What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Undocumented Immigrant Thread (1 Viewer)

butcher boy said:
I think it will. It’s common sense that the level of effort required to monitor an area with a wall would be less than the effort at an area without the wall. 
Click to expand...
Not much no...and then you have maintenance as well.

I don't think it frees up much at all...and ignores where the major problems are when it comes to drugs and other things.  Which is the whole point of the opposition to it.

 
Dickies said:
butcher boy said:
https://www.christianpost.com/voice/border-wall-pros-cons-3-biblical-facts.html

From the article:

Do you think maintenance will cost $4B a year, require 58,000 personnel, 16,875 vehicles, 269 aircraft, 300 watercraft, 300 camera towers, and aerial drones?  I don't.  I think most of those resources can be placed at ports of entry to shore things up there, and a fraction of it used for maintenance.
Click to expand...
I would imagine with more wall comes more maintenance.
Click to expand...
This is just the sort of thing a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis would tell us.  Trump's been in office over 2 years and campaigned on the wall - yet he's ordered no study on how to best spend upwards of $25B??  From the party of "fiscal responsibility"?

 
butcher boy said:
CBP apprehended 60k+ last month, and that's just at ports of entry.  That equates to 720K per year, so millions will not take that long.  

The math is very simple.  If it takes CBP XXX number of agents to patrol a completely open stretch of border, it goes without saying that having a huge wall to help prevent crossings should mean less of a need for that same number of agents.  Same goes for drone sweeps, air sweeps, etc.  All can be reduced in places where the wall is in place, and redirected to make the ports of entry even stronger.  
Click to expand...
Yeah...that's not how it works if you're being intellectually honest :shrug:   mixing apprehensions in areas with significantly more opportunities with those in areas where they are/will be few and far between is akin to saying this country has a gun problem because we have 10K more gun incidents than a country where guns are flat out banned.  Comparing apples and oranges never ends well.

 
Sen Thom Tillis  (R-NC)

As a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress. As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms. These are the reasons I would vote in favor of the resolution disapproving of the president's national-emergency declaration, if and when it comes before the Senate.
Click to expand...
Sen Susan Collins  (R-ME)

I disagree with the President's decision to invoke the National Emergencies Act. I don't think that is what the law was intended for. It was intended for catastrophic events, such as the attacks on our nation on 9/11 and severe natural disasters. I do support the lawsuit that was filed by the states. I think that may be the quickest way to get an injunction that would halt this transfer of funds.
Click to expand...
Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has not put out a statement (yet) but publicly stated her intent to vote for as well. Assuming all Dems vote for, that puts the current public count at 50 fors I think.

They only need 51 (and then Trump will have to veto).  And for those thinking McConnell will keep it from going to a vote, he does not have that option (it's privileged so if any single Senator requests a vote, the Senate must vote within 18 days) so there are a lot of Senators that will have to go on record here in a very contentious vote. 

 
prefontaine said:
Sen Thom Tillis  (R-NC)

Sen Susan Collins  (R-ME)

Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has not put out a statement (yet) but publicly stated her intent to vote for as well. Assuming all Dems vote for, that puts the current public count at 50 fors I think.

They only need 51 (and then Trump will have to veto).  And for those thinking McConnell will keep it from going to a vote, he does not have that option (it's privileged so if any single Senator requests a vote, the Senate must vote within 18 days) so there are a lot of Senators that will have to go on record here in a very contentious vote. 
Click to expand...
Any Republican who votes to uphold Trump on this one should be shamed out of office.  (Won't happen, but it should).

 
House officially passes resolution blocking Emergency declaration 245-182

13 Republicans voted for:

Amash

Herrera Beutler

Fitzpatrick

Stefanik

Johnson (SD)

Rooney (FL)

Hurd

Gallagher (Wis)

Massie

Walden

Sensebbrenner

Upton

McMorris Rogers

 
Last edited by a moderator:
prefontaine said:
Agreed. Cornyn stated his opposition which means I will 100% not be voting for him in 2020. And I'm going to send him a note as much. 
Click to expand...
Oh no a note, i'm sure he shouldn't vote his conscience since you are sending him a note!

 
Not enough to override veto, now on to the Senate.  I think it's a done deal and he will use the pen and get what he wants.

 
This needs to be posted in multiple threads because it offers insight to the very basis for them.

From Cohen's testimony:

Mr. Trump is a racist. The country has seen Mr. Trump court white supremacists and bigots. You have heard him call poorer countries “####holes.” In private, he is even worse.He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn’t a “####hole.” This was when Barack Obama was President of the United States. While we were once driving through a struggling neighborhood in Chicago, he commented that only black people could live that way.And, he told me that black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid.And yet I continued to work for him.
Click to expand...

 
This is getting lost in this crazy news cycle but Lamar Alexander (R-TN) rebukes Trump on border emergency. 

Sen. Lamar Alexander delivered an ultimatum to President Donald Trump on Thursday: Reconsider your national emergency declaration at the border or face a potential rebellion from the GOP.
Click to expand...
“We’ve never had a case where the president has asked for money, been refused the money by Congress, then used the national emergency powers to spend it anyway,” he added. “To me that’s a dangerous precedent.“
Click to expand...

 
I’d love to believe it...but they will treat Lamar like others before him and cast him out as lame duck as he isn’t running again.

Despite his years log leadership in the state and nationally as a conservative.

 
prefontaine said:
This is getting lost in this crazy news cycle but Lamar Alexander (R-TN) rebukes Trump on border emergency. 
Click to expand...


sho nuff said:
I’d love to believe it...but they will treat Lamar like others before him and cast him out as lame duck as he isn’t running again.

Despite his years log leadership in the state and nationally as a conservative.
Click to expand...
Trump won't reconsider and there won't be a GOP rebellion.  Easy parlay.

 
Banger said:
Just checking in...is the border still a national emergency?  Haven’t heard much about it....
Click to expand...
Yes.

CBP data shows the proportion of immigrants caught crossing illegally rather than through legal ports of entry has been rising.

It climbed from 73 percent of border crossings between October 2017 and January to 2018 to 83 percent for the same period ending this January 31.

The House voted against the emergency, but didn't have enough votes to override a veto.  Senate will vote in March, so it's looking like Trump will veto the block and get what he wants.

 
JohnnyU said:
Yes.

CBP data shows the proportion of immigrants caught crossing illegally rather than through legal ports of entry has been rising.

It climbed from 73 percent of border crossings between October 2017 and January to 2018 to 83 percent for the same period ending this January 31.

The House voted against the emergency, but didn't have enough votes to override a veto.  Senate will vote in March, so it's looking like Trump will veto the block and get what he wants.
Click to expand...
None of what you just claimed shows any actual emergency.

Also, they didn't have enough in passing that resolution, does not mean they can't get enough to override the veto.  Also, it would still have to get through multiple levels of court cases before he "gets what he wants".

 
sho nuff said:
None of what you just claimed shows any actual emergency.

Also, they didn't have enough in passing that resolution, does not mean they can't get enough to override the veto.  Also, it would still have to get through multiple levels of court cases before he "gets what he wants".
Click to expand...
The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed the resolution 245-182. Thirteen Republicans joined Democrats to vote for the resolution.

The Senate is required to hold a vote on the resolution within 18 days of the House vote.

Three Republican senators already have indicated they will back the resolution terminating the national emergency. Assuming all Democrats vote for it, only four GOP senators would be needed to secure the 51 votes required to send it to the president's desk.

 As for the courts, if that is an obstacle look for it to go to the Supreme court rather quickly (weeks, not months).  I believe I already read that would be the case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
There won't be enough votes in the Senate to override the veto.  I think you can consider that dead. As for the courts, if that is an obstacle look for it to go to the Supreme court rather quickly (weeks, not months).  I believe I already read that would be the case.
Click to expand...
It may very well go quickly...may not.  And Im not so sure they court will rule in his favor either.  Just odd how confident you seem on that.

 
Dems need to keep putting issues to votes and forcing the Senate and Trump to take action of some kind, any kind almost. Then the public gets to make an informed choice for 2020.

The House should pass a national weed bill and vote to lower the age of Medicare by a year with a concurrent across-the-board tax increase of a point. Make Republicans oppose these things and risk getting their butts handed to them next year.

 
Rand Paul to oppose Trump on national emergency

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will vote to disapprove of President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, clinching a bipartisan majority in opposition of the president’s move to secure funding for a border wall. “I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” Paul said at an event in Kentucky on Saturday, according to the Bowling Green Daily News. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/03/03/rand-paul-trump-national-emergency-1200372

 
Mile High said:
Rand Paul to oppose Trump on national emergency

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will vote to disapprove of President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, clinching a bipartisan majority in opposition of the president’s move to secure funding for a border wall. “I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” Paul said at an event in Kentucky on Saturday, according to the Bowling Green Daily News. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/03/03/rand-paul-trump-national-emergency-1200372
Click to expand...
Amazing. 

 
Mile High said:
Rand Paul to oppose Trump on national emergency

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will vote to disapprove of President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, clinching a bipartisan majority in opposition of the president’s move to secure funding for a border wall. “I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” Paul said at an event in Kentucky on Saturday, according to the Bowling Green Daily News. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/03/03/rand-paul-trump-national-emergency-1200372
Click to expand...
color me minimally impressed

 
If he didn’t, someone else would have. I think a lot of Republicans want to show that they don’t want this without doing anything to actually stop it. It was a near lock that it wasn’t going to pass the Senate only to get vetoed.

 
Mile High said:
Rand Paul to oppose Trump on national emergency

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will vote to disapprove of President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, clinching a bipartisan majority in opposition of the president’s move to secure funding for a border wall. “I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” Paul said at an event in Kentucky on Saturday, according to the Bowling Green Daily News. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/03/03/rand-paul-trump-national-emergency-1200372
Click to expand...
This is actually a pretty big rift in the nutjob wing of our political spectrum. I don't think we have seen the end of this from either side. There is a chance we even see Trump challenge Paul on twitter, which will really rile some people up.

 
Have you noticed that Trump hasn't been talking as much about The Wall lately?

It's almost like he thinks that once he said "I declare emergency!", then the emergency somehow went away.

 
Times article on Senate vote. As far as consequences of the vote, it's is largely symbolic, but meaningful for a couple of reasons, not the least that

But the plaintiffs in multiple lawsuits will most likely seize upon a congressional repudiation as support for their argument that, in declaring a national emergency to take money for his wall that was not appropriated by Congress, Mr. Trump is subverting the Constitution, which grants Congress clear control over federal spending.
Click to expand...
But it goes on to detail who else may vote against and why but of particular interest are those that could affirm for purely for political reasons -- Sen Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) that are both up for re-election in 2020.

CO has turned more blue and Gardner probably doesn't need that issue hanging over him. Tough political calculus for McSally as this plays well in the primary but likely not in the general. I'm not sure she'd be the nominee if she votes for but I don't pretend to know AZ GOP politics. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Not really.  Its nothing in the big scheme of things.

Paul knows that there are not enough votes to overcome a veto - so the vote is essentially meaningless.  Paul gets to act tough, and Trump gets to keep his Emergency.
Click to expand...
FWIW, slight distinction I heard this morning. Paul apparently has said he worries granting extraconstitutional powers (his word IIRC) because Dems might use it. I find it fascinating if he has no problem using it for his own party’s purposes. Regardless, I’ll take it.

 
We all know this "national emergency" claim will go to court.  It's unavoidable.  

Question:  Does it help or hurt his attempt at this classification that he is asking for more money in his 2020 budget proposal?  I mean, if it's an emergency, then the amount he's asking for SHOULD be enough to "fix" the "emergency", no?  It seems to me, asking for more is a simply acknowledgment that he just wants to skirt Congress for a small chunk now knowing he'll ask for more later.  What will the excuse be for the next chunk?

 
Not that it is going to change the outcome but Sen Mike Lee (R-UT)

“For decades, Congress has been giving far too much legislative power to the executive branch,” Lee said in a statement. “I will be voting to terminate the latest emergency declaration.”
Click to expand...

 
The caravan has been raging all day in the distance and I am unable to ascertain whether any thing has been gained or not. O how I long for this caravan to end. How I long for freedom fries. How will I hail the day when I return to the bosom of my family. My Dear I hope to see you.

 
Sheriff Bart said:
The caravan has been raging all day in the distance and I am unable to ascertain whether any thing has been gained or not. O how I long for this caravan to end. How I long for freedom fries. How will I hail the day when I return to the bosom of my family. My Dear I hope to see you.
Click to expand...
I believe that’s the first chapter of “Letters to my sister/wife from the border front”

 
TobiasFunke said:
He's retiring; I'd be pretty surprised if he doesn't vote in line with what he wrote.

Obviously the fact that he's retiring also makes it a little less impressive that he stuck to his principles and came out in opposition, but at this point we have to take what we can get from the right.
Click to expand...
“He would like for us to vote against the [resolution]. But he understands and respects that senators may have different opinions,” Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, who reportedly hasn’t yet decided how he will vote on the resolution, told Politico. “There’s a border crisis and we have to deal with it. But I still have my constitutional concern.”

:coffee:

 
timschochet said:
So today we find out just how many Republican Senators are willing to rebuke and embarrass President Trump. 
Click to expand...
Today would be a day I wish the Republican Senators would vote with their conscience. They all know it's not an emergency. Every single one of them. Lowest amount of crossings in 45 years.  If they all stuck together, Trump couldn't single them out and turn his base against them. He's going to need them over these next two years. Unfortunately, nothing we've seen indicates there's any chance of that happening.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Do You Believe Current Democrats Have A "Messaging" Problem? (4/26/22 23:29 PST)
2
Replies
96
Views
2K
dickey moe
dickey moe
GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
780
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top