Rand Paul Will Vote to Block Trump's Emergency Declaration
The Kentucky senator's opposition appears to be the critical 51st vote in opposition to the president's executive power grab.
Eric Boehm | 3.3.2019 2:30 PM
JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS/Newscom
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Saturday that he will vote to block President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the southern border—potentially providing the tipping-point vote that would allow Congress to block Trump's attempt to use the declaration to obtain funding for a border wall.
"I can't vote to give extra-Constitutional powers to the president," Paul said during a speech at a Republican Party dinner in his home state on Saturday night, the Bowling Green Daily News reported. "I can't vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn't been appropriated by Congress."
Trump declared a national emergency along the southern border on February 15, shortly after the conclusion of a weeks-long government shutdown that failed to convince Congress to grant his request for $57 billion to build about 230 miles of fencing. The emergency declaration seeks to redirect about $3.6 billion in defense funding already appropriated by Congress to the border wall project.
But the House of Representatives voted last week to terminate the national emergency declaration. House Democrats voted unanimously for that resolution, and 13 House Republicans broke with the White House to support it.
It's been less certain whether that resolution can pass the Republican-controlled Senate, but Paul's stated opposition to Trump's emergency declaration likely means it will. Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski of (R-Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have already said they would vote to block Trump's declaration. With all 47 Senate Democrats expected to oppose it as well, four Republican votes would be enough to secure the resolution's passage. With a number of other senators on the fence, it seems likely the final tally will be higher than the 51 votes necessary for passage.
That likely will not be the end of the drama over the border wall funding, as Trump has promised to veto the disapproval resolution. Overriding that veto would require 290 votes in the House—45 more than the resolution received last month—and 20 Republican votes in the Senate to reach the 67-vote threshold.
Even so, congressional opposition to the emergency declaration is a welcome rebuke to the Trump administration's executive overreach in this instance. The emergency declaration is an obvious end-run around Congress and could set a precedent to be exploited by future presidents eager to spend money on projects not approved by Congress.
Leaving aside those broader issues, the emergency declaration is deeply flawed on its own. The president may have the authority to redirect spending due to the emergency declaration, but he does not have the authority to seize private lands or to use military funding for a civilian construction project—even under the vague and broad powers granted to the executive by the National Emergencies Act.
It remains to be seen how Paul's opposition to Trump's emergency declaration will affect the senator's relationship with the White House. In recent months, Paul has made a concerted effort to bend the president's ear on foreign policy and has praised Trump's efforts at ending America's decades-long conflicts in the Middle East—though he also broke with the White House by voting against the confirmation of Attorney General William Barr. Paul cited concerns about Barr's stance on warrantless surveillance.
On Saturday night, Paul reportedly praised Trump in his speech to about 200 Kentucky Republicans, the Bowling Green Daily News reported, before turning abruptly to announce his opposition to the president's emergency declaration.
"We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn't authorize it," Paul said. "If we take away those checks and balances, it's a dangerous thing."
NEXT: Trump Vows That an Executive Order on Campus Free Speech Is Coming 'Very Soon'
Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.
Rand Paul Border wall Donald Trump emergency declaration
Hide Comments (188)
chemjeff radical individualist
March.3.2019 at 2:48 pm
Good for him!
I was starting to get worried that he was more of a performance artist than a principled libertarian. Thank heavens he is demonstrating otherwise with this move.
Brett Bellmore
Has he introduced resolutions to block previous emergency declarations? I don't care if the resolution went anywhere, but if he didn't at least introduce such a resolution previously, I'm not impressed with this vote.
Why would he? I mean, I would prefer if he would say that the NEA itself should be repealed, but it's also a perfectly consistent position to say that this particular 'national emergency' is unique compared to the others and should be rejected on its own merits.
LynchPin1477
I guess I should have read this comment before posting mine
leninsmummy
March.4.2019 at 8:54 am
Introducing a bill to repeal or narrow the scope of the NEA would have been the principled thing to do. So naturally congress won't.
It's possible to believe that the President should, under extraordinary circumstances, have the ability to declare an emergency, while still believing that it isn't justified in this case.
+100 🙂
Yeah, it is, in which case this isn't about abuses of power, it's about keeping the border open.
The border isn't open. It's just not a 100-mile-tall forcefield.
Last of the Shitlords
March.4.2019 at 12:25 am
Hey dumbass, when you can just walk across most of it without any problem, tha is effectively open.
The ghOst of mcgOo
Yea, because the thousands of men and women serving in the border patrol are essentially useless.
Not useless, just utterly inadequate for the job, and deliberately so.
So pretty much the same as the Wall.
Serious question: At what point would you consider the border "secure"?
Would you require a wall over the entire length of the border?
Surely there would still be some measure of illegal immigration even if there was a wall on the entire border. What level of illegal immigration would be acceptable enough for you?
Nardz
March.3.2019 at 11:16 pm
"What level of illegal immigration would be acceptable enough for you?"
Less than hundreds of thousands per year would be a good start
Titanian
And no child rapists even though chemjeff wants them all here.
Unlimited border crossings, no matter how many children are raped. It's the Little Jeffy way.
You really are a pathetic troll, you know that?
Under 10,000 per year.
There's a very easy way to get the number of illegal immigrants below 10,000. Guest worker program. Although i doubt you would be in favor.
I would consider the border "secure" at the point where attempting to cross it without being caught was such a hopeless task that essentially everybody who wanted entry into the US would present themselves at legal border crossings to negotiate customs.
At the point where illegal border crossings were a negligible percentage of illegal immigration, and basically all illegal immigration, (90-99%) consisted of visa overstays, I'd view the job as accomplished.
This wouldn't require a "hundred mile tall forcefield", just a modest physical barrier capable of slowing people down, combined with sensors to detect them crossing it, and frequent enough guard posts that they couldn't disappear before somebody showed up to apprehend or repel them.
Naturally, the fewer guard posts, the more substantial the physical barrier has to be, it's a trade off. The push for a serious wall is a consequence of deliberately undermanning the human side of border security.
Well, then there are two choices:
1. Make crossing the border illegally so dangerous that no one would dare to risk it.
2. Make crossing the border illegally so pointless that no one would bother to risk it.
If you choose Option 1, then what you're asking for is essentially Berlin Wall-style border security. It would take something close to that level of security to achieve the results you are looking for. And even with the Berlin Wall, with guards willing to shoot the crossers, there were still people who were willing to risk it and people who succeeded.
If you choose Option 2, it would require making legal immigration easier. Part of the reason why there is so much illegal immigration is that there can be a 20+ year wait time to get a visa. Make that time much shorter, and people won't pay coyotes or try to sneak across desert in order to get here.
I vote for Option 2. What do you vote for?
You vote for imporing child rapists.
Does making attempting to rob a bank pointless entail the bank handing out money to anyone who asks, so as to remove the incentive to rob the bank? No, the reason the bank wants to prevent bank robberies is because they have a finite amount of money to hand out, and they need to hand it out to people who either gave it to the bank in the first place, or who can reasonably be expected to return it with interest.
And the bank robbers are neither of those groups, and would continue to rob banks regardless of how much money the banks had to hand out to people who it made any sense to hand the money to.
The people who are illegally immigrating are, by and large, not the people who would be, under any rational system of legal immigration, allowed into the country anyway. Even if we doubled or tripled legal immigration, it still wouldn't make any sense to allow legal immigration by people who aren't English literate, or have criminal records, or are unskilled labor. Even under a system of increased immigration, you're going to be selective about who is allowed in, which means there will be people who want in that you'd say "No!" to, and they'll try to enter illegally.
So, we might want to make immigration easier for some people, but it won't take the illegal immigration pressure off, because the illegals are different people. Making immigration easier isn't part of solving the illegal immigration problem, unless you make immigration stupidly easier.
Baron Von Weinermobile
Brett Bellmore, your analogy is complete bullshit. The immigrants are not taking anything from you or me. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. They add to our economy and have made me, personally, and many others wealthier and happier. Who the fuck are you to tell me I should have to hire "english speakers" to do my drywall or my garden. And who are you (or your appointed bureaucrat "top men") to decide who will be valuable for the future of the economy? How about letting the market decide? Overall, how about you just mind your own fucking business, and let me run mine, you fucking commie fuck.
retiredfire
While calling bullshit, your initial claim is what is bullshit.
They don't add to our economy.
And just because you take advantage of them, by paying them less than a legal worker, and get to pocket the money for yourself doesn't make those of us, who want to decide who, and when we allow people to enter the country, into commies.
That's you open-borders type, especially because enough of them will lead to a socialist/communist nation.
Fuck off, slaver!
The people who are illegally immigrating are, by and large, not the people who would be, under any rational system of legal immigration, allowed into the country anyway.
Huh. So it's not really about the fact that their immigration is illegal. You object to their immigration here at all, whether it is done legally or not.
And, you cannot have it both ways. If you truly want to keep all of those immigrants out, it's going to take more than a piddly little fence or even a wall. As I said, it will require something approaching Berlin Wall-style border security. And I frankly don't think that there is any sort of public appetite to see soldiers shooting unarmed Mexicans trying to scale a wall.
chemjeff is right on this one. I worked as a Border Patrol Agent and I can tell you, there is an easier and cheaper way to secure the border. And for what it's worth, when I was down there it was far worse than it is now. Border Patrol is more than capable of doing their job if the politicians fixed immigration law. Currently, legal immigration is near impossible for the vast majority of people. My guess is that is by design, based upon a debunked malthusian view of the world in which everyone is terrified of overpopulation and dwindling resources. But the people who are obsessed purely with stemming the flow by barrier, ignore the laws of economics. People have an economic incentive to come here. We have an economic incentive to bring them here. A wall wont change that. And even if it did work, would we be better off by having all our guest workers locked out of the American economy? All that will have been accomplished is that a lot of tax payer dollars will have been spent, people's property will have been taken by force, the economy will lose steam, and the precedent will have been set that the president can act like a monarch. I get wanting to stop illegal immigration, but if any libertarian actually looks at the absurd complexity and restrictionism of immigration law, they will notice quite quickly that it is based implicitly upon a socialist world view. Why not scrap this vestige of collectivism first? If that doesn't work, then we can build a wall.
Your logic sounds like as much bullshit as your claim to have been a border control agent.
We cannot let untold numbers of people into the country. The current 1.6 million, per year, that we legally allow, now, may be too many.
You must work under the ridiculous premise that letting in millions of people will suddenly create the jobs that they will have to hold to support themselves.
Let's get many of the millions of Americans "out of the workforce", that are capable of working, back to being productive citizens, instead of living off other's labors, if we are short of workers.
Having a regulated immigration system is in no way a "socialist world view" and your effort to paint it as "collectivism" is a weak attempt to appeal to the republican endeavor that America is supposed to be.
Azathoth!!
What level of illegal immigration would be acceptable enough for you?
That's why it's called 'illegal'.
You may not be able to stop all of it, but NONE of it is acceptable.
this isn't about abuses of power, it's about keeping the border open
Or it could be about preventing abuses of power by using emergency declaration powers when there isn't an actual emergency.
Trying to decide whether this is a real emergency or not? Let's walk thru it:
(1) Trump did next to nothing about his wall the first two years of his presidency.
(2) He blamed this on being "a little new to the job", which is a absurd lie even by DJT standards.
(3) His sudden increase in job efficiency occurred overnight. He had agreed to the (pre-shutdown) budget accord, took some ragging from Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, then switched his position 180 degrees the next morning. The shutdown & "emergency" was the result.
(4) An "emergency" that exists only because Trump panicked over the entertainment product of Coulter and Limbaugh isn't an emergency. His cowardice doesn't change the facts on the ground
Q.E.D
Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Also, I don't know what you consider to be a closed border, but Trump's emergency declaration certainly won't be enough to put a wall up over the whole thing, and literally closing the border to all crossings except at specified checkpoints is practically impossible.
No, it's not practically impossible. The Southern border is finite in length, and really quite short on a per capita basis, about 3/8" per person.
We could literally station a guy with a gun every ten feet, and the cost wouldn't be excessive, given the size of our economy. With a fence with sensors, a guy every hundred feet would be overkill.
Are you 14? You are literally 14 years old, aren't you?
According to Google the US-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long. That's 10,317,120 feet. A guard every 10 feet would require 1,031,712 guards. Payscale.com says that a border patrol agent makes $24.57/hour. Let's assume a 50% fringe benefit rate so that total compensation is $36.86/hour. You'll want to guard the border 24 hours per day, 365.2421875 days per year (gotta remember leap years!). So your yearly budget in salary alone will be
103172*36.86/hour * 8765.8125 hours = $333 billion
The Dept. of Homeland Security budget is currently $47.5 billion this year. The Dept. of Defense's budget is $755 billion when you include war funding.
So I guess if you consider an 8 fold increase in the current Homeland Security budget, or 44% of the war-time Dept. of Defense budget, to not be "excessive" for an action taking place entirely on American soil, then you're right.
Happy with a guard every 100 feet? Oh, well, now you just have increase the Homeland Security budget by a factor of 1.7. But remember, we haven't even gotten into equipment and administrative costs yet.
Then there are the legal questions of permanently stationing armed agents of the state on private land, which you'd have to do under your proposal.
So, I'm sticking with "practically impossible".
For added context, that's almost 60% of Medicare's budget.
And remember, that's just salaries for the guards. You have to house them, feed them, get them water, sewage lines, electricity, equipment, train them. Then there's the support staff and administrators -- someone in the military can probably provide a more accurate number, but some Googling suggests that a 2.5:1 ratio of non-combat to combat personnel is typical of the modern US military (and your suggestions amounts to a major military deployment). So you're easily crossing into $1 trillion per year.
So you're easily approaching 30% of the cost to the government of Sanders' Medicare for all plan according to the Mercatus Center.
TJJ2000
Now's here's the hularious part ---
"103172*36.86/hour * 8765.8125 hours = $333 billion"
For a guard every 100-Feet 1/10th = $33B
The "Border Bill" pitched by Democrats gave $21B to pander illegal immigrants and $1B for wall.
THEY'LL SPEND JUST ABOUT AS MUCH as hiring a border agent for every 100-feet to subsidize the illegal invasion. Yet, the wall will last for years and years and years.
jst1
Luckily we can look to the statute for guidance on what an extraordinary circumstance is.
Oh wait, we can't. So in the absence of such guidance, the Congress can vote no. But Paul's objection is not based on some intuition about an extraordinary circumstance standard, he apparently objects to the substance of the NEA. So then why not sponsor a bill to repeal the NEA?
Paul misses the mark with his justification for voting no.
DASGUY
Repeal the NEA? It is there to give cover to members of Congress. Not gonna repeal it.
Paul is in the Senate, although that only seems to stop Republicans from legislating in the wrong House.
buybuydandavis
"Has he introduced resolutions to block previous emergency declarations? "
Presidential emergency powers are only bad when they protect Americans from the Globalist ruling class.
A "Libertarian Moment" from Rand Paul.
I think a lot of his spinelessness you keep ascribing to him is him playing politics. He has apparently been quite successful at gaining Trump's ear. Which is a good thing. I do believe a lot of politics is grandstanding, and that Trump is not actually some unique threat. So talking with him and guiding in him on things is a reasonable thing to do.
I hope you are right.
I hope you don't get your way and import some child rapists.
JesseAz
Lol. Jeff talking about principles as he fully supports economic terrorism against businesses who are religious.
BigT
Rand is right, as usual.
But the veto will stick.
Probably. But I don't think it is a foregone conclusion.
Frankly I don't think there are really that many Republicans in Congress that are genuinely hard-core pro-Trump. There are a few, like Steve King and Mark Meadows, but most I think are pro-Trump only in an opportunistic way, and/or they are scared of being bullied by Trump. If more can stand up to him without seeing the sky fall in front of their eyes, it may lead to Congress finally growing a spine a little bit.
No, you think importing child rapists is a good idea and want to do so.
Yep, he's a stupid, sick piece of shit.
Tu|pa's just hoping to get his little tiny dick sucked. Little shitty will probably help him though.
Cry more bitch.
Oh look tulpa is here to shit up another thread. Go away you pathetic troll.
Stop importing child rapists.
https://reason.com/blog/2019/03.....nt_7699009
No one is going to click a link from a person who wants to import child rapists.
Vernon Depner
he does not have the authority...to use military funding for a civilian construction project
I'm not a Wall enthusiast, but isn't it the libertarian position that defending our borders against invaders is pretty much the ONLY legitimate function of the army? How is fortifying the border a "civilian" project?
DenverJ
Because hordes of people invading our nation isn't "invasion" invasion. Just lay back and think of England.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the US is not in a state of war with Mexico.
So, other countries are free to invade us, as long as they don't declare war?
Normally I would think that a military invasion would constitute by itself an act of war.
However you're referring to an 'invasion' of unarmed unorganized civilians. Do you think this constitutes an act of war?
So, other countries are free to invade us, as long as they appear to be disorganized?
I think there's a qualitative difference between an organized military campaign to conquer territory by crossing a border, and peaceful unarmed migrants crossing a border. Do you? Or do you think both types of 'invasions' are equivalent?
I think crossing a border illegally is not peaceful; it's an act of aggression. I think the illegal border crossings at our southern border are not "unorganized"?the gangs that smuggle people in are very organized; the caravans of people from further south are obviously well-organized and well-funded; the Mexican government has a history of facilitating illegal border crossing. I think stopping invaders is a legitimate function of our armed forces, regardless of how some guy who calls himself "chemjeff" on a comment board characterizes them.
And what difference would it make if they were armed? Isn't bearing arms a human right? Isn't your support for open borders based on your principled devotion to respecting the human rights of migrants and the citizens they are visiting? If they have the right to cross our border, how can you deny them the right to bear arms?
I think crossing a border illegally is not peaceful; it's an act of aggression.
Well, let's start there. I think it very much depends whether it's an act of aggression or not.
If I walk onto your private property uninvited? Sure, that is aggression.
If I walk onto your private property invited? That's not aggression.
If I walk onto your private property invited, BUT there is an international border in the way? That's not aggression either, even though it is illegal without permission from the state.
If you disagree with this last claim, and think that it does constitute an act of aggression, then please state precisely who is the victim. If your answer is "the victims are all of the citizens of the country who did not consent to me crossing the border", then please also explain why that SAME reasoning wouldn't also apply to the second claim, which would essentially nationalize all property.
"the victims are all of the citizens of the country who did not consent to me crossing the border"
Let's not forget the large majority of citizens of the country who do consent (when talking about refugees).
Tu­lpa AKA "feeling smug"
If you disagree with this last claim, and think that it does constitute an act of aggression, then please state precisely who is the victim.
Why? It's possible to initiate aggression without an explicitly defined victim. Poisoning a water supply for example, where it is possible that no one would actually be harmed, but it is undeniably aggression.
If your answer is "the victims are all of the citizens of the country who did not consent to me crossing the border", then please also explain why that SAME reasoning wouldn't also apply to the second claim, which would essentially nationalize all property.
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense.
Okay let me clarify then. If the argument is "the people ought to have the authority to grant permission to people entering my property, if those people are foreigners", then why should that authority be limited to only foreigners? Maybe my neighbors should have have veto power over who I allow into my house. And if that is the case, it basically destroys all semblance of private property rights.
If the argument is "the people ought to have the authority to grant permission to people entering my property, if those people are foreigners"
But that's not the argument. The argument is, "the People ought to have the authority to grant permission to people entering the United States of America, if those people are foreigners." Whose couch they'll be sleeping on is irrelevant.
Well, I'm presuming for the purposes of this discussion that my property lies within the jurisdiction of the US.
Then explain why this power should be limited only to foreigners. Maybe my neighbors want veto power over who I invite into my house, foreigners or not. Why do they not have the legitimate power to do so?
I just explained that.
Not really. It would depend on the rationale for why you think The People should have the authority to grant permission to foreigners to come here. Every rationale that I can think of, would be equally applicable to my neighbors desiring the authority to grant permission to people coming to my property.
That's because you're stupid.
Okay, so give me a rationale for why The People should have the authority to grant permission to foreigners who want to come to the US, that doesn't also apply to my neighbors who want the authority to grant permission to people coming to visit my property.
I'm sorry, but if you're so confused that you're having doubts about whether defending our country against invaders is ethically defensible, then trying to explain anything to you would be a waste of effort.
So you can't do it. Your approach leads essentially to a nationalization of all property in the name of the people, by giving them veto rights over who may visit your property. Who actually owns your land anyway?
For the same reason that The People say you can't do many thousands of things, on "your" property, that the laws say you can't.
Just because it is "your" property doesn't mean that all the laws passed by all the various government entities are no longer in effect.
You can't kill someone, just because they are on "your" property.
This "my" property argument is infantile.
kevrob
Your neighbors may in fact have the power to veto who sleeps on your couch, through zoning laws or private Home Owners Associations. Go look up Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, for example.
Immigration restrictionism tends to be highly irrational. It was when the Know Nothings were afraid that the Pope and the Masons wanted to take over the Republic. In the late 20th century it was union leadership that wanted it stopped, because they were convinced it depressed wages and cost their members jobs. The unions flipped on that in the 80s. Team Red and Team Blue switch positions as it suits them, for the purpose of garnering votes. Do people really believe Trump believes the blather he emits about unauthorized immigrants? He's hired enough of them. It's just what Bill Clinton called "boob bait for the Bubbas." If he really believes the nostrums about the economy he ran on, we are in worse shape than I'd imagined.
Steve hamrick you have a logical flaw in your reasoning. Poisoning a water supply does have victims: namely, anyone who drinks it. Even if no one is injured. It is an act that can be reasonably assumed to inflict damage on victims. Trying to claim that someone walking onto my property after I invited them to do so, is the same as poisoning a water supply is just intellectual dishonesty. It is predicated on the idea that one is guilty until proven innocent, or that by violating a civil law, one is explicitly a risk of breaking other laws. By your logic, all people caught smoking weed should also be seen as a risk of committing further violent crimes. Unless of course you are implying that there is something inherent in latin people or other various foreigners that predisposes them to crime.
So you'll favor a bill of sponsorship - so you may invite foreigners onto your property and assume full legal and financial responsibility for their actions?
If so, we can talk.
Otherwise, fuck off and die
you may invite foreigners onto your property and assume full legal and financial responsibility
But his objection to controlling the entry of foreigners is that we must respect all of their rights as if they were citizens, so he won't be able to accept being required to restrict them to his property.
And if the rancher next door to your border property wanted to invite 100,000 Chinese soldiers across the border and onto his property, that would be his right, and not an act of aggression, right?
What if the rancher next door to your property wants to invite 100,000 of his closest militia buddies onto his property? Would that be an act of aggression?
No, not if they were behaving legally.
Then same deal with the Chinese soldiers, if by "legally" you mean "not violating anyone's rights".
Then it's official: you're insane.
Provide an alternative vision which guarantees maximum liberty of association.
Why, so you can make the case for importing more child rapists again like you did the other day?
Answer my question about why foreigners entering our country should not be allowed to bear arms.
You answer my question on how you intend to preserve liberty if there are no private property rights.
Jeff, you retarded fuck, you literally advocate for taking away the private property of religious bakers. You grant more liberties to foreign invaders than American citizens you sick unprincipled fuck.
dont know where jeff stands on other stuff but he is right here. His logic is sound. There is no way you can have the immigration policies you want without shitting all over private property rights and freedom of association.
you literally advocate for taking away the private property of religious bakers.
By government force? This is a lie. I have never advocated for such a thing.
You repeatedly demand that I defend arguments I did not make. When you ask me for explanations of things I say, you ignore the explanations and repeat yourself. You demand that I answer all your questions while refusing to answer mine. Perhaps actual conversation between us could be useful, but I will not be interrogated by you.
Furthermore, is it your contention that we are in a de facto state of war with Mexico because of all the "invaders" from that country?
We are in a de facto state of war with the Mexican gangs whose "coyotes" traffick illegal border crossers and other contraband into the US. But, all illegal border crossers are invaders, regardless of whether they are trafficked by the gangs, are abetted by the Mexican government or non-government persons or agencies, or simply make their way here on their own.
D'oh did you just say an invading force is fine as long as it's on private property??
Yes, he did say that. He's insane.
You spout this stupid shit all the time. It's garbage, and basically so are you. Sick fucking pedo lover.
Actually, no. It you live in one of the extremely rare structures that is in private hands and does straddle a border, your guests can move freely throughout your property without violating any laws.
They are only permitted to leave your property within the nation they originated from though.
Illegal immigrants are doing the first one Jeff. They're walking onto my private property uninvited.
There are interpretations of American citizenship that deny that Americans own their country, but they are largely the creation of leftist thought.
Can you show proof that Americans don't own their country? If so, then we can discuss your claims.
Americans don't own their country. I own my property you own yours. Stop saying you own my ranch. You don't. Just try stepping foot on it and see what happens. You think you are going to tell me who i can and can't have on my property? good luck with that. You better bring a lot of fucking guns and be prepared to carry my dead corpse, along with a lot of your own people's, off in wagons.
any border nexus, even if its private and the person is invited is illegal. It is called EWI, entry without inspection. It is premised on the idea that without inspection into their background the person is a risk. It has nothing to do with their presence itself being a risk, just the lack of inspection. And it is a misdemeanor, nothing more. The logical takeaway being, that if the person had gone through inspection and been deemed "safe", they would not be a risk at all. The question then is, why not just inspect them? Oh, that's right, the socialists want to protect american workers and keep out the ones, who even are deemed "safe". You know a quick way to solve the immigration problem? Let BP agents inspect on site. Oh, actually we used to do that all the time. BP agents used to be able to issue legal status to those who entered illegally.
What's your address?
So, what happens?
You shoot the person stepping on "your" land?
Then you will quickly learn that what you do on "your" property is governed by the laws of the nation you claim to be part of.
If you support the anarchistic beliefs you claim, the you will have to have a lot of fucking guns of your own to keep someone, with more of them, from taking "your" property.
And you con't expect to have any backing from the government you seem to want gone.
As stated to chemjeff, the "muh property" argument is infantile.
If you support the anarchistic beliefs you claim, then you will have to have a lot of fucking guns of your own to keep someone, with more of them, from taking "your" property.
And you can't expect to have any backing from the government you seem to want gone.
@Baron -- "You think you are going to tell me who i can and can't have on my property?" .... "You better bring a lot of fucking guns and be prepared to carry my dead corpse, along with a lot of your own people's, off in wagons." ...
Wouldn't be the first time -- Aiding and Embedding is a crime and depending on who you're aiding and embedding; will do exactly what you said.
If the government can't make the decision as to who is invited, then your desire is anarchy.
What you make as this specious argument is specifically contrary to the Constitution, which grants the government the power to decide who may become citizens, and by logical extension, the steps by which that is legally accomplished.
The first step is applying, from one's home country, and the ones, empowered to process that request - the government - decides when an applicant is invited into this nation.
If you hate the Constitution, then go somewhere that it doesn't apply.
I hear Somalia is pretty open, when it comes to government...anything.
They're both emergencies you booster of kiddie rapers.
Tulpoopy and Shitforbrains, why don't you two go blow each other already? It's pretty obvious to everyone except you two......
LOLOLOLLOLO OMFG MCGOO IS HIHN!! AHAHAJJAJAAJ
Fuck off Shithead.
The caravans are organized. Well armed with women and children. The new/old weapon of choice for some people and organizations.
When Russians started moving in soldiers as citizens into crimea... oh wait Jeff literally knows nothing. Never mind. Too stupid for anything deeper than facial analysis.
Lol, wait...so you are seriously positing that illegal immigration is a prelude to mexican invasion? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Holy shit. Hahahahahahaha. Holy fuck you are stupid. You just won the internet buddy.
It has happened, elsewhere.
Why not here?
Have you never heard of supporters of the "reconquista"?
Bubba Jones
Don't we normally build defensive positions BEFORE the shooting starts?
I can't believe how scared and piss pantsy you guys are of mexico. I can guarantee Mexico does not pose a threat. You can cower safely in your beds tonight. lol
Untold millions of foreigners, from whatever country, or collection of them, DO pose a threat...to our culture and economy, especially if, as you anarchists propose, they all get treated as citizens - fuck the Constitution giving power to Congress to make that determination - and they line up for government freebies and vote in a socialistic form of government to keep those freebies flowing.
Trying to call the desire for controlled immigration "socialistic" is projection, on the highest order.
P.S. Under the socialism that these invaders will impose, you can kiss your private property goodbye...it is inimical to the collective they desire.
@Baron -- "I can guarantee Mexico does not pose a threat." -- Tell that to my neighbors who's house gets broken into almost every year by illegals stealing their guns and money.
What's funny; is that's the biggest and most common crime around my area. I'm sure their is a whole slew of stories. Just a month ago an illegal murdered someone in the city...
Your "guarantee" is about as useless as the Democrats idea that a beep and a picture is going to stop illegal immigration.
Kazinski
So we should wait until its to the point where we need to declare war before we do anything.
The point of having a secure border is to keep things peaceful.
Yeah, that's my position: All the illegitimate things they've done with my taxes, yeah, even under the pretext of a "national emergency", and FINALLY a national emergency is declared to stop an invasion, and THIS is where Rand draws a line in the sand???
Ray McKigney
Rand will be Rand.
Doesn't matter. It's political posturing, he knows veto override votes aren't there.
So let me get this right.....invasion = unorganized movement of moslty workers and economic refugees that is significantly reduced from what it was ten years ago? God you guys are a bunch of scared cowards. Look, the evil brown men wont rape your wife or steal yer jerbs. Grow a pair you sissies.
I'm guessing Guadalajara Cartel, MX
Trump had all the authority he needed on day one to build the wall and deport the invaders.
Article IV, Section 4
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion"
The Constitution *obligates* the federal government to prevent invasion.
The Constitution obligates Trump to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", including immigration laws.
Trump is the first President in *decades* to actually even *attempt* to uphold the constitution with regards to immigration.
33 U.S. Code ? 2293 - Reprogramming during national emergencies http://bit.ly/2Gu5SPT
50 U.S. Code Chapter 34 - NATIONAL EMERGENCIES http://bit.ly/2Gtkdfu
33 U.S. Code ? 2293 - Reprogramming during national emergencies
(a) Termination or deferment of civil works projects; application of resources to national defense projects
In the event of a declaration of war or a declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] that requires or may require use of the Armed Forces, the Secretary, without regard to any other provision of law, may (1) terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense, and (2) apply the resources of the Department of the Army's civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.
Trump has specific statutory authority to build a wall on the border.
10 U.S. Code ? 284 - Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime http://bit.ly/2GaJDxb
(7) Construction of roads and fences ... to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.
Jerryskids
Not to worry, "building the wall" is just a shiny to replace "repeal Obamacare" since that one's become rather tarnished. No need to fret about the eminent domain issue or the military/civilian conflict, Trump's going to spend a few billion slapping up a few miles of fence and declare it the most glorious, most impenetrable fortification humanity's ever seen. As he himself admitted, he didn't have to declare a national emergency, he could have just used what's been appropriated, shuffled around some discretionary funds, declared the project a performance art piece and used NEA funds, whatever, but it's so much better to make this a high-profile campaign issue. Mission accomplished!
Obamacare was effectively repealed when the individual mandate was repealed. Close enough for Trump to claim victory.
From a purely political perspective, it's a smart move by Trump. He can claim credit for trying his best to build it, which will satisfy his base, while laying any blame for its failure at the feet of Democrats and soft Republicans, which will fire up his base.
DajjaI
Thank you Rand Paul. I'm all for more border security, but the funding must come from Congress. Now let's stop sending 'military aid' to Central America, because that's what destabilizes these countries and causes the immigration outflow in the first place.
There is some measure of bravery in a Republican member of Congress defying the will of Trump. There is, however, something mystifying about why people would bother being public servants if their only means of career survival is going along with the whims of an insane man. It's the fetuses, isn't it?
Sen Paul can make a living as an MD. If he pisses off Bluegrass State voters enough to be turned out, he will be fine.
Bravery? Every anti trump gop member gets a 6 figure paycheck from the media. See Jeff flake.
Clyde Adams III
This article says "request for $57 billion"
You are missing the decimal point. It is $5.7 billion.
This is real bravery. Now if only another nine Republicans would flip.
Oh whoops. Another sixteen Republicans. Ehh not likely.
Good. Trump is right. As much as I like Rand, this is not the place to take a stand. Although I appreciate his position.
No you don't. Quit being the mendacious twot that you are and just admit that you're just a Republican? You're not fooling anyone.
Shithead is not a Republican. He is a violent authoritarian.
Jeff calling others authoritarian as he wants to economically destroy those who refuse to bake cakes.
Oh look, Jesse has decided to join the gang of liars who spew slander against me.
I'd think that Sen. Paul could propose a law to reform the whole declaring-emergency process.
Under such a bill,
-The declaration would have to be issued soon after the emergency begins.
-If Congress is adjourned, the emergency proclamation would have to be accompanied by a proclamation calling Congress into special session.
-The emergency could only last, say, 120 days, and after the expiration of that date, no further emergencies of a similar nature could be declared for the same issue unless Congress agrees.
-The only exception to the above is if Congress has been vaporized by a nuclear blast or otherwise prevented from meeting, in which case the emergency until Congress has been able to get back together, in which case, it will have to expire after 120 days.
That would deal with the border-wall emergency, because for one thing I don't think the border situation has newly arisen, so President Trump would have missed his window for proclaiming an emergency.
in which case the emergency *lasts* until Congress
That sounds like a great idea.
...and I should clarify that if Congress has been vaporized by a nuke, the emergency could last until Congress can get back together again in some way, and then for 120 extra days *after* they get together.
The declaration would have to be issued soon after the emergency begins.
That isn't as definitive or as positive as one might think. What if we didn't recognize the emergency until later? Or we just wanted time to think about it? Or the president changes his mind? Or we change presidents? Or presidents start declaring emergencies early and often so they don't miss a deadline?
Well you are just providing more and more ammunition for getting rid of the whole stupid NEA in the first place.
I agree those are problems with Eddy's proposed reforms. But it's still better than the status quo.
Don't you have some child rapists to import?
simpering cowards like you, begging daddy gubmint to protect you, would be the first victims i assume. You have a 2nd amendment right, go buy a gun if you are so scared. That is how you should protect your family, not by restricting my right to hire who i wish.
Provide your legal name too, so property records can be checked.
You don't want to be a hypocrite and coward, right?
You seem to be all-in on that Constitution thingie, when it states that you have the right to "keep and bear arms" but are willing to shit all over that other part that gives Congress the power to regulate who, and when people can become citizens, which logically entails when they can enter and what they can do when they are here.
By the way... how do you feel about those, that government allows to enter, but you still can't hire, because their visa doesn't include a work permit?
More "socialism"? "collectivism"?
I'd like Congresscritters to think of some alternative to the current system, where the Pres can declare the emergencies he wants unless Congress undoes the emergency over the Pres's veto.
The basic principle of emergency powers should be that something happens suddenly which must be dealt with before Congress can get around to legislating about it - and an "emergency" which is prolonged even after Congress has met and done (or not done) what it wants about the situation, should not be countenanced.
The other idea I'm reaching for is that Congress shouldn't just sit and do nothing while allowing Presidents to govern as they please. Or invoke selective outrage over some emergencies while allowing others to continue indefinitely.
tlapp
He's sent troops to the border because caravans of people looking to enter illegally were coming. That would likely be the emergency. The funding is another story as that has not been authorized by congress. Could it be a statement of emergency with very little resources? That's my guess.
moneyshot
Our Home Depots are being invaded. I see them hanging out their with their toolboxes.
And you got banned for posting kiddie porn links. Where is chemjeff to defend Reason's property right, like he does with defending the importation of child rapists.
It would be de,iciusly ironic if Jeffy and PB we're both the victims of home invasions by illegals that included some horrific violation. Since illegals are no real problem.
My God, you stew over this stuff at night, don't you? Your own words betray how scared you are. Be a man and buy a gun. Home invasion is not a problem when they are staring down the barrel of my AR. Stop asking government operatives to protect you, and protect yourself. All you anti immigrant cowards just show how much of little scared bitches you are.
What's the name of your business?
What's your SS#?
Come on, don't be a coward.
Because right now, baron, you look like an impotent blowhard who can barely string two sentences together, let alone take in and process even the least complex pieces of information.
You want to talk shit?
Back it up
Does it ever bother you to lie so often about others?
Darri5454
Stay at home mom Kelly Richards from New York after resigning from her full time job managed to average from $6000-$8000 a month from freelancing at home... This is how she done it
..................... http://Net440.com
aaason
?Google pay 95$ consistently my last pay check was $8200 working 10 hours out of every week on the web. My more young kin buddy has been averaging 15k all through ongoing months and he works around 24 hours consistently. I can't confide in how straightforward it was once I endeavored it out.This is my primary concern...GOOD LUCK .
click here =====??www.Geosalary.com
My guess is the President will be able to declare an emergency based on the power of the Presidency. The funding should be blocked unless authorized by congress. My best guess, we'll see where the courts come down on this one.
loveconstitution1789
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Saturday that he will vote to block President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the southern border?potentially providing the tipping-point vote that would allow Congress to block Trump's attempt to use the declaration to obtain funding for a border wall.
Boehm is going to be pretty upset when Trump just vetos the bill.
Then all these politicians have to decide...do they want to be voted out on their next election cycle if they vote to not protect the USA from illegals.
How many *more* want to vote to not protect the USA from illegals?
Boehm is going to be even more upset when cloture isn't invoked and the bill never even gets to Trump, to veto.
Where do all these idiots, suddenly get the idea that 51 votes is enough in the Senate?
If it was, we wouldn't have had the "shutdown" because the House HAD voted for the wall funding and it was UpChuck Schumer that prevented the CR form being passed, though there would have been more than 50 votes to approve.
Start making cash online working from home .I have received $18954 last month by working online from home in my spare time. I am a full time college student and just doing this job in part time just for 3 hrs a day. Everybody can get this and makes extra dollars online from home by just copy and paste this website and follow details... http://www.Mesalary.com
gonasuso
I am making easily persistently $15k to $20k simply by doing direct work at home. Multi month again i have made $45890 from this movement. amazing and smooth to do work and standard pay from this is bewildering. i have propose each final one of you to join this progress right directly as low protection and get than full time salary through take after this association.
Just Visit Now...... http://www.Theprocoin.Com
Heresy Hunter
I'm glad Rand is able to stand up to the President when he has to without falling into the mindless trump-hating craze. He is truly one of the few non partisan politicians in washington.
pollardson
click here =====?? http://www.Geosalary.com
I wish republicans would stop playing around and nominate Rand Paul in 2024.
Why would they nominate someone who opposes their policies and defies their leadership?
Sorry; That was Obama when he signed the DACA E.O. -- Rand is rightfully supporting the branches of government. That's it. He supports building a wall.
https://ijr.com/rand-paul-border-wall-funding/