Supreme Court: The Wall Can Go Foward...

[Cow Poke]

You are from New Zealand, correct? Your immigration laws and criteria are even more strict than the US. Maybe you should worry about your back yard before you worry about ours?

New Zealand has God-defined borders.

[Sparko]

Right, so the plan is clearly moronic - since if they are being persecuted in their home country it is not a safe place to be or ask for asylum.

They can always go to another country. The USA isn't the only country in the area. They could go to Mexico, which offered them asylum, or Belize, or Costa Rica, or any other number of countries. Or they could even ask their OWN government for asylum from the criminals. That is what government is supposed to do, protect their citizens. Maybe if people stayed and fought back instead of leaving, they could change things. I can tell you one thing, if things ever got as bad as they claim they are in Guatemala here in the USA, we wouldn't leave. We would take a stand against them. Send in the National Guard if we had to.

[JimL]

No, they are not refugees. That word has a specific meaning and asylum into the USA has specific requirements. Being poor or living in a bad neighborhood doesn't qualify you for asylum.

Here is what Obama said about it:

Under US law you know we admit a certain number of refugees from all around the world based on some fairly narrow criteria, and typically refugee status is not granted just based on economic need or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood or poverty.

It's typically defined fairly narrowly. You have a state, for example, that was targeting a political activist and we need to get out of the country for fear of prosecution or even death.

There may be some narrow circumstances in which there is a humanitarian or refugee status that a family might be elevated -- if that were the case would be better for them to be able to apply in country rather than take a very dangerous journey all the way up to Texas.

--President Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1v8pwLg3Q4

"That would not necessarily accomadate a large number of migrants"/refugees that might fit that humanitarian status for asylum. Obama wasn't a far leftist nutcase on immigration, but he wasn't a build a wall, and to hell with them all, either.

[Sparko]

Again, this has to do with genuine refugees, not with economic migrants. Your belief that the world has no refugee is pathetic but kinda required for your world view. Which, is clearly good.

Ah. so in other words 99% of the people trying to get in should be turned away then.

[Sparko]

Constitutionally, Congress and more specifically the House, controls what is funded and what isn't. That's one of its core constitutional responsibilities and key to the separation of powers that prevents executive overreach and keeps the US from turning into a dictatorship. One of the current core limits on the power of Executive Orders is the president has no power to affect funding, so can't Order anything that would change the way federal funding is allocated.

Congress had specifically looked at the issue of wall, and specifically said "no" to it. So, constitutionally, that should be the end of the story - all the lower courts agreed. It is a massively unconstitutional decision by the activist Republican judges on the Supreme Court to reject the constitution in this manner and to allow the President to reallocate funding in direct opposition to the expressed will of Congress. It's going to allow for a truly massive expansion of Presidential authority in the future. This, combined with the gradual leaking of War powers post 9/11 away from the Congress and toward the President, is in serious danger of making the Executive branch an all-powerful branch of government and destroying the historic Separation of Powers that the US has depended upon. The upside, from my point of view, is the next Democratic president is going to be able to do basically whatever they feel like with Executive Orders. I hope that will include a $1 trillion plan to fight climate change.

The money that was redirected to the wall was drug-enforcement money. Also, the Pentagon is not responsible for border security against migrants, the DHS does that.* It wasn't an internal transfer of money within a department, it was a wholesale transfer to a completely different government department.

*Which was also why Trump's deploying of troops to the border last year was such an absurdly stupid stunt. The US military is legally prohibited from doing standard border patrol duties so the troops had to sit there suffering in makeshift accommodation while they twiddled their thumbs because they literally weren't allowed to do anything useful. You might personally think of preventing a few migrants crossing the border as 'defending the country', but the law doesn't frame it that way and the Pentagon's legal purpose is to defend against foreign countries invading with military forces (or, more commonly, to invade foreign countries with military forces). They are legally not allowed to do anything about a few refugees trying to illegally cross the border because that's the DHS's task to manage. You might think "well maybe this should change", and maybe it should but it would require new laws and new training, it's like saying "I think the fire department should now help the police to do police activities" - it's not inconceivable that current firemen could be trained and kitted out to be able to be police extras but currently they aren't and it simply isn't what their department does.

So apparently you don't understand what budgets are.

[Sparko]

"That would not necessarily accomadate a large number of migrants"/refugees that might fit that humanitarian status for asylum. Obama wasn't a far leftist nutcase on immigration, but he wasn't a build a wall, and to hell with them all, either.

He (and Pelosi and Schumer, Waters and the other Dems) had basically the exact same ideas about illegal immigration that Trump does.
1. We need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.
2. We can only take in so many per year and they need to meet the correct criteria
3. People need to apply in their home country instead of coming here in caravans.

They only differed on the solution. As we can see Obama's solution did not stop anything. A wall would.

[Charles]

You are from New Zealand, correct? Your immigration laws and criteria are even more strict than the US. Maybe you should worry about your back yard before you worry about ours?

This is not a worry about back yards. It is a worry about how people are treated and how they are described.

[Teallaura]

Well, lookie - he read the very first line - and nothing else.

Still, that's better than I thought you could do!



Tell you what - you go back, read what I ACTUALLY wrote and then if you think the article refutes me, I'll read it. But if you can't be bothered to read a single post, then I have no obligation to read your argument by weblink.

[Sparko]

This is not a worry about back yards. It is a worry about how people are treated and how they are described.

What, did you forget to log out as Chuck and log in as Zara again?

[Charles]

What, did you forget to log out as Chuck and log in as Zara again?

As I have told you many times, a good moral point is not relative to who makes it.

[Mountain Man]

What, did you forget to log out as Chuck and log in as Zara again?

So Zara is Chuck's sock account? Will wonders never cease.

[Teallaura]

This is not a worry about back yards. It is a worry about how people are treated and how they are described.

Maybe you should reconsider:

New Zealand resettles 1000 refugees annually through our Refugee Quota Programme.

Source
*emphasis mine

So, New Zealand takes in 1000 per year - the US has more than 50,000 detained per MONTH. But I notice you aren't petitioning your government to take in any of the 'refugees' you want us to take in. There are ships - we'd be happy to help them get to NZ - IF NZ would take them - which it won't. It won't even have proceedings to determine status, will it?

Hypocrite. It's easy to complain when you don't have to worry about the problem showing up on your doorstep, isn't it?

[Sparko]

So Zara is Chuck's sock account? Will wonders never cease.

Well Chuck seems to want to answer for him when I wasn't talking to him.

[Charles]

Well Chuck seems to want to answer for him when I wasn't talking to him.

Yes, and you are yet to adress the point I made.

[Sparko]

Maybe you should reconsider:


Source
*emphasis mine

So, New Zealand takes in 1000 per year - the US has more than 50,000 detained per MONTH. But I notice you aren't petitioning your government to take in any of the 'refugees' you want us to take in. There are ships - we'd be happy to help them get to NZ - IF NZ would take them - which it won't. It won't even have proceedings to determine status, will it?

Hypocrite. It's easy to complain when you don't have to worry about the problem showing up on your doorstep, isn't it?

I think Chuck is in Europe, he just couldn't help answering for Zara.

Europe is disintegrating because of their open borders. It is a big reason why the UK is Brexiting. Europeans are losing jobs to all of the immigrants from Turkey and the middle east.