I say we get permission from Jeff to do a podcast for clutchfans I think it’s time to get these idiots in order
Wait. He said the money was appropriated for the wall, and he tried to get it reappropriated, but Congress wouldn't. For that reason, he has no choice but to waive a bunch of federal environmental laws to build the wall quicker (a wall that he said will not work). That doesn't pass the smell test. Maybe someone can explain why he can't simply choose not to build it or delay building it (in the hope that it gets reappropriated in a future Democrat-controlled Congress) because it would violate federal laws.
What the hell happened to this thread the last few pages? There is a lot of misunderstandings of the law here. There's a lot of "how things should be" confused with "how things are." Regarding this issue: - Trump ran on building a wall and asked for a ton of money. - Congress gave him some money, but not nearly enough. - Trump then diverted millitary money to try to make up for the difference and while that proceeded slowly, that also got held up in court eventually because presidents, in general, do not control the power of spending. - Biden gets into office and says, "no more wall." - Biden diverts the money already appropriated for the wall to be used on things like roads near the borders and security cameras. - A lower court may have already said that you can't do that because a wall is a wall, not a camera. Someone can correct me with the courts process timeline, but I think that's what happened. - Instead of continuing to fight that uphill battle, because it's hard to not to say, "a wall is a wall," Biden agrees to use the wall money on building a wall. - Of course, when Congress passes a new law or new funding, it may be in conflict wiith the gray area of old laws, but that's what courts are for. So environmental agencies and whatnot can sue. Generally, new laws take precedence over old laws. Also, the old laws don't clearly state that you cannot build a wall. There may be environment concerns, but those are gray areas. Biden is not breaking the law by building part of the wall, as he's actually following the law. Congress makes laws and presidents execute them. Regarding keeping asylum seekers out: - port of entry vs not port of entry is a gray area of the with flexibiliity given to the executive branch on how to order deportation - technically, the law says anyone who comes (via land, boat, sea air, overstay a visa) can declare. Trump's policy changes were all challenged in court, and some were struck down and some were allowed. Biden is continuing those that were allowed, to the dismay of many pro-asylum groups. - the law says you have to let them in and then deport based on policy parameters. And sure, many policy parameters can help limit the entry numbers of people you have to process, but it's impossible to stop unless you have the following: - international cooperation - congressional funding - statute changes - some deportations are immediate, some take time, and some take years (aka never happen because there's not enough funding). Policies determine the order of deportations. As long as Venezuala and other countries suck economically, people from those countries will always travel north because the US is awesome in comparison. 99% of people get deported, regardless of whether it's Obama, Trump, or Biden. Trump had the novel "stay in Mexico" but that got overturned by SCOTUS and requires Mexico's consent for everyone else to stay in Mexico. Basically, you have to pay Mexico off. But it definitely is a good thing if you care about immigration policy effectiveness that the Biden admin has made agreements with Venezuala, Panama, Colombia, Spain, and Canada all to help deport or take-in migrants. The US cannot do it alone. It doesn't matter if 99% get deported when there are just overwhelming numbers. The wall is good in the sense that it's barrier. It's dumb in the sense that unless the law is changed and/or policy is funded, you have to let people into a line that is already too long. That's the geneva conventions ratified by Congress. That's the asylum law passed by Congress. So you have to change the law, fund the law and do all the other things. Then sure, the wall can help after the more important things are taken care of first.
The bold text is what I didn't understand. If he's not breaking the law, why would he need to waive federal environmental laws (unless that's inaccurate reporting)? If it's accurate, is he waiving them to avoid lawsuits?
That's a good question. I haven't read the in-depth reporting yet, only the regular articles, which are crap. I think this could be any of a combo of the following: -bad reporting -bad headlines -"waiving" improperly being used because it sounds like the Biden admin is breaking the law. Instead of waiving, it could be speeding up timelines, or making a grant where that is allowed, or doing a basic approval where discretion is allowed. I'm really curious about these 26 waivers that have been reported. Edit: I found it. Thanks Texas Public Radio for the link: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://public-inspection.federalre...m_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email As I suspected, new law > old law. The immigration laws passed after the environmental laws allow for DHS to have the authority to waive environment procedure laws in order to enact immigration policy. So, Congress gives money to build a wall, DHS builds a wall that may impact the environment. Procedures are usually follwed to evaluate that, including a public comment period. DHS can just waive those procedures because Congress said, "here's money for a wall, so build a wall." That authority is built into the newer law passed by Congress.
Good posts and to add regulators do have leeway regarding enforcement of regulations. For example a building official can not enforce parts of the building code if they feel there is a compelling reason for doing so.
I live in Chicago. Seeing Chicago and the mayor and Illinois Governor act like the state is over ran with marauders storming the walls to the city gets a chuckle out of me. They act as if 15,000 over a year has broken the city… it’s a joke.
The border is over 2,000 miles long. Walls are a temporary deterrent and nothing more unless those walls are constantly monitored with humans to prevent crossing. So if you want to watch towers every 50 yards with armed guards with permission to shoot - over 2,000 miles - you can probably keep most people out. Many of the walls build to keep others out have shoot on sight orders or land mines. The USA has never been closed like this. We can argue that maybe we should just greatly increase spending and build walls and increase the number of cameras and agents 20x and it’s worth it - but it will take something like that. Just building walls with no real supervision won’t do much. Congress needs to figure it out - and hasn’t for decades.
The key metric will be to see how many people get over/under/through this 20 mile stretch. What a waste. We may as well widen the sidewalks for Jerry Nadler.
