I am not so sure someone bringing his/her child to America with hope of escaping violence and with the hope of a better life would be considered "child abuse"... but sure, you be you.
I can't stay here all day but: a) who's being sensitive? b) who's engaged in baseless ad hominem? It's funny when critics of Trump and left wingers resort to personal attacks that have no relationship to the argument at hand, then decry those who are supposedly "sensitive".
The thing about caravans is that they can't sneak up on anybody. You can't jump the border with 7,000 friends and an entourage of reporters. Some fragments of a caravan might try it, but as we saw in Tijuana recently its hard to be successful like that. If the next caravan tries to cross the Sonoran desert, border patrol will be there waiting in force. I think just about the last thing we need to worry about regarding illegal immigration is the prospect of large caravans coming en masse to the border. Border patrol will know where they're headed, will deploy resources appropriately, and those migrants will have to do everything according to the process -- take a number and apply for asylum. So I don't see how additional wall helps even incrementally, even by a small measure, on the issue of caravans. Re the relationship between refugees and economic migrants, you're right it's muddy. We're past due on fixing the legislation that governs what we want to do in this area, but Congress hasn't touched the question of refugees since 1980. They should definitely address it now, but they aren't even trying. So there's nothing doing but to operate the refugee machine we have right now.
What an idiotic tweet. Of course people are going to die in U.S. Customs and border protection custody. A certain percentage of the world population is going to die this very hour. Ten's of thousands of people attempt to illegally enter the United States every month. Many of those people are in terrible condition upon being detained. Most of these people have taken an extremely long and arduous journey through (often times) extreme conditions with little or no preparation. Some humans will die under these circumstances. Additionally, the U.S. Customs and border protection service is a human institution with human failings like any other, people working within it will make mistakes and tragedy may result. To represent/insinuate these peoples deaths are on the hands of the United States government due to some sort of intentional systemic mistreatment is morally bankrupt but that's no surprise coming from a Kennedy. Additionally, temporarily detaining children who enter the U.S. illegally in some form of government run facility is a perfectly reasonable and adequate measure. Something along the lines of 400,000 children are wards of the State in the United States. The idea that temporarily detaining children at a government run facility is a crime against humanity is laughable.
No but the organizers promising these people that a big ass caravan could just waltz right into the country without a hitch might be.
They were not facing violence as they trekked across Mexico unless it was from their fellow caravanners. So yeah, child abuse.
It's a problem that becomes Mexico's problem so long as they go somewhere the US has a physical border built already. If they headed to a part of the border with nothing there then you just added 7000 people to the already overwhelmed ICE detention system.
Dude this is exactly how it feels and started to post something similar last night, dead on! Rowdy had no idea.
The people bringing their children to the United States with the hope of a better life were not all from Mexico but from many countries. But keep being you...
Exective branch stealing power nice writeup- please allow me to frame the issues involved with "the wall" in its actual terms. Despite what the media is saying, this is not about Democrat vs. Republican. In short, the executive branch of our government is threatening to declare a national emergency since the legislative branch will not authorize the seizure of private American property for a federal works project nor will fund it. The executive branch has already shut down the federal government. It is currently threatening to extend this government shut down for however long it takes for the legislative branch to cave. Let us break this down. First of all, the framework of our government is based on checks and balances. Power is divided into three branches: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. The Legislative branch controls the purse strings of government and creates laws. The Executive branch carries out those laws. The Judicial branch tells us whether the laws are constitutional or not. Each branch was designed to be able to balance the other branches. Why? As shown by our original rebellion, Americans didn't want a King or a Dictator when we were setting up our government. We were not particularly thrilled with a House of Lords telling us what we could or could not do either. In this case, the executive branch wants to: (1) take governmental cash, (2) create its own law, (3) take away private property from American citizens (4) create its own federal works project. At least three of these functions fall within the power/ responsibility of the legislative branch. So, what is the problem? This is one of the most naked power grabs by the executive branch over the others in recent history. Once that power is exercised, it is going to be difficult or impossible to regain any balance again. The executive branch was never meant to have that much power (see our country's previous concerns about Kings and Dictators). Is this constitutional? Very doubtful. Should all Americans be concerned? That is a question for you to answer yourself. Second, a "National Emergency" is generally declared under these general conditions: (1) Natural disasters including hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes to name a few. (2) Public health emergencies such as significant outbreaks of infectious diseases. (3) Military attacks. (4) Civil insurrection. (5) Any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy. Now the first 4 aren't applicable. The last category was meant to be short-term only. It was designed to be reviewed by the legislative branch every year after it’s enacted (because again; the check and balance is fundamental to how we operate). So, what is the problem here? If national emergencies can be declared by the executive branch for non-emergency purposes which vest power in one branch of the government why would that branch ever let go of that power again? Third, the seizure of private property (known as “eminent domain”, a body of law which says the government cannot just take your home without due process). You are joking, right? No. The US/Mexican border is 1,933 miles long. It runs through 4 states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas). Only 33% of that land is actually owned or managed by the Federal Government. A sizable percentage of that land is owned by the Indian nations. It is land preserved for those tribes by treaty and land given under treaty is not land owned by the United States. These tribes already have a lot of reasons to be angry at the Federal Government. This would be pouring additional gas on an open flame. The other 64% of that land is privately owned. How much land would have to be taken? The amount of land that the Federal Government would have to take would likely run 1,237 miles long to 12,371 miles deep (assuming a 1 to 10-mile DMZ from the border into the United States). Even if we could only take 100 to 500 ft of land in densely populated areas, that is a lot of private property that is going to be seized by the Federal government. The land necessary for this project would also run through some highly populated areas in the US such as San Diego, Calexico, Nogales, El Paso, and Laredo. There will be a lot of Americans who are going to have their homes and businesses taken by the federal government. Which will also mean a lot of lawsuits. In terms of the federal works project, these types of works include hospitals, bridges, highways, walls and dams. These projects may be funded by local, state, or federal appropriations. If they are federal, they are funded by the legislative branch of our government (the same branch that our executive branch is currently trying to take power from). Is the seizure of power constitutional? Not likely given the separation of powers discussed above. Finally, these considerations do not take into account the sheer cost, human and monetary, that will be involved. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the current cost at $21 billion for construction alone (not counting costs of maintenance or costs associated with increased military/federal patrolling). Ask yourself a simple question. When was the last time that you saw a governmental project brought in under time and under budget? Does anyone remember the “big dig” in Boston, Mass? The actual costs are likely to be much higher. This estimated cost also does not include compensating folks for taking their land or the associated impact upon their businesses. The Federal budget deficit grew to $779 billion dollars in 2018 according to the Treasury Department. How are we, as a country, going to fund this project? How are we, as a country, going to deal with the additional debt? Unlike private businesses, our country cannot declare bankruptcy. This is not about Democrat vs. Republican. It is not about who has the best zingers measured in 10 second sound bites. It is about our country. The core of this issue deals with the profound and immense changes the outcome will have on the structure of our nation. This is the way that we, as a country, should be framing these issues. Please think about it.
If the legislative branch wants to check the executive branch after an emergency is declared they can overrule it with a majority vote in both houses....so no, the executive branch declaring an emergency and taking care of business is not "stealing power". In fact, the congress has given the executive the power to begin with. An example of the executive "stealing power" would have been Obama's DACA program via executive order.
Bravo, IBTL, Bravo. Honest, intelligent thoughts, free of the political bickering. The response from Trump supporters no doubt will be ... look at what X and Y did, how is that any different from what Trump is doing. I think people call it whataboutism. The issues you have identified exist across so much of the Trump presidency (vomit). He has no regard for law, idolizes dictators because he wants to be one, and has a base that doesn’t care how he gets things done, even if it runs contrary to All the principles you’ve outlined. It’s all justified. This is why the Trump Wall isn’t just about the wall. It’s about stopping this nonsense.
