supreme Court the truth is they do not set the United state of Constitution, the Supreme Court sets the legal Precedent on one side of a binding Constitutional principle for a united state. The Court makes agreements with and between both civil and criminal law, the crime in this matter is the inappropriate use of public funding for a fence/wall by itself. It cannot sustain itself and will never finish it was simply a poor construction of united state from its beginnings. Ending the Wall/fence idea is a mercy : compassion or forbearance (see forbearance sense 1)shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power.
    https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/3838/was-the-wall-a-bipartisan-issue-before-president-trump-made-it-a-campaign-promise

    The Supreme Court would be ruling on an argument of criminal and civil actions to stop/halt by legal action a global Clean Energy project, Water desalination project, international transportation project, and matter of National Security as a united state for the side of basic principle to take over the fence properties plus expand land usage to 2,000 – 4,000 ft. . The conditions are above board on law book, Eminent domain opens a door to who bests serves the State and Nations best interests. Realistically the Court itself is setting a similar event closer to what the World Trade Center started in the 1960’s between New York City, State of New York, and New Jersey in a new location.  Eminent Domain

    The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/eminent+domain

    The kind of cases that will go before the Supreme Court, and there will be many will be along the lines of EPA regulations, and why they will yield to National Security to allow a connection of the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean via the Gulf of Mexico. In the best interests of all involved. Also some idea's of just compilation can be seen in tune of property owners making sacrifice to allow recourses like energy, fresh water, and transportation. Land owners have a very hard choice to make and it is not all about money it is about posterity.

  • Yes, but mostly because the two parties were much more alike 15+ years ago. The US is starting to politically divide, and so are the two parties. One is maintaining its establishment(the Republicans), while the other is experiencing a huge political change(Justice democrats, democratic socialists causing a divide in the Democratic party, and they are probably going to win and take over the democratic party).
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • For further clarification in my above comment on why I think the Republicans are maintaining its establishment:

    While it's true it's become more right-wing populist, it's maintained support from the rich, corporations, white males, etc. The democratic party, on the other hand, no longer has as much support from corporations and rich, except those democrats who are still establishment. So, while Trump was seen as a huge change in the Republican party, he really wasn't. He is a wealthy businessman himself and has support from many corporations, etc. So, it's more of the Republican party changed masks, but it's still the same old wealthy Americans supporting it even with Trump being viewed as some sort of outsider. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • From my understanding, the previous administration supported an increase in border spending alongside immigration reform that would've eased the process of coming legally to our nation (Dreamers). I believe it is the harsher rhetoric, alongside the absence of increased spending on immigration courts that make this a partisan issue. If we made the process simple, we may have more support for a border wall. I feel a stronger border should be a small part of larger immigration reform, similar to how democrats treated it in the past. 
  • johnbailet

    I donr"t diagree tha immigeation reforms are neede ,desperately.

    My original point is that both Democrats and Republican administrations both agreed that a boarder fence/wall was necessary prior to Trumps promise for a wall.

    Whether you believe in open boarders or a wall it still remains that both.parties were in agreement that a boarder barrier was necessary in order to aid the boarder patrol to have more control of who and what is coming across our southern boarder.


  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    edited August 12
    Reagan gave the original 2.7 million illegal immigrants a break, by granting them amnesty.

    So now the current 22 million illegal immigrants, I'm guessing, are looking for another President, to give them another Amnesty Handout? 

    Clinton could have done more, but he didn't?

    Both Bushes, could have done more, but he didn't?

    And Obama, could have done more, but he didn't?

    I don't believe it's fair, and equal, or justifiable, to give those illegal immigrants, or aliens, Amnesty because they broke the laws of the United States, by illegally comimg into the country? 

    Why should anyone, reward a criminal, for committing a crime?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch