Yes, Trump Has The Authority To Declare A National Emergency On The Southern Border

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the threat of President Donald Trump that, should the Democrats refuse to fund the wall, he is preparing to declare a national emergency to build it unilaterally. As I discuss below, I believe that such a declaration should be opposed by Congress in defense of its inherent constitutional function over the federal purse. I do not see the compelling basis to declare an emergency given the available data on illegal crossings on the Southern border. However, I disagree with those who have argued that such a declaration would be unconstitutional.

Here is the column:

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story once marveled, “How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be.” If Story returned to life today, he would find these to be familiar times, as politicians and pundits have decided that the Constitution bars an action by President Trump, even when they reached the diametrically opposite conclusion on similar actions taken by President Obama during his term.

In the latest “constitutional crisis” declared on Capitol Hill, Democrats are adamant that they will not fund the signature pledge of Trump to build a border wall. In response, Trump has threatened to start construction unilaterally under his emergency powers if Congress refuses to yield to his demand for more than $5 billion. Critics turned to the Constitution and found clear authority against Trump. Representative Adam Schiff, Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, and many others denounced such a move as flagrantly unconstitutional.

The concern is well founded even if the conclusion is not. Congress has refused the funds needed for the wall, so Trump is openly claiming the right to unilaterally order construction by declaring a national emergency. On its face, that order would undermine the core role of Congress in our system of checks and balances. I happen to agree that an emergency declaration to build the wall is unwise and unnecessary. However, the declaration is not unconstitutional. Schiff, now chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, insists that Trump “does not have the power to execute” this order because “if Harry Truman could not nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this president does not have the power to declare an emergency and build a multibillion dollar wall on the border.”

The problem is Trump does have that power because Congress gave it to him. Schiff is referring to the historic case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company versus Charles Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court rejected the use of inherent executive powers by President Truman to seize steel mills during a labor dispute. He wanted to claim a national security emergency if steel production halted during the Korean War. In a powerful check on executive authority, the Supreme Court rejected his rationale for unilateral action. The Supreme Court was correct. But that was in 1952.

More than two decades later, Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally. The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency” to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities” of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.” The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,” rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”

Democrats have not objected to use of this authority regularly by past presidents, including roughly 30 such emergencies that continue to this day. Other statutes afford additional emergency powers. Indeed, a report by the Congressional Research Service in 2007 stated, “Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

Congress spent decades yielding authority to the executive branch. When it agreed with the president, such mighty authority was even celebrated. But now, consider the objections from Representative Joaquin Castro, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He has declared that it would be “profoundly inappropriate for the president of the United States to circumvent the legislative branch and single handedly, against the will of the American people and the American Congress, put up a wall.”

This is a curious statement from one of many lawmakers who supported Obama when he openly circumvented Congress on immigration reforms. Obama ordered agencies to stop enforcing some federal laws and used executive orders to do precisely what Congress refused to do. When Obama declared in a State of the Union address that he would circumvent Congress if it failed to approve his immigration reforms, Democrats cheered at the notion of their own circumvention, if not obsolescence.

Likewise, Castro and his colleagues supported Obama when he ordered the payment of billions out of the Treasury into ObamaCare, after being denied the funds by Congress. These same Democrats were largely silent when Obama attacked Libya without a declaration of war or legislative authorization. Obama funded the Libyan war out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without a specific appropriation. I represented lawmakers who opposed the Libyan war. I also served as attorney for the entire House of Representatives in successfully opposing the ObamaCare payments. Most Democrats opposed both these lawsuits.

Congress can act to stop circumvention under the National Emergencies Act. Trump must notify Congress of his declaration and detail the powers being claimed under that law. Congress could and should negate the declaration with a vote of both chambers. However, that does not make the declaration unconstitutional. Any declaration would create a myriad of legal issues and likely face an immediate legal challenge. Two questions that a court would have to consider are the source of the authority and the source of any funds. The latter is where some challenges could arise.

Congress gave Trump such authority in the National Emergencies Act, augmenting claims of inherent authority, but the source of the funds could be more challenging. Under two laws in Title 10 and Title 33 of the United States Code, he could seek to use unobligated funds originally set aside for military construction projects, or divert funds from Army civil works projects. There are limitations on the use of such money, and there could be strong challenges to the use of unobligated funds in other areas. There is money there to start but not nearly enough to finish such a wall without proper appropriation. Recall Obama funded the undeclared war in Libya out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without the new strict constitutionalists objecting from the Democratic side of the aisle.

Courts generally have deferred to the judgments of presidents on the basis for such national emergencies, and dozens of such declarations have been made without serious judicial review. Indeed, many of the very same politicians and pundits declared the various travel ban orders to be facially unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ultimately lifted the injunctions of lower courts. Moreover, Trump does not have to ultimately prevail to achieve part of his objective. Even if a court were to enjoin construction, the declaration could afford Trump the political cover to end the government shutdown, as the issue moved its way through the courts.

While the matter could be expedited to move through the courts in a matter of months, the government could seek to slow litigation to push any final decision into 2020. There are compelling arguments against funding the entire wall demanded by Trump, although some added border barriers clearly are warranted. However, one can oppose an emergency declaration without claiming that it is facially unconstitutional. It is not.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He served as counsel for members opposing United States involvement in the Libyan war and as attorney for the House of Representatives in their challenge to the unappropriated use of federal funds under ObamaCare. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

350 thoughts on “Yes, Trump Has The Authority To Declare A National Emergency On The Southern Border”

    1. A wall stops illegal immigration at our most porous border. That would cut off the flow of dollars leaving our economy and flowing back home to Mexico and South America. We would save billions on illegal immigrants in housing, benefits, and other costs.

      I do not believe it was a good negotiating tactic to brag beforehand about a benefit you had not yet acquired. Mexico, on the other hand, refused to solve the illegal immigration problem on their side. They allowed this caravan passage. Now there is another enormous caravan of invaders staging in Honduras, to leave in a week or two. Mexico had a good thing going with the boost to their economy from illegal immigrants. But it’s become too great. They could have helped solve his problem on their end, earning our goodwill and a favor when negotiating with us. Now they are going to lose a chunk of income.

      So, oh yes, this is going to cost Mexico. I don’t think they are going to cut us a check. However, since they’ve been bad neighbors, they’re going to lose some income, and now they are at a disadvantage when negotiating trade deals with us. Everyone I know would be very relieved if we had a secure border fence, good security, and quashed illegal immigration. I don’t know anyone who particularly cares who pays for it. That said, politicians should not brag about making another country pay for something, either before or after negotiating with them. It tends to tip your hand, and sour future deals. I’ve also said from the start that “Made in Mexico” tends to denote poor quality, with the exception of some artisan products. Usually, neighbors share the cost and maintenance of a border fence between their properties. However, the cartels run Mexican politics, and the cartel’s main industries are drug smuggling, gun running, human trafficking, and human smuggling, much of which travels across our border. The cartels don’t want a wall, so the Mexican government doesn’t want a wall. Since Mexico won’t help, it’s our problem to deal with on our own.

      I never agreed with the rhetoric regarding Mexico paying for the wall. We lose so much money on illegals, and there’s crime, the strain to our benefits, closure of emergency rooms, wage depression, driving legitimate business out of work… It benefits us to cut it off and only have legal immigration. The savings and length of time to pay for the asset, as well as upkeep, will depend upon the design of the barrier, as well as whether government finally procures a good deal for us tax payers for the construction.

      1. The most virulently anti-Semitic man I ever met was a Persian who illegally immigrated through Turkey, and then across the Mexican border. (He claimed he fixed his immigration status through his marriage.)

        One of these days, we’re going to have another terrorist attack. Like those Saudis who overstayed their visa and had all those red flags, like wanting to learn how to take off in a plane but didn’t care about learning how to land. They overstayed their visas, and our broken immigration system didn’t deal with them.

        When I’ve traveled internationally, I have to present my passport at every hotel. If I tried to overstay, or illegally immigrate, they would know exactly where I was.

        Eventually, there’s going to be another attack. How many thousands of people are going to die before Democrats will stop fighting and fighting and fighting against border security? Have we learned nothing? We haven’t heard from the gun running, drug smuggling, human trafficking, pedophile rings, Tenencingo misery, the closure of so many emergency rooms which could not keep absorbing the cost of illegal immigrants, the destruction of jobs to the point where Democrats now demand that pushing a broom or serving fast food has to support a middle class family on a single income, the illegal immigrant gangs, neighborhoods turning high crime, the intense racial tensions between blacks and Latinos because they line jumped and drove the wages down, which hurt the poor communities the hardest…The cost of illegal immigration goes on and on. When are we going to learn? Hasn’t there been enough suffering? Will it take another terrorist attack? Liberal elites push hard to allow in illegal aliens, but they don’t want their own children going to schools where the percentages of illegal children is high. They always have low test scores. The teachers have to spend all their time on remedial work, illegal students are way behind, and the education they produce is quite poor. Liberal coastal elites live in expensive neighborhoods out of illegals’ price range, and their kids go to schools with virtually no illegal students, and they get a better education than those in neighborhoods that their policies flood with illegals. Helping to school illegal immigrant children sounds good, but one of the problems is that there is no control on the numbers of illegals. It’s too many for school districts to absorb and still provide a good education. Legal immigration can set a number that we can absorb. We also have a budget for charity to improve education overseas.

        I think we need to bring back bussing, but only for the illegal immigrant children. Send them to the top schools in Marin County, San Francisco, and all the other tony schools. Make the elites experience what everyone else does so they finally get it. If not, there may be another 9/11. They’re wearing this issue like an albatross now. The next caravan is their fault. The next terrorist attack from an illegal alien is their fault. Every single murder committed by an illegal who isn’t supposed to be here is their fault. They fought border security tooth and nail. I would not want to be them for all the tea in China when we start experiencing the level of terrorism you see now in Europe. ISIS et al would have to be fools not to cross the border. It’s so easy.

    2. From the Picayune Daily as interpreted by the small minded Peter shill. This is the best argument against the wall Peter Shill has. Mexico should pay for it because in a speech the President said that. I’m waiting for my $2,500 Obama promised me. How do we know Mexico is not going to pay for the wall? We don’t. If we control the border then a lot of people won’t come in and money won’t flow out and perhaps we will have better control over drugs and crime.

      We can match up campaign promises made and kept by the recent Presidents. Trump is probably on top actually fulfilling or attempting to fullfill his campaign promises. It’s amazing how small minded Peter Shill is with his complaint that he can’t see how Mexico will pay for the wall. It shows how desperate he is to make an argument.

  1. Ever try to illegally immigrate at any international airport or port of call? It’s impossible – there are walls and barriers and armed uniformed agents everywhere. They are considered border zones. Why should the geographic border be any different?

    1. Airports have immoral walls, racist policies like requiring photo ID, locked cockpit doors that are not Christian, and metal detectors that are clearly xenophobic. I mean, what kind of assumptions must they make about their visitors, that they’re all criminals? It’s kind of fun applying Liberal logic to airports, as you mentioned, or even their own primaries which require photo ID.

        1. YNOT, Karen is probably one of the smartest posters on this blog. You make yourself look foolish everytime you open your mouth. Never do you take what anyone says and analyze it to show where they went wrong. Perhaps you neither have a formal education nor did you educate yourself.

          1. No, Karen’s not very bright at all. She is a Faux News/Limbaugh/Coulter disciple, and it shows by her pigeonholing anyone who points out Trump’s lies and the stupidity of what he says as “liberals” or “the left”. She makes the female gender look bad. No doubt she has a “Women For Trump” flag tacked up on the wall inside of her garage.

            1. “No, Karen’s not very bright at all.”

              If that is the case why don’t you show her where she is wrong sentence by sentence? You know why you don’t do that? Because you don’t know very much about the things you talk about. If you did and she wasn’t smart you would flatten her but we all know the opposite is true.

  2. In 2014

    Obama’s Plans for $3.7 Billion Immigration Crisis Funds – ABC News
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/07/obamas-plans-for-3-7-billion-immigration-crisis-funds/

    The rest would be split between several departments to tackle the issue on both sides of the border, including $1.6 billion to the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to boost law enforcement at the Southwest border and pay for additional immigration judge teams, among other things, and $300 million to the State Department to tackle the root causes of this crisis and to send a clear message to these countries not to send children illegally to the U.S.

  3. If you oppose a wall, then you want Border Patrol agents to physically clash with invaders trying to illegally immigrate and jump the legal immigration line. Then you might oppose those agents throwing tear gas at the invaders who are throwing rocks at their heads, especially if those charming people shoved a few women and children in front of them as human shields.

    Illegal immigration is irresponsible. It has lured many parents to drag young children down the rape trail in dangerous country to use as leverage to try to gain the system. The special treatment that kids get means that we’ve got more of them risking their lives – unaccompanied, with their parents, or with some drug cartel employee pretending to be their parent, only to traffick them later. There was a whole story in Huffpo years ago how mothers sent their girls into the hands of the cartel human smugglers with Plan B One Step to handle the high likelihood of rape, and the ensuing possible pregnancy.

    You don’t get special treatment, where legal immigration requirements don’t apply to you because you live close to the US. It is not a human right to demand to live anywhere in the world that you want, and the targeted country shall have no say about it.

    A responsible system screens applicatants before entry, treats health issues, looks for criminals or terrorists, and ensures that people who want to come here are compatible with our society. For example, if someone has a social media account bragging how he threw 12 Christians off a boat to their death with his Muslim buddies all illegally migrating to Italy, that should preclude their being accepted here. The village female genial mutilator need not apply. Nor the Kim Yong Un’s henchemen, nor the Tonton Macoute, or anyone else that the American people decide they don’t want to invite. And that’s the thing. This is our home. When you are invited, you are our welcome guest. If you become a citizen, you are welcome compatriots. If you begin our relationship declaring we as a people don’t have a say, and how dare we keep anyone out, then it’s doomed not to work out.

    People would also be more amenable to doing something to help those dragged her as kids by their parents who refused to go through the legal immigration line if we could shut off the influx. It’s more and more and more and more, until we won’t have the land, resources, housing, and the taxpayers are squeezed to the max. CA is the highest taxed state in the nation, occasionally alternating with NY. Our new moonbeam Governor Newsom has announced that we taxpayers will not provide free healthcare to all illegal aliens while also sticking with the $75 billion Vacation Train. These policies knock people out of the middle class, keep people poor, ensure that jobs are low skill, and ruin quality of life for all of us.

    Basta. Build the wall, barrier, fencing, or whatever semantics you want. It is irresponsible for us to allow this flood. Every single time there is a tragedy, the victims’ families have the added grief that the person who ruined their lives wasn’t supposed to be here. Build it as a deterrent so parents won’t put their kids in danger. Every time some kid dies or gets raped or traumatized, it’s our fault for not shutting off the attractive nuisance of an open border and policies that openly invite illegal immigrants. That’s a slap in the face for everyone who followed immigration law.

    1. sorry, you’re allowed your own (hannity’s) opinion, but not your own facts. There is no “flood” except in the fantastical imagination of the Pravda Faux News writers, and by extension, yours.

      this is to “oh, I didn’t know we really have a lower level of illegal immigration than 20 years ago” karen

      1. Oh HI, Mark,. hows Starbucks cafe? Coming at ya from Raccon Holler out in the stix! I’m swillin some shine right now, hows your soy latte?

        Say, here’s the guy who from Texas who is obsessed with tea-bagging Sean Hannity and who never heard of Jim Morrison or the Doors and thinks their classic song “The Wasp (Texas Radio And The Big Beat)” is white power music.

      2. Mark -if you’re going to give me an Indian name, make it catchy. Yours are too hard to remember, and they don’t acronym well. You know, like yours can be Scissors Facts. I posted Pew Research. The figures are in the millions, granted which include visa overstays.

        If there is not an illegal immigrant problem, and you truly believe that illegal immigration is so far on the decline that it’s no longer an issue, in defiance of data, then why would you oppose the wall? Illegal border crossings aren’t a problem for you, remember? So who would it hurt then? The border’s empty. No one’s crossing. I suppose the caravan is an urban legend. The Wall could be a public works project employing thousands of people in is design, construction, and maintenance. You know, a government Jobs Program like the Hoover Dam.

        Pick an opinion. Either there is no illegal immigrant problem, therefore a wall couldn’t possibly be immoral, or there is an illegal immigrant problem, you want illegal immigrants to come here, and therefore you oppose the wall because you understand it will make illegally immigrating here harder. That’s why the wall is immoral to Democrats – because it would make illegal immigration more difficult.

        1. False equivalence. Sorry honey; yes, that’s right. You just admitted that the illegal immigration problem has little to do with the border. Understand that a “big, beautiful wall” will necessarily be positioned on the border. Your circular “logic” doesn’t equate. Perhaps you should have recorded hannity’s pitter-patter nonsense on this issue rather than attempt to recall it. Further, morality has little to do with it; it’s ridiculously ineffective. The hilarious column in the Post a few days back pointed out the idiocy of building a concrete wall in the 21st century; but I bet hannity never mentioned that. Here’s a link to some comedy for you:

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-wall-isnt-evil-its-medieval/2019/01/09/80dfa20a-1458-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.c2503b681aaa

          Finally, I care nothing at all for political labels; I am very far from a Democrat, so your tantrum about whatever the party structure you apparently disfavor is up to has no resonance with me whatsoever.

          However, I can recognize a con when I see one. I can also recognize a charlatan — fraudster when I see one. Finally, I can also recognize a criminogenic, incompetent buffoon when I see one. Fortunately for those of us who love our country more than we hate those who don’t look like us, the ticking sound is getting louder on the day glo bozo’s time in the saddle. So sorry for your loss.

          to “wtf hallucination about ‘indian’ names?” karen

          1. Just another series of ad hominem, with another quoted Indian name at the end. Trump wasn’t talking about a concrete wall. It’s steel slats.

            Do try to debate points, instead of falling back on insults when you cannot hold your own. In addition, I never said illegal immigration had little to do with the border. On the contrary, I referred to a passionate anti-Semite from the Middle East illegally crossing. It’s foolish not to secure it.

            Walls work. If someone want to come here, respect our laws first and foremost, and go through the proper legal system. If the first thing he does is declare our laws don’t apply to him, then why would any of our other laws? Living in the US is not a natural human right. They don’t get to throw rocks at our law enforcement when they don’t get their way.

            Illegal immigration is a huge industry for the Mexican cartels. They also use the people they smuggle to mule drugs, guns, and for human trafficking. The sheer misery of the illegal immigration trail is astounding.

            End this industry of misery and do the responsible thing.

            Those who oppose border security wear that albatross around their necks. Every child death, rape, murder, smuggled heroin, gun, and every peso that goes into the smuggling cartel’s coffers is the responsibility of you, and those who think and vote like you. It is votes like yours that has allowed this shameful human catastrophe to continue for so many years.

            It is immoral to support an illegal immigration system that leads to rape and the death of children. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.

            1. Ask yourself. Why do you have a front door that locks? Do you believe that everyone outside is out to get you? Do you believe that lock will keep out all bunglers? Or do you rationally suppose that it improves safety?

              If you don’t want a wall and border security, then stop locking your door. Tear down your backyard fence, if you have one. Such barriers are immoral.

  4. FORBES MAGAZINE: ‘THERE IS NO BORDER CRISIS”

    Crisis Is Primarily One OF Families From Central America; an issue that can be addressed without a border wall.

    “In FY 2017, CBP [Customs and Border Protection] recorded the lowest level of illegal cross-border migration on record, as measured by apprehensions along the border and inadmissible encounters at U.S. ports of entry,” according to the Trump administration’s DHS report released in December 2017. Did the situation at the border change dramatically over the next 13 months and go from an historic “lowest level of illegal cross-border migration” to a national crisis? The answer is, “No.”

    Border Patrol apprehensions along the Southwest border in FY 2018 were the 5th lowest level of illegal entry recorded in the past 46 years. (Apprehensions are a proxy for illegal entry.) While the 396,579 apprehensions in FY 2018 represented a 30% increase from FY 2017, that’s largely because the 303,916 apprehensions in FY 2017 were the lowest number of apprehensions recorded along the Southwest border since 1972 – nearly a half century ago.

    Here is the big picture: The most important overlooked immigration development is that illegal entry by individuals from Mexico has plummeted by more than 90% since FY 2000, according to Border Patrol apprehensions data. That means large-scale illegal migration by Mexicans to the United States – the original public justification Donald Trump used for building a wall along the border – is simply over. Demographics and improved economic conditions in Mexico ended it.

    That still leaves the problem of families and unaccompanied minors from Central America seeking safety, economic well-being or both in the United States. It also leaves a U.S. system not well organized to cope with them. Unaccompanied minors and family units from two countries drove the increase in FY 2018 numbers.

    Apprehensions of family units (children with adult family members) from El Salvador dropped almost 50% between FY 2016 and FY 2018. Apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from El Salvador fell by 72%, down to 4,949 in FY 2018. Border Patrol apprehensions of family units and unaccompanied minors from Mexico have also dropped significantly in the past few years.

    The data show the problem is concentrated on family units and unaccompanied minors from Honduras and Guatemala. The number of unaccompanied minors from these two countries did not change a great deal between FY 2016 and FY 2018. For Honduras, apprehensions of unaccompanied minors were 10,468 in FY 2016, similar to the 10,913 total in FY 2018. For Guatemala, the FY 2016 number was 18,913, compared to 22,327 in FY 2018.

    The issue is family units, which is why the administration decided to enact its controversial child separation policy, hoping to deter Central American families from traveling to the United States. Parents thought the dangers in their home countries justified risking the trip to the U.S. border. One way they chose to limit the risk was to travel in a group, which contributed to people joining a “caravan” that moved toward the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Between FY 2016 and FY 2018, apprehensions of family units approximately doubled for both Honduras and Guatemala, rising from 23,067 to 50,401 for family units from Guatemala between FY 2016 and FY 2018, and from 20,226 to 39,439 for Honduras during the same period. However, for context, as recently as 2000, overall Border Patrol apprehensions exceeded 1.6 million in a year. David Bier of the Cato Institute has also pointed out the Bush administration apprehended more children than the Trump administration and with fewer resources available.

    A multi-pronged approach is needed to address the problem. First, the administration should reinstate the Central American Minors (CAM) program to permit people to apply for protection from their home countries. “The CAM program was established in 2014 to provide certain minors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras the opportunity to be considered, while still in their home country, for refugee resettlement in the United States,” according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As part of its opposition to refugee admissions, Trump administration officials made a significant error in judgment by abolishing the program, when instead they should have been expanding the program as a way to discourage dangerous treks to the border.

    Edited from: “There Is No Border Crisis”

    FORBES, 1/10/19

    1. RE. ABOVE:

      Regardless of political sympathies, this article is full of informative facts. The real issue is families from Central America. And that issue can be address without a border wall.

      1. PH – I have yet to hear a cogen, persuasive argument in favor of allowing illegal immigration, instead of requiring only legal immigration, as well as for refusing to secure our border with some sort of deterrent such as a fence, wall, etc.

        What is the reasoning?

        1. The main driver is economic. The reason why kids are coming is because we have a policy of allowing them in, and keeping families together. That’s a golden ticket. Every time a kid dies or gets raped, it’s our fault for not shutting off this appalling travesty.

          We have federal immigration law, but not really, because if you sneak in, there are all of these policies to protect you. So we don’t really have a law; we have the Hunger Games of people doing dangerous things to take advantage of a glaring loophole, and dying in the process.

          Shame on us. Shut this off. Legal immigration is the only responsible, safe thing to do. And saying that they joined the caravan because their home countries are too dangerous is disingenuous. They were offered asylum in Mexico but most didn’t accept it. They demanded America or nothing. Many crossed multiple countries to get here, safer than their home towns.

          Living in a bad neighborhood does not qualify you for asylum. The people of Compton cannot demand entry into Sweden of refugees because of gang violence. That’s not the criteria. They are not being targeted for their religious or political beliefs. They live in poor countries that have high crime.

          The people who really need help are Venezuela. If she shut off the billions we waste dealing with the illegal aliens our lax security allowed to come in, we’d have more money to save lives in Venezuela.

          In addition, that caravan received major funding. They had buses, hundreds of people directing them, food, water, medical checks, and other expensive care on a direct route here. If we allow this invasion we will have close to 7 billion people demanding entry next, and we’ll have set a precedent.

          Learn the lesson from France, whose people have absolutely had it with global elitist tyranny that hurts the middle class, coupled with job killing unfettered immigration.

        2. Karen, if you think Democrats are ‘in favor’ of illegal immigration, we have nothing to discuss. My advice: “Stop Watching Fox!”

          1. maybe not rank and file but yes the strategists are.

            there is a long standing insight that increased non-European third world migration will benefit Democrats going all the way back to the revision of basic migration laws in 1965

            https://cis.org/Report/HartCeller-Immigration-Act-1965

            demographics is and always will be an issue. we are not just individuals we are members of many social circles. some of those circles compete for resources. there is no way around this conflict and someone will either have the upper hand or not.

              1. Also, I need to check to see if Hyphen-Cortez and others calling for the abolition of ICE are Democrats or Republicans.

              2. Tom, The Border and Sanctuary Cities are two DIFFERENT issues. But right wing media seeks to make them ‘one’. They are not.

                Schumer and Pelosi will budget $1.6 billion towards border security with more next year; a fact that right wing media cannot acknowledge.

                1. Those issues ARE RELATED and you know it.
                  As is the ICE issue.
                  If you’re going to succeed as a propagandist, Peter, cut out the more obvious bull****.

                  1. Tom, my computer is equipped with software that simulates the ‘voice’ in people’s written comments.

                    Here your voice is SHRILL. It’s sounds like some wussy on the verge of tears. And you often sound that way. I just haven’t mentioned it until now.

                    1. Given your endless screaming headlines from the HHHNN media outlet you set up here, don’t talk to me about shrill, you fool.
                      I’m sure that your Rube Gokdberg detection device is about as accurate as your propaganda network, you lying piece of ****.
                      Don’t mistake the reaction of those who have run out of patience with the endless horse**** your crank out with “shrillness”.
                      You ask for a reaction, or invite it by parading yourself around like a santimonious jackass, then acted surprized when someone runs out of patience with your third-rate Hollywood productions you put on here.
                      Hope this does not interfere with your busy schedule running HHHNN, or overload your ‘shrill-detection software”.
                      Also, I hope the return of your AM counterpart hack takes some of the pressure and burden off of your manufacturing of the news.
                      The crap you pulled the other day in the exchange about taxes was pretty much the final straw as far as any illusions that you had a shred of intellectual honesty or integrity.
                      I didn’t plan on belaboring your chicken**** stunts, but thanks to a final push by you, I decided to make my comments about you a bit more blunt.

          2. PH – Obviously Democrats are in favor of illegal immigration. They are fighting tooth and nail against a border fence, claiming that shutting out the illegal immigrants in such a way is immoral. They support migrant caravan, of which another massive one is staging in Honduras. They oppose purging the rolls of illegal aliens. They create sanctuary cities that protect even convicted felons like rapists from being deported. They warn immigrant neighborhoods in advance of an ICE raid, which helped a bunch of pedophiles and rapists escape deportation. They agitate for one blanket amnesty after another. They ignore the requirements for asylum and just make up new qualifications for the designation, calling people economic refugees, which is not a qualifier. The Democrats in CA now will offer free health care to illegal aliens. They already gave them drivers licenses. This was after they allowed them to get car insurance with less coverage and premiums than legal residents and citizens. They fight for Dreamers, but they refused to secure them their amnesty because they would have had to pay for the wall. They care that much about allowing in more illegal immigrants that they gave up a chance to make Dreamers American citizens.

            If anything, the sanctuary cities alone make the Democrat stand on illegal immigration crystal clear.

            Are you kidding? Is Democrat support for illegal immigration in question for you? You must have been deliberately obtuse.

            1. Peter, Karen made a number of statements in factual form that I don’t think represent opinion. Why don’t you take her facts and prove them wrong. My bet is you can’t prove the facts wrong. You have a better chance dealing with her opinions but you will fail there as well.

              Go ahead Peter and take her facts one by one.Try and prove her wrong. Make sure to separate the facts from the opinion.

      1. Mespo, what happened to Trump’s plan to make Mexico pay for the wall?? It went nowhere, right?? So what credibility does Trump have??

        1. “Mespo, what happened to Trump’s plan to make Mexico pay for the wall?? It went nowhere, right?? So what credibility does Trump have??”

          No one in their right mind expected Mexico to pay for the wall. It was said strictly to troll people like yourself. And your lot just keeps taking the bait. Sad really.

  5. TEXANS NOT OVERLY KEEN FOR BORDER WALL

    President Trump’s visit to Texas for a photo op at the southern border reminds us that the politics of the wall in Texas, a state that reelected Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) by less than 3 points and flipped 2 House seats from Republican to Democratic, is not what Republicans would have you believe.

    A Quinnipiac University poll conducted in July showed Texas voters opposed building a wall by a margin of 51-to-45 percent; independents opposed the wall by a nine-point margin. Meanwhile, in an April Quinnipiac poll Texans signaled they wanted more border patrols 60 percent to 37 percent.

    Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.), the member of Congress with the largest stretch of border in his district, strongly opposes the wall. (“I think building a concrete structure sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security,” he said recently.) In 2017, he told the Atlantic, “Property rights are important to all Americans — especially Texans — and most of the property along our border has been privately held for generation.” He continued, “Many Texans I speak to think there are better ways to achieve border security without taking their lands, so you can expect a lengthy and expensive fight from these folks.” (Hurd escaped the blue wave in the 2018 midterms by only 926 votes.)

    “Border security is three things: It is barriers in places that are hard to control, it is technology, ground sensors, radar, drones and other technological devices used to supplement the barriers, and then it’s people,” Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said this week on Fox News. “It really is a combination of those three, and there is no one-size-fits-all prescription for the entire border. It’s quite a diverse geography.”

    As Hurd warned, landowners have prepared for a fight should Trump proceed with a wall. Indeed, they’ve already started fighting against existing plans to extend fencing. The Associated Press reports that funding for 33 miles of fencing previously authorized by
    Congress would “cut across private land in the Rio Grande Valley. Those in the way include landowners who have lived in the valley for generations, environmental groups and a 19th century chapel.” As one might expect, “Many have hired lawyers who are preparing to fight the government if, as expected, it moves to seize their land through eminent domain.” And if Trump proceeds with “more than 215 new miles of wall, including 104 miles in the Rio Grande Valley and 55 miles near Laredo”? The AP reports, “Even a compromise solution to build ‘steel slats,’ as Trump has suggested, or more fencing of the kind that Democrats have previously supported would likely trigger more court cases and pushback in Texas.”

    In addition to affected landowners and border states (New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, both Democrats, would no doubt lead the charge), Congress may sue to stop Trump’s power grab if he declares an emergency. The legal issues include question of standing, but more important of “ripeness” — whether Trump’s declaration amounts to a real action or is simply a political outburst (like a tweet).

    Edited from: “Texans To Trump: Forget About The Wall”

    Today’s WASHINGTON POST

    1. Sore loser redux Peter Shill blathers “Texas, a state that reelected Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) by less than 3 points”

      Which means he won, Beto Blotto lost, just like Hillary lost, and the Dems continue to show they are sorry losers. Wah wah wah 🤪

    2. which texas is the question

      remember it was WASP migrants to Mexican Texas that pried Texas away from Mexico in the first place.

    3. The issue you are talking about regarding eminent domain on Texas land is because they are not proposing building the wall right at the border, but rather a ways inside. That affects property owners, who tend not to like losing land. In addition, there is now a large Latino immigrant community in Texas. Support for the wall varies very much on whom you talk to.

      1. eminent domain is a legitimate power of the state and it exists to serve the nation as a whole
        fair compensation must be paid of course and people never like it when a road goes through their backyard nor will they like a wall. but necessity exists and legit public purpose

    4. I’m expecting DHS to come up with a riparian border security concept. I could see a barrier that runs down the middle of the Rio Grande, just on the US side. It has sensors, and is very dangerous to approach with any vessel. Landowners have no claim to the river itself, so there is no eminent domain issue building a structure on our side of the river.

      I agree with the Texans that an alternative plan should be considered where the wall doesn’t cut off our side from the riverbank. That would be a horrible mistake. The illegals would cross the river and then claim to be on US soil, and demand the rights to a Court Hearing. They would swamp the legal system, and demand to be let into the border while awaiting their Hearings.

      The barrier, if there is going to be one for the Rio Grande Sector, must be built in the riverbed, right next to the legal borderline, not on the shore on our side.

      1. We need not admit people that claim refugee status. In fact refugee status is supposed be considered by the closest country which is not the US except for Mexicans where I believe there is separate agreement. People wanting assylum here can wait outside our borders and those that illegally came here can and should be removed. An alternative is to provide a work permit to those that have been here for a significant time and are working but refusing citizenship to them except through the normal channels. If they have families or children they should pay for their own social costs and not be granted any entitlements.

        We accept legal immigrants and legal assylum cases. They can be Honduran, Mexican or from anywhere, but illegal people shouldn’t be replacing legal immigrants that respect our laws.

  6. Dems dont care about America just about recruiting potential illegal minority voters to keep them in power. Theyre such scumbags and Nancy/Chucky showed us in their American Gothic hysterical meme. But lo! look what Dems will fund!

    THINGS DEMOCRATS HAVE FUNDED THAT COST MORE THAN THE BORDER WALL
    https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall

    Rural Utility Service.” This program costs taxpayers $8.2 billion/year and has no actual purpose after its original intent — bringing electricity to rural communities — was long ago achieved. It’s now being used to bring broadband access to small communities (usually with populations of less than 20,000). However there’s no indication the “beneficiaries” of this expensive government agency actually appreciate the program and the majority of its projects are not completed on time or within budget.

    Sugar Subsidies. America, as Democrats frequently intone, faces a health crisis. What they don’t tell us is that it’s largely of their own making, as Congress subsidizes the production of unhealthy foods like sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Eliminating sugar subsidies alone would save $6 billion, enough to fund the border wall; it would also have the added benefit of helping curb the nation’s obesity epidemic.

    Community Development Grants. These grants were created in the 70s to revitalize failing American cities. The program has almost always been plagued with dysfunction, with grants going to wealthy communities and other recipients failing to produce accountability or results. Citizens Against Government Waste reports that even President Obama called for reining in the program. It’s elimination would save $15 billion over 5 years.

    The United Nations. As the United Nation’s largest contributor, the U.S. in 2016 donated $10 billion to the U.N. As CAGW notes, reducing these contributions just 25 percent would create a savings of $12.5 billion over 10 years. Of the money Congress appropriates for the United Nations, 5 million taxpayer dollars are itemized for abortions in foreign countries.

    Amtrak. Congress could sell Amtrak to the private sector where it would almost certainly be operated more efficiently, but instead it’s showered in billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. Over the next five years, these subsidies will cost $9.7 billion.

    Unused Real Estate. Congress appropriates money to maintain federal real estate that’s not actually being used. Per CAGW, an October 31, 2017, CRS report found that, “In FY2016, federal agencies owned 3,120 buildings that were vacant (unutilized), and another 7,859 that were partially empty (underutilized).” Current laws require the government to undergo a series of steps before considering a sale of these buildings. Were selling this unused property prioritized, the 5-year savings are estimated at $15 billion. Simply maintaining the unused buildings annually costs $1.7 billion.

    Foreign Aid. American taxpayers currently spend more than $50 billion a year helping develop foreign countries. Many of the recipients are not known for being America’s closest allies — such as Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda, South Africa, Russia, the Congo, Sudan, and Zambia — which raises the question of what Americans are receiving in exchange for all of this aid. Cutting these donations back just 10 percent would be enough to fund the wall.

    Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. The Government Accountability Office estimates taxpayers are spending more than $137 billion annually on “payment errors,” which covers all manner of waste, fraud, and abuse within Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The feds could implement the same kind of fraud protections credit card companies used to ensure against abuse, but don’t. In fact, Congress has gone in the opposite direction, winding down the program intended to police fraud within Medicare, the so-called Recovery Audit Contractor. In other words, Congress is knowingly funding tens of billions of dollars of fraud annually.

    Despite many of of the above projects having arguably negative value, Congress continues to fund them. Eliminating any one of the above would create more than enough savings to fund the White House’s border wall appropriation request.

  7. get to know your neighbors, quickly but calmly. do not reveal your concerns.
    when things kick off you want to know who’s got your back.
    global warming is not fiction, it’s gonna get hot alright

    1. Brilliant comment, Fishwings.
      Yeah, it was very effective in keeping out the West Berliners clamoring to illegally enter and settle in East Berlin.
      There is no need for you to progressively dumb down youd comnents, but if that’s your goal, you have succeeded.

      1. Exactly. Wouldn’t it be nice if all it took for illegals and their Lefty compadres to “escape” from our “East Berlin” was to build a wall. 🤣

        1. Some of the high tax states are building financial type barriers to prevent the rich from leaving. NY makes people prove they haven’t been in NY for 1 day less than 6 months. One of my friends disappears from the city so that he crosses the border to another state before midnight.

    2. Fish wings:

      How did the Berlin Wall work out? Well, let’s see. East Germany was Socialist, the darling of modern Democrats such as super star Ocasio Cortez. Like all Socialist countries, it was tyrannical. It had to prevent its people from escaping the utopia of Socialism. I’d say the Wall worked very well in preventing the movement of people. Since any tool is as just or unjust as the one who wields it, tyranny uses walls to trap its people. Rational, reasonable countries use walls to prevent people from skipping past its immigration system. It’s a way of controlling who and how many get inside, and a deterrent to crime.

      We don’t lock our front doors because we believe it will prevent 100% of crime. We do so as a deterret. I don’t fence my backyard because I believe no coyote can get inside, but it helps.

      The argument that the Wall must solve 100% of our illegal immigration problems is false logic. In addition, there seems to be a paradox. The Left both believes that illegal immigration is not a problem, and that the Wall won’t solve the illegal immigration problem. Is there a problem or not? The Wall won’t prevent tunnels. Manning the wall and monitoring it will. The Wall will discourage parents from risking their kids lives to use as leverage to get higher paying jobs. You do that to your kid here, you get a visit from CPS. But the Left labels it brave. They assume these parents must have had no option. Why assume that? I don’t assume any stranger is either good or evil. When I see a response to the unaccompanied minors act of massive more amounts of unaccompanied minors, I deduce it’s a calculated risk for parents to get a ticket to the US.

      But, who knows. If Ocasio Cortez and her fellow Socialists ever rise to power, then I suppose we may just have our Berlin Wall to trap us all here, stuck with the Socialism the Democrats are so keen to usher in.

    3. The wall in East Berlin was to keep people in. It functioned well, but one has to wonder about your thinking process.

  8. OK, let’s assume the Trump Administration does a Declaration of Federal Emergency,
    based on mitigating the humanitarian crisis and daily organized crime onslaught. Everyone agrees that liberal activists would immediate seek a TRO in Federal Court. What would be the parameters of their case?

    The case needs a plaintiff(s) and the plaintiffs need a claim of injury at the hands of the Emergency Action. Or, perhaps we should anticipate that these process requirements will be jettisoned by a Federal bench that is itching to make nationwide policy in every area where Congress punts — their militancy might choose to ignore the case deficiencies.

    Let’s take standing. There is no way, under current law and precedent, to make plaintiffs out of foreign nationals who believe they have a right to walk onto US soil in defiance of border controls and then claim asylum status to remain here. Moreover, such a claim of “interference with their right to claim asylum” by erecting a border barrier would face two objections: 1) Why wasn’t this interference claim litigated starting in the late ’90s when the first physical walls were erected?, and 2) isn’t the claim a speculative grievance, given that what’s being claimed as injurious are ADDITIONS and REINFORCEMENTS to the barrier system? — and these haven’t been implemented yet. But those deficiencies might not even need to be heard….because the foreign national plaintiff must have been precluded from entering the US illegally as a fact of his/her case, and thus lacks standing to challenge immigration controls.

    Another class of plaintiffs are property owners along the border, claiming some irregularity under Eminent Domain. As a tactic, this might be easy for the government to counter. First, no suit could be filed until a property owner received an Eminent Domain notice, so that would delay filing of a suit. But, the government could also waive its Eminent Domain powers for “resistors”, and only build the border wall on the properties of agreeable owners. The “resistors” would have to consider the impact on their property values of declining border protection. They would in essence be setting up a magnet for smugglers to take over their property as a criminal smuggling corridor (assuming most of their neighbors agreed to host the wall). Property values in San Diego went up considerably along the border after the wall there was built. How many landowners would want to attract smuggling activity? The impact of the new, enhanced wall would be measurable even if individual property owners declined protection. So, too would be the impact if localities voted to veto the wall — it would be an invitation to smugglers — and that would oblige Border Patrol to concentrate enforcement on those same properties. Neighboring property owners might sue a neighbor for the damage resulting from fighting the DHS on wall emplacement. The government could benefit from such chaos, essentially giving superior law enforcement protections to agreeable property owners and towns, and letting “resistors” live with the nightmare of cartel ops.

    Who else could be chosen to serve as the plaintiff? Hard to say.

    But, because there are already some 400 miles of fence built, it is going to be hard to argue legally over some claim of injury due to such barriers. The legality of these border walls has already been established for 22 years.

    So, what’s left? Claims that the monies are incorrectly appropriated from the military?
    Who is the plaintiff? The military? Unless someone can argue being harmed by the emergency appropriation (which by Title 10 is legal), where does such a case to get off the ground?

    Are there any other plaintiffs who have standing, plus a claim of injury before the new wall segments are even built? Chime in if you can suggest one. I think the wall’s detractors haven’t looked at what they’re up against just to get a case structured and filed.

    1. good questions and the ACLU has hundreds of lawyers working on it and innumerable persons and organization holding their hands up to volunteer

      we should be ready for civil war, this is a slow moving war that will either be won by money or people. and the money is not on the side of the natives. just as it ever was

      natives awaken!

    2. “Who else could be chosen to serve as the plaintiff? Hard to say.”

      How about anyone who loses their house because they work for the Gov? Who were furloughed causing extreme financial distress?

      1. people may not be familiar with this reference Frank so let me elaborate. please study!

        The Tonton Macoute (Haitian Creole: Tonton Makout)[1][2][3] or simply the Macoute[4][5] was a special operations unit within the Haitian paramilitary force created in 1959 by dictator François “Papa Doc” Duvalier. In 1970 the militia was renamed the Volontaires de la Sécurité Nationale (VSN, Volunteers of the National Security).[6] Haitians named this force after the Haitian mythological bogeyman, Tonton Macoute (“Uncle Gunnysack”), who kidnaps and punishes unruly children by snaring them in a gunny sack (French: macoute) and carrying them off to be consumed at breakfast.[7][8]

        History

        Papa Doc Duvalier created the Tontons Macoutes because he perceived the military to be a threat to his power.
        After the July 1958 Haitian coup d’état attempt against President François Duvalier, he purged the army and law enforcement agencies in Haiti and executed numerous officers as he perceived them as a threat to his regime. To counteract this threat, he created a military force that bore several names. In 1959, his paramilitary force was called the Cagoulards (“Hooded Men”).[9][10] They were then renamed to Milice Civile (Civilian Militia), and after 1962, Volontaires de la Sécurité Nationale (Volunteers of the National Security, or VSN).[9][11] They began to be called the Tonton Macoute when people started to disappear for no apparent reason.[12] This group answered to him only.

        Duvalier authorized the Tontons Macoutes to commit systematic violence and human rights abuses to suppress political opposition. They were responsible for unknown numbers of murders and rapes in Haiti. Political opponents often disappeared overnight, or were sometimes attacked in broad daylight. Tontons Macoutes stoned and burned people alive. Many times they put the corpses of their victims on display, often hung in trees for everyone to see and take as warnings against opposition. Family members who tried to remove the bodies for proper burial often disappeared themselves. Anyone who challenged the VSN risked assassination. Their unrestrained state terrorism was accompanied by corruption, extortion and personal aggrandizement among the leadership. The victims of Tontons Macoutes could range from a woman in the poorest of neighborhoods who had previously supported an opposing politician to a businessman who refused to comply with extortion threats (ostensibly as donations for public works, but which were in fact the source of profit for corrupt officials and even President Duvalier). The Tontons Macoutes murdered between 30,000 and 60,000 Haitians.[13]

        Luckner Cambronne led the Tontons Macoute throughout the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. His cruelty earned him the nickname “Vampire of the Caribbean”. This particular name was earned by one of his endeavors of extorting plasma from locals for sale. Luckner did this through his company “Hemocaribian” and shipped five tons of plasma per month to US Labs. He would also go on to sell cadavers to medical schools after buying them from Haitian hospitals for $3 per corpse. When the Hospital could not supply this the local funeral homes would be used.[14] In 1971, President Duvalier died and his widow Simone, and son Jean-Claude Duvalier ordered Cambronne into exile. Cambronne moved to Miami, Florida, USA where he lived until his death in 2006.[15]

        When François Duvalier came to power in 1957 Vodou was becoming celebrated for its purely Haitian heritage by the Intellectuals, or the Griots after having been let go for years by those with education. [16] The Tonton Macoute was heavily influenced by Vodou tradition with denim uniforms resembling clothing like Azaka Medeh the patron of farmers and the use of the machete in symbolic reference to Ogou a great general in Vodou tradition. [17][18]

        Some of the most important members of the Tontons Macoute were Vodou leaders. This religious affiliation gave the Tontons Macoute a kind of unearthly authority in the eyes of the public. From their methods to their choice of clothes, Vodou always played an important role in their actions. The Tonton Macoutes wore straw hats, blue denim shirts and dark glasses, and were armed with machetes and guns. Both their allusions to the supernatural and their physical presentations were used with the intention of instilling fear and respect.[7][19][20] Even their title of Tonton Macoute was embedded in Haitian lore of a bogeyman who took children away in his satchel or his Makoute.[21]

        ….

    1. Get the anti-nausea drugs Bbbabbeecka, because you are going to be sicker really soon and we look foreard to the main event of 2019: replacing RBG. 🤪

      Trump White House urging allies to prepare for possible RBG departure.
      After an ailing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral arguments, the Trump team began early groundwork for another potential confirmation battle.
      https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/trump-white-house-urging-allies-to-prepare-for-possible-rbg-departure-1096102

    2. Becka, if you don’t like your tax decrease then give it back to the government. If you don’t like the fact that your neighbor might be employeed today when he wasn’t yesterday you aren’t a very nice person. Trump has done a lot. You don’t like some of those things but are unable to list what they are so perhaps you should just be quiet.

    3. Here’s the problem for the left, who seemlessly blend fact with opinion. When you get to Court, it is a place of facts and the law. Opinions about how you want the law to be interpreted…that might have worked in the Court a decade or more ago, but the current SCOTUS is getting back to just deciding cases, and NOT acting in place of Congress to make policy. The left has a vague sense of loss over this (post-Kavanaugh), but just will keep testing the system.

  9. The Real Trump Emergency (cont’d)

    MUELLER’S FINDINGS WILL BECOME PUBLIC

    On another front, The Post reports that Trump’s legal team has hatched a new strategy to prevent portions of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s imminent report from seeing the light of day. The idea is to exert executive privilege to argue that Trump’s confidential discussions with advisers detailed in the report should not be released, which Democrats fear could limit what the public learns about Trump’s efforts to obstruct justice.

    Justice Department regulations stipulate that the attorney general has discretion to decide how much of the findings to reveal to Congress, and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani is loudly threatening to demand that Trump’s team sees the report even before the attorney general makes the call. But even if Trump’s pick for attorney general gets confirmed and sides with Trump, House Democrats will be able to subpoena the findings. And one legal expert tells The Post it’s very likely the courts would rule for public release, as befell Richard Nixon.

    Edited from: “Raging Weakened Trump Is Running Out Of Options”

    Today’s WASHINGTON POST

    1. RE. ABOVE:

      The looming release of Robert Mueller’s report has Trump desperate for distractions. What better time to gin up a phony crisis?

      1. The opportune timing of the caravan arriving at/ near the border is, indeed, suspicious.
        The Trump Administration must have worked for months to “gin up”
        a plot involving the departure of a caravan last fall, and its arrival at the border, all of which must have been timed to distract from the long-promised “looming release of Robert Mueller’s report”.
        Diabolically complex and Machiavellian, especially when you consider that the President of Mexico and the Mayor of Tijuana also participated in the plot to “gin up” and deal with the issue of large groups of uninvited Central Americans jamming their facilities.

        1. Tom, when Trump took office, border apprehensions were DOWN considerably from where they had been just 15 years earlier. The ‘real’ border crisis peaked in the late 1990’s. That’s when Clinton started building the border fence that Bush upgraded with hi-tech features.

          But apparently Tom, you never looked at the border apprehension statistics that I posted on this blog many times already.

          If thousands from Central America wants to flee failed states, then we should do something to help fix those failed states. But I can’t help but wonder if this current rush by families was actually motivated by Trump’s election. It could be everyone wants to get here ‘before’ Trump cuts off every avenue of asylum. In that regard this so-called ‘crisis’ may be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

            1. Kurtz your report notes that those figures could vary by almost 15 million.
              In any event, the report notes that migration by Mexicans is trending down. The influx is increasingly originating in Central America.

              1. from our perspective a poor illiterate campesino from chiapas is not all that different from a poor illiterate campesino from honduras

                a variance of that scale is pretty interesting on many levels
                for starters is it or is it not a potential threat to national security to have that many unaccounted for residents floating around?

                the patriot act authorizes the FBI to look at my library records without a warrant and yet these folks float around here for years without filing income tax returns or compliance with half the paper pushing nonsense we citizens have to suffer. i find the security state apparatus if very offensive especially if all these migrants are no problem whatseover.

                something does not compute!

          1. Peter,…
            I commented on this a couple of days ago, and I’ll repeat what I said.
            I won’t repost the links that I posted with those comments.
            Regardless of the overall statistics, the “caravan phenomenon” is relatively new.
            Seems to have first surfaced in 2014.
            It’s one thing to deal with a few, or a few dozen, immigrants at a time illegally trying to gain entry.
            It’s another thing dealing with very large groups damned up at or near the border.
            I’m not really that fond of having to rehash/ repeat something I said very recently, but it’s understandable that you don’t pay attention to what others write when you’re busy running your own news network here.

            1. it’s not new. might as well be boats full or irish.

              here is the delusion that keeps natives in thrall. that big money is not behind the migration invasion. it is now and always was

              the “needy” aspect of migration plays on good hearted yet weak sympathies of natives. it’s really not about compassion it’s about providing an ample labor supply of scabs and low rent workers to keep profits elevated and certain migrant=based democratic machines working well

      2. Trump appears to be the epitome of the creep types whose behavior is so toxic people pay them to be rid of them. I am sure that is what he is hoping for….

        1. I think the “payment” to get rid of him went to Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele.
          Hasn’t work, at least so far. But we’ll see what happens now that we’re entering the 2nd half of the Trump term, which started Jan. 2017.

        2. “creep types whose behavior is so toxic people pay them to be rid of them.”

          I don’t agree with your statement regarding Trump but I would like to know if that is the way you earn your living?

            1. Is ignorance your stock and trade, or do you just practice to be ignorant. Because if you are just practicing, you have achieved your goal by all measures. Would it not be easier to go and watch old reruns of Alex Jones.

              1. FishWings, did mommy give you the wrong nipple? You haven’t said an intelligent thing since I have been on this blog. Do you want to debate something of importance? I am waiting but we both know you aren’t up to it and don’t have the knowledge.

          1. Illegal immigrants who jumped ahead of everyone in the legal immigration line have infiltrated many industries, driving legal wage earners out of their jobs and dragging down the standard of living. You bet that there are illegal aliens working for Congressmen and women, Hollywood, and everywhere else.

            It’s like the elites who live well off the taxpayer (just like the hogs in Animal Farm) must hate the bourgeoise middle class. They dump millions of illegal immigrants into the job market, throwing a rock into wages, and there’s little left for citizens. It’s hard to find a knowledgeable landscape company that won’t top trees because the illegal immigrants work under the table and drove many reputable businesses out of business. They couldn’t compete with the low wages and zero benefits given to illegals. Housecleaning companies seem to use only illlegal aliens now. They undercut reputable companies. It goes on and on.

            To comment that there are likely illegal aliens working in housekeeping at a resort is like standing in the rain and commenting that it’s raining. No kidding.

            Do something about it. Build a wall.

      3. Peter I guess you have a point. Since you and the Dems who control Congress are so ready to impeach the President, I think he should go full bore now. Declare emergency is just the beginning. We are ready

        Obama set a record for signing executive orders. It’s time for Trump to have the brass that Obama did. And he needs more actually if it’s going to the mat then pull out all the stops fast and do whatever it takes. Transformational change almost never happens nicely.

        1. Check your facts….Obama did not set the record for sighing executive orders. Oh, that’s right, you don’t believe in facts.

              1. oh boy wrong again., I guess I i get an F for the day in your book. Now you can get off that one point and say something constructive about the other 100 comments floating around. oh wait you are punctilious and it satisfies you to find one factoid to hang your angelwings on. wait fishwings

  10. If anyone needed a lesson on just how myopic the Left is on the importance of constitutional governance ie. separation of powers, rule of law and federalism; observe their mass hysteria regarding President Trump’s use of the powers they applauded the President assumed and more importantly him using those powers to accomplish what the Democrats said needed to be done.

    If hypocrisy were a professional sport, conservatives would need salary caps if they had any hope of being competitive with the Left.

    1. You misunderstand them. they are not myopic. They are unprincipled, unless, the principle is power. Which is actually pretty smart on their part. They don’t let phony princples hold them back. For example, they are all in favor of welcoming these low skilled, illiterate third world people in by the millions because they know their kids born here will vote Democrat. So all they gotta do is defeat the wall, let 22 million illegals become 30, and nature will take its course.

      Any phony principles holding Republicans and natives back now will come at the expense of our democraphic displacement inside of 10 years. It’s make or break time. Otherwise look to history for what will become of us as natives, such as became of the natives our ancestors demographically invaded, migrated, and displaced

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

      1. Oh, I understand them quite well. Yes they lack the principles necessary for constitutional governance. And yes, they desire the power to control the levers of government. What passes for them as vision though is doing everything imaginable to not lose power. They are myopic in that they cannot imagine how those same powers might be used by anyone other than themselves. If they weren’t myopic, they would understand they are creating a monster that has never in human history worked to reliably secure the rights of anyone beyond themselves.

    2. Olly, I think one could say that this is the second time in our history that the Democratic Party refused to accept the result of a legal election for President. The first time, if I am correct the Democrats refused to accept Lincoln or the end of slavery. They went to war over that issue and left over half a million Americans dead. They are a very violent group of people today and we see that when they use violence to stop free speech and fascists that call themselves antifascists but dress, act and use violence in the same manner the fascists did in the mid twentieth century.

        1. Kurtz, I don’t worry about bullies. I worry about the crazies and there are too many leftist crazies running around performing violent acts or acts of intimidation.

          1. they’re all the same. politics is just an excuse for a lot of freaks. at heart they’re bullies and you must handle them all the same. if you can’t avoid them you have to hit first.

            sometimes it grows to the scale of a nation however, in which case, it’s a tribe versus tribe bully situation, maybe one social circle or another. you get the idea.

            1. A lot of young people yearn for a cause and they like to demonstrate bravado. The cause should be paying for their education, getting good grades and developing a career, but now a days they feel it is someone elses responsibility. Why take the hard career expanding courses and why get good grades when one can party whether that party be the usual type or one that causes damage to others.

              Israel seems to have a system that is working better. First the army learning how to survive and how to deal with others. After that hard work at the university is simple.

              1. the average left leaning kid is not an antifa bully antisocial freak. nor is the average alt right kid some kind of skinhead criminal. young people always are drawn to sources of identity and belonging, it’s a healthy instinct deep down.

                but as you say they need to get a sense of how to support themselves. that’s important but does not appeal to the youth unless they have started a family, then reality sets in fast.

                israel has a sense of being an ethnostate which is a totally different situation than america. their universal military service suits their social and strategic situation very well. ours is not comparable. its a different world here

                1. Yes, Israel is a different nation with different needs and requirements, but it is something to look at. We may not be an ethnostate as you put it but we are a state with a particular culture which in the past assimilated other cultures while expanding its own. Culture solidifies nations. The left wishes to destroy the culture of America developed over the past 400 years.

                  1. or you might have said, “the left has destroyed.”
                    except, the things the left did to change america were products of forces unleashed already by america itself and changing the entire western world alike in europe as well.

                    there is no survival without reckoning with the past.

                    and the time is short for any existential resolutions to put us on a firmer footing, because within a decade artificial intelligence and what it will bring will change everything all over again with as dramatic of changes as we have seen like the birth control, personal computers, the internet, cell phones and social media; but with ever increasing rapidity.

                    it is not clear whether these developments will on some level obviate warfare, or deepen its destructiveness. whether they will help human life or eliminate it.

                    one german I like on artificial intellifence is Nick bostrom. Check him out. going backwards there is another German who wrote about technology and its essence: heidegger

                    if this interests you I can only recommend Heidegger’s Bremen lectures about technology which are discussed well here

                    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/understanding-heidegger-on-technology

Leave a Reply