January 10, 2019

"Both sides have taken absolutist positions that leave no room for the kind of split-the-difference compromise that usually ends budget impasses...."

"But Mr. Trump’s claim that he can and may attempt to build his wall another way opens the door for him to sign a spending bill with no wall funding, reopening the government without capitulation by either side. While any such move by Mr. Trump is certain to prompt outrage from his critics and wild approval from his supporters, there is good reason to believe that it is unlikely to result in much immediate change. His push for a wall would be channeled into a lengthy court fight, keeping lawyers far busier than construction workers, at least initially, as his term ticks away.... If, in the end, the Supreme Court were to rule that emergency-power laws give Mr. Trump authority to proceed, he would probably face still more litigation with property owners over whether the government may use eminent domain to force them to sell their border lands. There may be little time left in his term after all that to add more than a few miles, if any, of barriers to the 1,954-mile border, which already has 654 miles of fencing."

From "Trump’s Emergency Powers Threat Could End Shutdown Crisis, but at What Cost?" (NYT).

228 comments:

1 – 200 of 228   Newer›   Newest»
Donald Blodgett said...

No. I count myself a Trump supporter and a lengthy court battle, etc. would not get "wild approval" from me. Quite the contrary!

Chuck said...

Mexico could pay for the wall. That would solve it. Anybody think of that? Why not just get Mexico to pay?

Robert Cook said...

I'm sure those who support Trump and will applaud him for trying (and possibly succeeding) to govern by decree would harshly criticize a Democrat president for trying the same thing, calling it the first step in a president asserting dictatorial authority.

The harsh criticism would be the correct response.

rhhardin said...

Trump will devastate the dem opposition with tweets.

AustinRoth said...

A NYT article laying things out as negatively as possible for Trump.

Dog bites man.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"While any such move by Mr. Trump is certain to prompt outrage from his critics ..."

Another day, another Hillary lost butt hurt temper tantrum from the left.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Chuck Schumer in 2009: Illegal Immigration is wrong, plain and simple

What is wrong is to be such political assholes, that a few bucks for some targeted border security is made toxic by total hypocrites.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Wild approval? No. Outrage? No. Lengthy court battles? No. Many court battles? Yes.

I suspect the initial court challenge to get to the Supremes quickly, and be decided quickly. Assuming Trump wins at the Supremes, any injunction over eminent domain will also be slapped away quickly by the Supremes, quite likely with a decision that precludes lower courts from issuing further injunctions in this case.

The Supreme Court cases will split along partisan lines, so either 5-3 or 6-3, depending on how quickly McConnell does his job

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Both sides have taken absolutist positions that leave no room for the kind of split-the-difference compromise that usually ends budget impasses...

The door is unlocked. They could walk out at any time.

tim maguire said...

I don't want a wall or careless use of national emergency declarations. I also don't want governance by activist judge-shopped jurists. As usual, everybody sucks and there is no one to root for (except sort-of Trump for taking seriously a serious problem even if I don't like his solution).

rcocean said...

This country is finished. You have 1/2 of the population that doesn't even want a country and the other half cares only for the $.

California is the future of the entire USA. The Republican dummies in California refused to fight and have gone the way of the dodo bird. And the state government is lurching further and further to the Left. That what will the USA in 5 years.

I have no doubt the Bushes will turn Democrat when Texas goes Purple.

AllenS said...

Any time you want to state a better solution to the problem of illegal immigration, mr maguire, you go right ahead and tell us.

Dave Begley said...

More idiocy from the NYT.

I'm calling my shot. Trump offers the Dems a DACA deal. And then the Gateway Tunnel into NYC. That means government workers, NYC commuters, NYC contractors and DACA kids will all be mad at Chuck and Nancy.

The Dems and the MSM have never dealt with the likes of Trump. He has stones of gold.

Leland said...

I'm not in favor of the emergency declaration. I agree with the NYT on the point that his invocation of it showed a path to end shutdown and still get what he wants. That was likely a minor mistake. It also shows his supporters how seriously he takes the issue, which will help him in 2020.

Anyway, I just read that Cher is advocating that Pelosi not die on this hill and end the shutdown. That's a crack in the Democrat bulwark.

Dave Begley said...

Chuck:

El Chapo is paying for the Wall when his billions get forfeited to the United States.

The central question is this: Is the Democrat party working for American citizens or for drug dealers and foreigners?

sykes.1 said...

It is impossible for Trump to back down. If he does, he might as well resign and go home. He will be a lame duck without any influence in Washington, and he will not even get the 2020 Republican nomination. This is do or die for him and his supporters.

rehajm said...

Eminent domain has been litigated. What they’re calling a court fight is more accurately called stalling for time.

CJinPA said...

Grinning in the corner: The establishment Republicans who wouldn't put up a vote on the wall for the two years they controlled Congress.

I don't really know how they pulled this off. I read that they convinced Trump to hold off on the issue. Not sure. But they may end being the real winners.

Nonapod said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonapod said...

he would probably face still more litigation with property owners over whether the government may use eminent domain to force them to sell their border lands

How realistic is this concern? Are there many private property owners along the border that are likely to throw up a stink, or is this just some creative wishcasting?

CJinPA said...

It is impossible for Trump to back down. If he does, he might as well resign and go home. He will be a lame duck without any influence in Washington, and he will not even get the 2020 Republican nomination.

This is a tad overly dramatic. His support among Republicans is 80-90%, and they're not going to abandoned the first politician to fight illegal immigration in their lifetimes just because he couldn't beat establishment opposition.

rehajm said...

Cute how they assume they only have to run out the clock on Trump’s first term.

CJinPA said...

How realistic is this concern? Are there many private property owners along the border that are likely to throw up a stink, or is this just some creative wishcasting?

I think there will be a certain about of eminent domain/seizing private land involved. But the amount it likely overstated.

Nonapod said...

I think there will be a certain about of eminent domain/seizing private land involved. But the amount it likely overstated.

Yeah, I was just wondering if the property owners will actually care. I mean, I assume that most of them wouldn't have a problem with it. But I don't know obviously.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck is trying to kickstart his pro-dem Open Borders campaign on Althouse Blog after 2 very bad LLR charade days in a row.

Wild over the top praise for everything Obama/MSNBC/lefty dems is going to require some damage control posting to try and re-establish his faux "true conservative" online persona.

It will be fun to watch.

Chuck said...

YouTube video of Ezra Klein's interesting appearance last night on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show.

The theory advanced is that while of course Trump would like to have a border wall that he could proclaim as a personal victory, Trump seems to prefer talking about a wall and about Democratic intransigence, to the political work and dealmaking necessary to actually getting wall funding into a congressional budget.

This isn't just bad dealmaking by Trump; it is an abject failure of dealmaking. There's never been any real attempt at dealmaking.

And at the risk of repeating myself, I say again that while this is purely a personal fear and not a prediction, I fear that in order to get satisfy his silly obsession with a "wall," Trump might have to give in on a serious Democrat demand like a pathway to citizenship for illegals.*

*Yes, the "pathway" compromise was once proposed in the Senate by compromising Republicans McCain, Rubio, Graham, et al. It was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. I'd much, much, much prefer to see the entire wall idea killed, than give in on amnesty issues.

Drago said...

CrazyLeft/VoxJuiceboxer/Ezra Klein and MSNBC/leftyhackO'Donnell links from LLR Chuck!!!

LOLOLOLOL

Looks like LLR Chuck is truly giving up the faux Conservative "thing"!

Well, as with the Cuckly Standard Fake Conservative/ProDem writers who have all emerged proudly as leftists (as we knew they were), this is a healthy development.

LOL

stevew said...

If I were to accept this analysis and prognostication as correct, I would say it benefits Trump and his re-election bid, and hurts the Democrats.

Drago said...

Stevew: "If I were to accept this analysis and prognostication as correct, I would say it benefits Trump and his re-election bid, and hurts the Democrats."

This is why the Open Borders far left/LLRChuck are panicking.

Darrell said...

Are there many private property owners along the border that are likely to throw up a stink

Yeah, there are. There have been plenty of reports about Lefty organizations buying up property on the border to prevent a wall being built. I'm hoping the Feds give them $1 for it. Just to make it legal.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "I fear that in order to get satisfy his silly obsession with a "wall," Trump might have to give in on a serious Democrat demand like a pathway to citizenship for illegals.*"

LOLOLOLOL

(Wink wink.....)

EDH said...

Doesn't the NYT forecast imply that the politics and the optics of the situation along the border remain static?

Granted the MSM will do their best to manage the reportage, but I don't think the events over time will enure to the Dems benefit over a protracted shutdown.

In the meantime, Trump should invoke Emergency Powers selectively, emphasizing the non-wall aspects of border security held-up by the budget impasse. Let his opponents fight the "border security" they say they are for.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Nancy could fund border security.

She refuses because she represents crazy people.

Nonapod said...

What's interesting to me about the Never-Wall postion is that the justifications seem to amount to a wall being immoral and racist and ineffective. How can it be both immoral and ineffective? If it's racist to keep illegal immigrants out, but a wall wouldn't keep any illegal immigrants out, than how can the wall be racist?

Darrell said...

Trump might have to give in on a serious Democrat demand like a pathway to citizenship for illegals

Known as "smart amnesty" MONG the GOPelite. Ask them about it. "It's going to happen! Might as well be our acceptable plan."

Trump nixed that shit right off the bat.

Tom T. said...

@CJinPA: "The establishment Republicans who wouldn't put up a vote on the wall for the two years they controlled Congress."

Senate Democrats would have filibustered, but the story still would have been spun in the press as "Republicans can't agree on wall finding." By waiting until now to have the fight, Trump can put the Democrats front-and-center as the opposition.

Leland said...

This is no way do or die for Trump and his supporters. That's just silly. Trump is the last opportunity for the establishment to decide if they support Americans or not. For example, see Gavin Newsom, who has promised sanctuary from criminal conviction and free healthcare to non citizens. Trump makes mistakes, but he didn't do what Newsom just did.

Darrell said...

The Democrats don't want a wall.
They say other methods will work better.
Yet they want to get rid of ICE and the Border Patrol.
Just like letting California Voters self-identify as US citizens.
And terminating State employees that ask for proof.
Everything is rope-a-dope to get their way.

walter said...

Boy. I hope Cher doesn't run into Snoop Dog.
He seems a bit testy.

Based on prior legislation and documented quotes from the current opposition, a shorthand for Trump here could have been "Finish the (damn) job"

Lucien said...

One reason a wall is important is that if you walk up to a wall and read it a dishonest claim for asylum (from a script a lefty lawyer handed you ten minutes ago) the wall won’t let you in, and can’t be sued.

traditionalguy said...

Eminent Domain has no court delay. The property title is taken by. Declaration filed in court accompanied by a deposit of the FMV funds into the Registry. Than the former owner has 10 days to file an Appeal ONLY to the amount of the money.The delay is how fast the Government lasted can type and walk down to the Courthouse.

Eleanor said...

Even Cher says the Democrats should give in and build the wall. When the Democrats have lost Cher, they've lost the fight.

Rick said...

"Both sides have taken absolutist positions that leave no room for the kind of split-the-difference compromise that usually ends budget impasses...."

The typical compromise position is to put some amount of money toward the goal sought and reopen government. so to summarize Trump's position is the compromise position. Democrats responded to that compromise increasing their demands. That the NYT supports that effort demonstrates that while they claim to be moderate in fact the Dem evolution to extreme has carried the NYT right along with it.

Dave Begley said...

traditonalguy is right about ED. The Left has a fantasy that it can stop public improvements this way. Nuts. A wall is no different than a bridge for purposes of ED law.

And there is no way that Trump loses this Wall fight. He will win by any means possible.

Meade said...

Chuck said...
" I'd much, much, much prefer to see the entire wall idea killed, than give in on amnesty issues."

Because once the wall is killed, it's dead forever whereas, just like the time before and the time before that, we can always give in on amnesty issues anytime we choose.

Dave Begley said...

Ezra Klein is a lunatic who looks smart.

Laslo Spatula said...

When one splits Solomon's Baby, do you cut across or up-and-down?

I am Laslo.

Tom from Virginia said...

Here's a compromise that will work for both sides.

The Democrats will give Trump everything he wants on the Wall. Everything.

In return, Trump will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court when RBG retires/dies.

Chuck said...

CJinPA said...
Grinning in the corner: The establishment Republicans who wouldn't put up a vote on the wall for the two years they controlled Congress.

I don't really know how they pulled this off. I read that they convinced Trump to hold off on the issue. Not sure. But they may end being the real winners.


And still grinning, as the Ol' Master Mitch McConnell is staying so far away from this clusterfuck that he might as well be in Hawai'i.

Unknown said...

This is th NYT and as such are offering up a sure fire way to end any chance of reelection. Sod off.

Trump ONLY loses if he gives in. That is it, period, end of story. And if the security of our citizens and our nation honestly are not enough a large enough hill for the GOP to die on, then they need to get out as well.

That something this important is being relegated to the typical political bullshit is very disheartening.

Chuck said...

Tom from Virginia said...
Here's a compromise that will work for both sides.

The Democrats will give Trump everything he wants on the Wall. Everything.

In return, Trump will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court when RBG retires/dies.



Yeah, that is the kind of thing that I fear.

How about this; we just give up on "the wall," agree that it was a stupid idea and sit down with the Democrats and work out some meaningful border security that might well include some new fencing, barriers, etc., but allow them to say to their base that we will never erect any "great wall" on our southern border.

And then, we go ahead and continue to nominate and confirm conservative judges in the mold of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Over Democrat objections.

I think that between the Federalist Society and President Romney, we can put a permanent conservative mark on the judiciary.

Drago said...

"Ezra Klein is a lunatic who looks smart."

Being a lefty lunatic guarantees LLR Chuck approval.

Guarantees it. But only every single time.

Meade said...

"I'm sure those who support Trump and will applaud him for trying (and possibly succeeding) to govern by decree would harshly criticize a Democrat president for trying the same thing, calling it the first step in a president asserting dictatorial authority."

Try me. If President Bernie Sanders uses dictatorial authority to secure our southern border and solve illegal immigration once and for all, I guarantee you, I will sing his praises to the heavens and point to that act as a perfect example of the proper use of dictatorial authority. I'll lobby to place President Sanders face on Mt. Rushmore, squeezed in right next to Abraham Lincoln — the other president who used his dictatorial authority to preserve the nation.

AJ Lynch said...

Today we let 1 million a year come here legally right? They each get a green card which conveys permanent legal residency right? I wonder what the fai market value on Ebay would be a for a green card if one could be sold?

A large number of those green cards are given due to chain migration system. IOW, an immigrant can sponsor another immigrant for a green card and. in effect, get them a green card which has great value.

Why do we limit that "gift giving" to immigrants? Why not get rid of chain migration system and have a lottery so random current American citizens can win the right to sell a green card and make some money for themselves.

Hell if we had a lottery, we could take half of the annual 1 Million and give to 500,000 Americans who could sell each for probably $100,000. It would be taxable income so Uncle Sam would get at least 30% or $30,000 each. $30K x 500,000 per year = new federal tax revenue of $15 Billion per year. So that pays for the wall and half a million Americans get a windfall of $70,000. And yes, I have way too much time on my hands!

walter said...

President Romney.
Chuck needs to squeegee off his screen after that.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/awful-star-cnn-contributor-ana-navarro-files-nails-on-live-tv-as-guest-discusses-murders-by-illegal-aliens-video/

Star CNN personality Ana Navarro rolled her eyes and filed her nails as a conservative guest Steve Cortes described innocent Americans murdered by illegal aliens.

Steve Cortes: You can do your nails. You know who can’t do their nails are people killed by illegal aliens who’ve been allowed to stay in this country because of leftist policies that people like you promote in so-called sanctuary cities.

Navarro then started screaming at the guest saying, “I don’t care what you have to say.”

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "Yeah, that is the kind of thing that I fear."

LOL

As nany real conservatives have pointed out repeatedly, Donald Trump has given us the most conservative governance that we have experienced in 50 years.

LLR Chuck's pals gave us David Souter and tried to give us Harriet Meirs and they surrendered completely on Gonzalez just as they surrendered on obamacare, wall funding, defunding Planned Parenthood, fighting back against the dems, etc.

Witness LLR Chucks passionate and hilariously vehement defense of obama and obamacare!

All of Chucks pals have endorsed total dem victory across the board...but its Trump we have to worry about...(wink wink)

Too, too funny.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Stopping illegal actions is now considered immoral to the radical Nancy left.

That's how far leftwing the leftwing have moved left.

chickenlittle said...

The impasse is beyond rational. I wonder if Trump will rely on "The Art Of The Deal"?

chickenlittle said...

All of Chucks pals have endorsed total dem victory across the board...but its Trump we have to worry about...(wink wink)

That's probably taking it too far. But the Chucks don't have a serious alternative--nor do the Dems. Else we'd hear about him or her.

Chuck said...

Lol!

Steel bollard border barrier cut with hand tools in DHS test as revealed by PBS station FOIA request.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birches said...

More concern trolling by our Coastal Media Elite? They must be scared.

Birches said...

Why does anyone respond to posters who are obviously posting in bad faith? Just stop!

Meade said...

From Cuck's link: "Democrats are willing to work with the administration to improve our border security, but let's get back to proven and effective solutions."

And your "proven" "effective" solutions are what?

Meade said...

(sorry — Chuck not Cuck. Damn autocorrect.)

Laslo Spatula said...

"(sorry — Chuck not Cuck. Damn autocorrect.)"

Autocorrect as Freudian Slip.

I am Laslo.

narciso said...

Well harriet Myers might not have been that bad, at the time we were trying to get past maverick and gooses gang of 14.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

A proven solution on the left, is to layer the talking points with empty chiche's and empty bromides, and move along and never follow through.

for instance:

Why Wasn’t Fence Stipulated In Secure Fence Act Of 2006 Built?

Democrats voted to pay for it. Oh right - on the left, virtually everything is a Potemkin village, and and empty cliche'.

Rick said...

"Democrats are willing to work with the administration to improve our border security, but let's get back to proven and effective solutions."

And your "proven" "effective" solutions are what?


It doesn't matter what the solutions are supposed to be, the assertion Democrats are willing to work to improve border security is false.

n.n said...

A string of Planned Parenthood "clinics" with legally and ethically impenetrable walls. Hang the remains of aborted babies... fetuses on the other side as cannibalistic tribes once did and still do to warn people of something wicked in progress. Mount a Sun and Wind Wall on top to win approval from the anthropogenic blight sector and sell the energy to consumers from both ends of the bridge.

Also, emigration reform. Social Justice! What is it good for? Refugee crises, water processing, democratic leverage, labor arbitrage, redistributive change, diversity, and Gaddafied girls and boys.

n.n said...

the assertion Democrats are willing to work to improve border security is false

Not if it is... when it was politically congruent (i.e. opportunistic, profitable). Still, the hope to marginalize both Planned and unPlanned Americans for political leverage must be tempting.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Democrats lie. They want open borders and easy welfare recipients who can vote illegally to give the democrats more power.

Seeing Red said...

Phone and pen.

Seeing Red said...

Obama lowered the bar, Cookie.

FIDO said...

Translation: We are on the losing side of the popular, legal and presidential power side of the argument, but we hate you all so much we will fight with our last breath to stop this wall that the majority of you want because we refuse to accept any kind of loss.

This is our democratic party, ladies and gentlemen.

Sebastian said...

The problem with Trump's position is that he hasn't demanded enough, so that he can compromise on a lower amount and more modest changes in immigration law. Now he'd better stick to what he asked for.

Immigration, including illegal immigration, is the existential issue for the U.S. Trump is an imperfect vehicle for making the necessary changes, and of course, he is still unlikely to succeed in the long run, but he's all we got.

bagoh20 said...

Trump's position is very simple and clear. We need to create a real border to entry, becuase it will allow us to decide who gets in and when, just like the doors on everybody's house. Very simple, everyone can understand that, and obviously a primary responsibility of any functional government anywhere, and a relatively small amount of money that they regularly spend on nonessential projects.

I do not get what the Democrat position is that counters that. What is the issue that is more important than that, especially considering they all voted for it recently, and some gave speeches that sound exactly like what Trump has been saying.

Just give me the central counter argument that makes sense in all that context.

Meade said...

"A string of Planned Parenthood "clinics" with legally and ethically impenetrable walls. Hang the remains of aborted babies... fetuses on the other side as cannibalistic tribes once did and still do to warn people of something wicked in progress. Mount a Sun and Wind Wall on top to win approval from the anthropogenic blight sector and sell the energy to consumers from both ends of the bridge."

n.n — I do like the cut of your (Swift) jib.

Meade said...

"I do not get what the Democrat position is that counters that."

Yes you do. It's very clear and simple: status quo.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "President Romney"!

The guy who couldnt stand up to Candy Crowley!! Surrendered to her, CNN and obama, live, in front of a global audience!

Surrendering to Obama! You know that sent a thrill up LLR Chuck's leg!!

Drago said...

FIDO: "This is our democratic party, ladies and gentlemen."

This is our democratic party (nd its cadre of LLR henchmen) ladies and gentlemen.

FIFY

Erika Juhasz Nagy said...

For those landowners who don't want the wall on their property, build the wall on the other side. then they will be outside the wall. F'em.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Where is Paul Ryan? He needs to sit the Democrats down and sternly explain to them that they only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government. And this is not the hill to die on.

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...

Time is on Trump's side here, court battle or not. Note that we're talking about a border wall here, not amnesty or Dreamers or any of that other shit. Who could have imagined that a few years ago? This is a conversation the Democrats desperately don't want to have. And the longer it goes on, the more time ordinary people have to actually think about it, and the less efficacious media and Dem hysteria becomes.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Has everyone completely forgotten about Environmental Impact Studies and environmental groups suing under the Clean Air/Water Act, endangered species act and many other environmental laws. Plus the EPA doing Resistance work.

You all think Eminent Domain is the problem?

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

I've asked this before without getting an answer here. I've looked elsewhere and can't find an answer:

Why would there need to be any eminent domain at all?

There is a border already. There are fences along that border

The govt owns, leases, has easements or some sort of legal rights to the land under those fences and to some amount of land on each side for roads and access.

Why is more land needed for the wall than the govt already has?

Why will there be eminent domain?

Can anyone point me to information on this?

Thanks.

John Henry

Bob Boyd said...

When things are being designed/engineered they are often tested to the point of destruction. The question isn't "can the barrier be breached?" The question is, "Will the new barrier better than what we have now and by how much?"
The Border patrol says their tests showed the new barrier design they selected is much harder to breach with every method they tried, than any of their existing fences.

Drago said...

Bob Boyd: "The Border patrol says their tests showed the new barrier design they selected is much harder to breach with every method they tried, than any of their existing fences."

Correct. Engineering firms are working closely with the Border Patrol to design a more effective barrier.

That increase in effectiveness is what the Open Borders LLR's and dems (but I repeat myself) fear the most.

FIDO said...

Chuck, McCain died last year. You can stop fluffing him and carrying his water.

bagoh20 said...

I don't give a shit if Trump gets credit or not, and I wish the Congress was the same. The left thinks Trump supporters want the wall becuase they like Trump, but that's backward.

Big Mike said...

Both sides have taken absolutist positions that leave no room for the kind of split-the-difference compromise that usually ends budget impasses

What would a “split the difference” look like in this case? Build a lower wall tha anyone can climb over? Only install every other section so that one can easily get past it?

AllenS said...

Where is Paul Ryan?

Not sure, because he is no longer in Government. He retired.

Big Mike said...

The left thinks Trump supporters want the wall becuase they like Trump, but that's backward.

Correct! Trump’s supporters want a wall, which is why Trump is pushing so bad for it.

FIDO said...

For the idiots and the slow of thinking in the thread:

Their lack of character and honesty force the existence of the Wall, since Obama is on record telling ICE to take a powder instead of doing their job by the executive fiat that Robert Cook pretends exists only on one side.

Unless we go full 'trains shipping masses to the border' (let's call that Plan B: the Removal of Inconvenient, Helpless and Legally Unprotected living organisms), we will have to do an amnesty.

But the Dems and their fluffers have already lied blatantly about amnesty and their 'pinky swear' to increase border security...then and now. They are obvious and blatant liars on this issue and only a pustule on the body politic like Chuck disingenuously carries their water for them.

So yes, we will have to eventually give an amnesty of some kind. No, it isn't happening until we have a Wall.

Jay Elink said...

Robert Cook said...
I'm sure those who support Trump and will applaud him for trying (and possibly succeeding) to govern by decree would harshly criticize a Democrat president for trying the same thing, calling it the first step in a president asserting dictatorial authority.

The harsh criticism would be the correct response.
******************

Trump would NOT be governing by decree, but using authority granted to him under Article II of the Constitution. He would be restrained only by the National Emergencies Act:

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

Jay Elink said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Has everyone completely forgotten about Environmental Impact Studies and environmental groups suing under the Clean Air/Water Act, endangered species act and many other environmental laws. Plus the EPA doing Resistance work.

You all think Eminent Domain is the problem?
*****************

The POTUS has plenary power here, and such suits would fail.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Chuck,

Did you listen to the video?

The speaker tells us that it was cut through with "a household saw, a common saw"

I doubt the guy knows a hammer from a saw if he can say that with a straight face. A common household saw would be a carpenter's saw. Possibly a hacksaw except then he would say hacksaw.

A common saw will not cut steel or concrete. A hacksaw will cut steel, though a slat like that would take a dozen blades and a couple hours. Since there is only a few inches between the slats, I don't know how you would do it with a common hacksaw.

If PBS is going to lie to us about this, what else are they lying about in the report? Why should we believe anything in it?

Looks like fake news to me.

Perhaps you could do it with a sawzall, a very heavy duty model. The concrete, especially is liberally filled with granite stones, would be difficult even then.

So yes, you could breach the slats given enough time and equipment. You can breach anything given enough time and equipment.


John Henry

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger Big Mike said...

Only install every other section so that one can easily get past it?

Why not? That's what Huey Long did back in the 30s.

As governor he was trying to get a 4 lane road between New Orleans and Baton Rouge (or some other city pair). A two lane road existed and he wanted to upgrade it.

The legislature agreed to fund half of it.

So he built it in alternating 1 mile sections. 1 mile 4 lane then 1 mile 2 lane and so on.

He got funding for the rest of the road the next year.

If PDJT got half the funding and built alternating sections, then the argument would not be about building a way, it would be about "upgrading" an existing wall.

John Henry

Gk1 said...

Even that Southern belle, Gang of 8 aficionado, Lindsey Graham has gotten it at this point. He said the other day not just Trump but the entire GOP party is finished if they fold on building the wall. On the other side Schumer and Pelosi are shitting their pants and just reacting to what Trump throws at them at a daily basis. They're the ones that need to figure out an exit strategy.

tim maguire said...

AllenS said...
Any time you want to state a better solution to the problem of illegal immigration, mr maguire, you go right ahead and tell us.


I have. On many threads. So have others. The solutions other than a wall (which is a recent crusade) are well known.

Here it is: change the incentives. Done.

Want more specifics? They're not obscure. Here are some:

1) Reform legal immigration to better reflect our country's needs and reduce the hoops people who want to do this right have to go through.(I used to be an immigration lawyer. It's outrageous what we put people through who qualify and want to follow our laws.)
2) Go after employers who hire illegal immigrants.
3) End all benefits for illegal immigrants--if they are not officially here, then we cannot give them drivers licenses, educations, welfare, etc. Persona non-grata.

Chuck said...

Meade said...
From Cuck's link: "Democrats are willing to work with the administration to improve our border security, but let's get back to proven and effective solutions."

And your "proven" "effective" solutions are what?


Laurence, I am not a Democrat and I am not their counsel. So it isn't about "my" solution.

But because I am in a favorable mood to treat you seriously today, I will answer this way...

And that is, I really cannot say what an "effective" solution is, but a "better" solution would include more border security staff, more disincentives for illegals to enter, more e-verify, more anti-crosser border technology, and yes more wall where it is justified, more fence where it is justified, etc. And it think that purely for the sake of American national interest and nothing else, it would be good to address the social problems of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela, etc. All of the shitholes in Central America. How, I can't say and I would laugh as you would at anyone who suggests that the border problem is to be solved simply and only by throwing American money at foreign countries.

There is an intelligent debate to be had about all of that. But that debate is foreclosed, by what a complete asshole Trump is. Indeed, Trump's just being an asshole isn't even the deal-breaker. It is Trump having painted himself into a corner where this federal government shutdown is his "mantle." It sure as fuck is. And it was Trump setting himself up with his grand campaign promises about how he was a builder, and a negotiator, and how he would build a great wall AND GET MEXICO TO PAY FOR IT. This mess is Trump's construct, from start to finish.

The truly great Mitch McConnell said after two years of Obama that his goal was to make Obama a one term president. He was right to have said it and he was being honest and it was a good goal. The voters -- you know any Obama voters, Meade? -- had other ideas.

Well, rest assured that Democrats' goal is to make Trump a one-term president. And as many Althouse readers suggest, this really is, as the leftwing fakenews media is saying, Trump's "Alamo." Although it is hard to imagine President Bone Spurs at the Alamo. He'd have gotten a limo to take him to Dallas if he had been at the real Alamo.


Is that hard for you to understand? I expect not. I hope the reasonableness of that response is conveyed to you. I expect so.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Speaking of saws:

I heard about a blind carpenter who picked up a hammer and saw.

John Henry

rehajm said...

Why is more land needed for the wall than the govt already has? Why will there be eminent domain? Can anyone point me to information on this?

From the Pacific Ocean to the Rio Grande River the land on the US side of the border is part of the Roosevelt Reservation which provides government and Border Patrol direct access. Once the border reaches the Rio Grande River land abutting the river is owned by a mix of state and local governments and private landowners. Add to the mix the geographic complication that the Rio Grande is lazy and winding for hundreds of miles. To build a wall fronting every inch of the river would be entirely impractical due to this meandering nature leaving the practical solution of cutting off areas of land to straighten the border wall. This however would lead to isolation of areas of privately held agricultural 'no man's land'.

A map in this story illustrates the challenges:

Who Owns the Border?

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Amen Tim, reducing the incentives will go a long way.

I would add to your list end chain migration, though not birthright citizenship.

A woman here illegally has a baby? The baby is a citizen and can stay. we'll take care of it if we need to.

The mother is not and must go. She can take the baby with her or leave it here. Her choice.

The baby, as a US citizen, can come back later. Alone.

John Henry

Bob Boyd said...

@ PuertoRicoSpaceport.com

Right. Nobody used the term "hand tools" in the linked report.
And the link doesn't take you to PBS, it goes to MSNBC. The report is deliberately vague on what tool or tools were used and gave no information on how long it took to make the cuts.
"Household saw" is not a term in common use and it's meaning is open to broad interpretation, which is why they used it.

As I said above, the question is, how much better is the new design than what we have now? Border Patrol says their tests showed it's much better.

Jack Wayne said...

The Deal appears to be within reach. Trump says he wants the money. The Dems in the House proposed a wall-less budget but have not sent it to the Senate because Mitch McConnell says it’s DOA. So far, Congress is doing exactly as they want on both sides of the aisle: avoiding a vote on a contentious issue. Trump’s only move will be to declare an emergency and start building the wall. Dems and Republicans will moan about his dictatorial power but neither Congressional group will be a party to any lawsuit. Any lawsuit will be from NGO’s or private persons. As far as Washington is concerned that’s a win.

tim maguire said...

Nonapod said...How can it be both immoral and ineffective?

Easy. I'm not saying it's either, but there's no reason it can't be both. Ineffective refers only to its ability to keep out illegal immigrants. Immoral refers to its full effects, which go far beyond its single purpose.

Jack Wayne said...

And if your irony meter does not go to 11, I have just described a completely broken government. Enjoy the swirl down the toilet.

Bob Boyd said...

It's unfortunate the new barrier can't be fabricated from the same impenetrable material that encases Chuck's brain, but there just isn't very much of it.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Thanks, Rejahm

I've saved the article to Pocket and will read it tonight. The Wikipedia article on the Roosevelt Reservation is pretty much what I've always understood:

The Roosevelt Reservation is a 60-foot (18 m) strip of land on the United States side of the United States-Mexico Border under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government. It was established in a 1907 Presidential Proclamation (35 Stat. 2136) by Theodore Roosevelt in order to keep the land "free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico".

Maybe the article will answer my question about why the govt needs eminent domain when it already has this 60' strip.

John Henry

tim maguire said...

I fully agree to both your points, John Henry. Birthright citizenship goes to a fundamental American value. Do away with it and our own children's citizenship is in jeopardy.

Government bureaucrats should be tightly constrained in their ability to decide who is and who is not a citizen.

rehajm said...

Maybe the article will answer my question about why the govt needs eminent domain when it already has this 60' strip.

I believe it does. The map is the visual that should do it...

Chuck said...

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...
Chuck,

Did you listen to the video?

The speaker tells us that it was cut through with "a household saw, a common saw"

I doubt the guy knows a hammer from a saw if he can say that with a straight face. A common household saw would be a carpenter's saw. Possibly a hacksaw except then he would say hacksaw.

A common saw will not cut steel or concrete. A hacksaw will cut steel, though a slat like that would take a dozen blades and a couple hours. Since there is only a few inches between the slats, I don't know how you would do it with a common hacksaw.

If PBS is going to lie to us about this, what else are they lying about in the report? Why should we believe anything in it?

Looks like fake news to me.

Perhaps you could do it with a sawzall, a very heavy duty model. The concrete, especially is liberally filled with granite stones, would be difficult even then.

So yes, you could breach the slats given enough time and equipment. You can breach anything given enough time and equipment.


John Henry


First, I am going to correct you on the reporting. It was an NBC News report. The PBS station in San Diego FOIA'ed the information.

So PBS didn't "lie" about anything.

Next, I agree very much with your characterization about "household saws." A crosscut hand saw would never do the job. A hacksaw would take forever, and umpteen blades. If that. I rather doubt, as you would, that a hacksaw could ever do this.

So it leaves us with some kind of commercial-grade sawzall, with special blades. I think you have that right. (And then a power source too, right?) But you could buy everything you'd need at the Home Depot in El Paso, right? Or Mexico City or Nuevo Laredo, right?

I concede your point, John Henry, and I thought of all of it before I posted the link. But that's not the point. The point is the quick cheap shot at Trump. That the "steel slats" can be cut. That the whole thing is a mess. That it is a joke. It is an Alinsky move; right out of the Trump playbook. An attention-getting story for low-information types.

As I have said before; I am not here to help. I am not here to give Trump fair treatment. I think he is the biggest asshole of our generation, and I propose to treat him as such.

You can take the story or leave it. I gather that you will "leave it." Fine. Have a nice day.

Bob Boyd said...

The pols are happier than pigs in shit right now, because the shutdown is great for fundraising, which is their first priority.

Big Mike said...

The theory advanced is that while of course Trump would like to have a border wall that he could proclaim as a personal victory, Trump seems to prefer talking about a wall and about Democratic intransigence, to the political work and dealmaking necessary to actually getting wall funding into a congressional budget.

As theories go, I would rank this somewhere below phlogiston.

Nonapod said...

Immoral refers to its full effects, which go far beyond its single purpose.

I can't imagine what those "full effects" might be.

The best I can come up with is the ecological argument, that it's a barrier to natural migration and foraging patterns of the critters of the Sonoran Desert, which certainly could be interpreted as "immoral" by many people.

gadfly said...

“If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through it, go over it, go around it. But get to the other side of that wall.” ~ Donald Trump, Wagner College Commencement speech, 2004

Laslo Spatula said...

You are not building a wall, or a fence.

You are building a secure scaffolding with which to affix miles of beautiful billowing curtains.

Consider it akin to a permanent Christo installation.

Or a fucking great backdrop for an 80s Power Ballad music video.

I am Laslo.

Big Mike said...

Lindsey Graham has gotten it at this point. He said the other day not just Trump but the entire GOP party is finished if they fold on building the wall.

If Schumer can’t even roll Graham then he’s dying on the wrong hill.

cubanbob said...

Kelo resolved the eminent domain issue in favor of the government. National security and border integrity challenges won't survive court battles and whatever delaying action the Democrats think they will accomplish the Administration will force the issue with the courts on the timeliness and imperatives of national and border security. Trump will hold steady as he understands he risks more giving in than standing firm. As mentioned upthread, he is already winning since the conversation is now about the wall and not about DACA and amnesty.

Bob Boyd said...

Random bollards could be inserted that would explode violently if cut.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Nancy said "NO".

If Nancy says yes - the government re-opens.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Chuck said...

But you could buy everything you'd need at the Home Depot in El Paso, right? Or Mexico City or Nuevo Laredo, right?

Not sure you could in Mexico City or Nuevo Laredo.

When I was in Chihuahua a few years ago I got into a conversation with an ex-pat mining engineer at the hotel's manager's party. There is still some pretty significant silver mining in the area.

Somehow we got onto the problem of theft of catalytic converters from cars. The platinum is apparently pretty valuable and thieves cutting them out of parked cars is a problem.

The govt, not sure if it is the provincial or national govt, apparently passed a law that prevents people from buying Sawzalls without a license.

The law apparently works about as well as their laws preventing purchase of guns. I doubt the law would keep wall breakers from getting them.

When Sawzalls are outlawed, only outlaws will have Sawzalls.

I'd point out also that a concrete wall, no matter how thick, can be breached given enough time. HoDe sells (and rents) electric jackhammers. A suitcase size generator would power it. Or a couple of Sawzalls.

For that matter, you could given enough time and patience, breach either with a slugging hammer and chisel. Lots and lots of time.

John Henry

gilbar said...

Finally! something serious to discus!
Laslo Spatula said...When one splits Solomon's Baby, do you cut across or up-and-down?

HAS to be up and down! Otherwise, one mom gets stuck with all the food bills, and the other gets stuck with all the crap. (okay; once you've made the cut, food consumption (and elimination) probably will go Way Down)

walter said...

Chuck is perfect embodiment of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So if we are to believe these folks are moms and kids with benevolent intent, they will be working the Sawzalls at apace that border control can't deal with it?
At least Chuck is openly embracing his own defeatist self-hating asshole status.

Gk1 said...

Tim you are making some sweeping suggestions (which are good) but all or most that are DOA with the democrats. Do you ever see them cutting off welfare for illegals? For anyone for that matter? Will the uniparty develop an "e-verify" that will not only allow employers to check i.ds but to report s.s forgeries and non compliance? Seriously doubtful. So we are left with a symbolic and marginally effective wall. I'll take that.

Yancey Ward said...

People keep quoting Schumer from 2009. Guys, stop it. Yes, Schumer wasn't serious in 2009- we all know that, but what Schumer was doing at that time was defending the position of not passing the amnesty they tried during Bush's last term. He took that position because without a Republican to sign the bill, the Democrats would be stuck with the blame for passing it. It was smart politics in 2009.

Robert Cook said...

When will the Donald demand the commensurately larger budget approval for a wall across the US/Canada border?

Birkel said...

Trump is negotiating with China, North Korea, and Iran. He wants to win for the United States.

If he gets rolled domestically then he will be assumed weak on the international stage. Trump cannot afford to lose because his stakes are too high. This is akin to Caesar's troops fighting in Greece at the Battle of Pharsalus. Caesar's troops were outnumbered but had no means of retreat so they defeated the troops of Pompey.

If Trump submits, he loses on multiple fronts.

AJ Lynch said...

Trump has already won on this issue because the media is covering it every day instead of what it usually does which is to cover dumb stupid Dem priority issues like cakes not baked by a Christian baker for a gay wedding [sic], changing a birth certificate's birth gender for a mentally ill transgender, changing pronouns to mx etc, lambasting studies that found lesbians are fat, lauding states mandating that private corporate boards be comprised of gender balanced people [which is quite difficult since libs claim there are 82 genders and your gender can change from day to day], pushing housing and affordable health insurance but never actually defining affordable and importing hundreds of thousands of poor illegals at the same time.

Drago said...

"The Poor Man's LLR Chuck" gadfly: "“If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through it, go over it, go around it. But get to the other side of that wall.” ~ Donald Trump, Wagner College Commencement speech, 2004"

Note to self: gadfly easily confused by obvious metaphors- limit number of metaphors to reduce risk of gadfly disorientation

Drago said...

LLR Chuck (in full backtrack mode): "As I have said before; I am not here to help. I am not here to give Trump fair treatment. I think he is the biggest asshole of our generation, and I propose to treat him as such."

LOL

No, what you actually said was that you were here to smear Trump, which means to slander and lie.

Which clearly comes quite naturally to you as it does to all lefties....hmmm...what a coincidence!

You are a self-described liar and slanderer.

Self-described.

I'll bet you wish you hadnt had that moment of candor, dont you?

LOL

Oh yes, yes you do....

Chuck said...


Lindsey Graham has gotten it at this point. He said the other day not just Trump but the entire GOP party is finished if they fold on building the wall.



Is this today’s clearest expression of the damage that Trump has done to the Republican Party?

Brian said...

How about this; we just give up on "the wall," agree that it was a stupid idea and sit down with the Democrats and work out some meaningful border security that might well include some new fencing, barriers, etc., but allow them to say to their base that we will never erect any "great wall" on our southern border.

How much begging and groveling does Trump have to do though to make it work in your mind? Hands and knees? Does he have to beg forgiveness? Say he'll never do it again? Maybe have to go into twitter timeout?

You pay list prices for things don't you?

bagoh20 said...

Although I approve of all the other things like E Verify and stopping benefits for illegals, that has no effect on stopping the real bad guys like terrorists, drug mules, gangs, and other criminal who are not coming for jobs or benefits. That's why a wall is still needed in addition to the rest of it.

AllenS said...

tim maguire,

How would you go about implementing policies that go after employers who hire illegal immigrants, and stop giving them drivers licenses, educations, welfare, etc, when we have states, cities, counties have declared themselves sanctuary areas, and they refused to honor any of the laws of the land concerning illegal immigrants?

That's where we're at right now. Sorry, to have to repeat all of this, but it's the truth, and the illegal immigrants know it.


walter said...

Yancey,
Schumer is welcome to explain that terribly important nuance.
Until then, hammer down.

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "When will the Donald demand the commensurately larger budget approval for a wall across the US/Canada border?"

Apparently the canadians are not as industrious as LLR Chuck's MS13 allies.

bagoh20 said...

The GOP is far less popular than Trump among Republicans, so I don't think he's the one damaging the GOP.

bagoh20 said...

A wall on the Canadian border would be counterproductive to the health of the nation since it would primarily keep Trump-deranged Hollywood from escaping to Canada.

walter said...

Cookie's all about "fair share".

Drago said...

Brian: "How much begging and groveling does Trump have to do though to make it work in your mind?"

There is no limit to the groveling and surrendering to dems for LLR Chuck.

No limit.

Literally.

LLR Chuck and his dem allies know this is would be Trumps "read my lips" moment and Chuck and the left want Trump to fold to create the same democrat-electoral success that HW's surrender yielded.

This us all about a permanent dem majority, precisely what every single Chuck-LLR media hero called for in 2016 and 2018.

But only every single one.

Trump clearly knows this and that he cant trust the LLR wing of the democrat party.

Good for him.

walter said...

CAGW hasn't yet made the Northern border as hospitable to "migrants"for much of the year.

Rick said...

Robert Cook said...
When will the Donald demand the commensurately larger budget approval for a wall across the US/Canada border?


Cookie's new goal is demonstrating the ways socialists waste money. Since that's an inexhaustible well apparently he'll be here forever.

Big Mike said...

Is this today’s clearest expression of the damage that Trump has done to the Republican Party?

You must have a strange definition of “damage.”

Drago said...

Durbin-cuckholster Chuck: "Is this today’s clearest expression of the damage that Trump has done to the Republican Party?"

Chuck is quite disturbed that Graham and others have caught on to his lefty funded/FusionGPS colluding schtick.

Chuck is not happy at all about that and neither is his Cuck-Cruise-Commander Billy "Sweet Sweet lefty billionaire cash" Kristol.

LOL

All of them exposed!

Its fantastic.




Molly said...

(eaglebeak)

Tim Maguire says:

Here it is: change the incentives. Done.


As I wondered yesterday--how does that work for terrorists, MS-13 gang members, drug cartel mules, and assassins?

Nothing wrong with changing the incentives--we should--but to imagine that that takes the place of a barrier is silly.

Furthermore: Even if we changed the incentives, being the United States instead of El Salvador is the biggest incentive of all. Now the Democrats may want to change that, but I sure as hell don't.

Drago said...

Now the Democrats and LLR's may want to change that, but I sure as hell don't.

FIFY

....and clearly they do.

Brian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian said...

Tim, embrace the power of "and". A wall and reducing incentives. Belt and suspenders.

Sebastian said...

"When will the Donald demand the commensurately larger budget approval for a wall across the US/Canada border?"

Hey, we are not like East Germany. We actually want progs who despise the U.S. to leave.

Yancey Ward said...

The Democrats have no interest whatsoever in stopping illegal immigration from Mexico, Central America, and South America. Their only interest in the matter is to provide citizenship to such illegal immigrants, now and in an ongoing manner. For Democrats, it really is nothing but vote harvesting. There is no bargaining space for working out a compromise because of this stance by the Democrats.

Yes, they intend to wait Trump out. The Democrats know they will be in a position, at some point in the next decade, to legalize all the illegal immigrants who are here now and who will arrive in the future, thus cementing their electoral advantage. They only need to wait until the electoral backlash is less than that new advantage they would gain- this is why the Democrats and Obama didn't push the amnesty bill during 2009-2011- the backlash would have larger than the immediate benefit, but that barrier is getting less and less as time goes by. This is why they oppose any effort to build a wall, or to even improve the incentive structures that lead to illegal immigration- it would delay the point at which they can act unilaterally. The Democrats really are for open borders, they just can't say that openly yet, but they are closer to that point than they were 5 years ago.

AJ Lynch said...

Does Chuck really believe the two party system could even survive after another 10-20 million illegal immigrants are amnestied and they vote?

If Repubs cave on this issue, they are probably forfeiting every national election for the next 50 years at least since they would be admitting the Repub party is no different than the Dem party.

Gk1 said...

What's sad is it shouldn't even be this close. Can anyone imagine say 10 years ago the democrats would be openly calling for the abolishment of ICE and promoting open boarders?

Michael McNeil said...

Cook's vision, that if there's a Wall built along our Southern border, there has just got to also be one placed on the North — I suppose due to basic symmetry of the idea: a border (must and should) = a border, right? But this manner of thought can only remind me of George Orwell's vivid description of the fundamental motivation which rouses the socialist (quoting…):

The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard.

(George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier, 1937)

Drago said...

BAJ Lynch: "Does Chuck really believe the two party system could even survive after another 10-20 million illegal immigrants are amnestied and they vote?"

Of course he doesnt believe that.

Thats the point.

He wants a one-party system, with the dems in charge. Permanently.

Of course, the dems may allow 1 or 2 republicans to exist in some quarters for show. But only as long as those are LLR republicans who have no intention of actually opposing dem policies.

Its all for show, like LLR Chucks Super Duper Desire For Super Duper Border Security...(wink wink)

Ignorance is Bliss said...


Laslo Spatula said... When one splits Solomon's Baby, do you cut across or up-and-down?

gilbar said... HAS to be up and down! Otherwise, one mom gets stuck with all the food bills, and the other gets stuck with all the crap.

While it would likely be up and down, the fair approach is one mom cuts, the other chooses.

If there are three or more moms involved, it is still doable, but the cutting and choosing gets messier.

Chuck said...

AJ Lynch said...
Does Chuck really believe the two party system could even survive after another 10-20 million illegal immigrants are amnestied and they vote?

If Repubs cave on this issue, they are probably forfeiting every national election for the next 50 years at least since they would be admitting the Repub party is no different than the Dem party.


I can scarcely believe that you aimed this comment at me.

I oppose all forms of amnesty. I want no part of any amnesty scheme.

I even oppose a negotiated "pathway to citizenship" in the name of getting funding for a wall. I'd rather have no wall, and no amnesty, rather than a deal that gives us "a great wall" but also giving amnesty to a million, or 3 million, or 10 million, or 20 million illegals.

I've said before; my own tastes in immigration policy would put me in the hard-line group of immigration hawks of the Republican Party. I just don't want any part of the foolish talk that Trump gave us, about a "great wall, that Mexico will pay for." Because that's just stupid. I like conservatism, not idiocy.

Drago said...

Durbin-Fanboy Chuck: "I've said before; my own tastes in immigration policy would put me in the hard-line group of immigration hawks of the Republican Party."

LOLOLOLOL

Seriously, that us uproariously funny.

LLR Chuck is every bit as "hard-line" on immigration as Bill Kristol/George Will/Max Boot are about electing republicans!

Very amusing Chuck. Very.

FullMoon said...

"Chuck", who took his online name from Chuck Schumer, cares not about a wall. "Chuck is consumed with jealousy of The Donald and therefore:

Chuck said...

"I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him."

3/4/16, 4:46 PM

FIDO said...

I have said before and I will say again:

Trump should offer illegals and 'Amnesty' card. If they have STAYED in the U.S., not been involved in any crimes and have a family, they get a 'you can stay in America on a probationary basis if they voluntarily give up the right to vote.

Then let Pelosi explain to the illegals why this is a horrible thing.

Seeing Red said...

Where’s my reciprocal? What’s Mexico offering?

There’s only 120mil of them.

Seeing Red said...

Cali has offered free med insurance.

That’s their choice.

Ohhh I know? Forget Mexico. Each of their states should offer something!

Since it’s always about oil, we could take Pemex.

That have this thing that I think is over 100 years old, let’s call it a constitution, but that doesn’t mean anything.

Or Mexico can loosen up the rules for non citizens, like allowing protests against the government.

AJ Lynch said...

Chuck:

Yet you support the GOPe who will do amnesty in a second and don't care if we ever staunch the invasion on our southern border.

I'm with FIDO's comment btw at 1:11PM. Give them the right to stay but they never ever get the right to vote, And I would cap it at the 1st ten million to apply for this plan. Those in exce of ten million get deported.

walter said...

That after the shit hot/cold/beggar/stabber/carpetbagger Romney's pulled, he extols him as a scion of virtue and viability tells you a lot about ole Chuck.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Robert Cook: When will the Donald demand the commensurately larger budget approval for a wall across the US/Canada border?

I'd be interested in your explanation for why the above is not the glowing inanity that it appears to be when read as a straightforward English statement.

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

I hope everyone realizes that if any sort of amnesty is offered and taken up, there will be a flood of illegal immigrants like we've never seen before.

walter said...

Just remember, Chuck knows more about this than Border Patrol agents.
"Because Truuuuuump!"

Sam L. said...

The NYT: Nothing they print will I trust.

walter said...

Allen,
Especially with Newsome declaring the entire state sanctuary.
Coyotes are gonna part hearty/hardy over that news.
Will make the rapes more forgivable to the recipients.

walter said...

(It's not rape rape..purely transactional)

gahrie said...

I hope everyone realizes that if any sort of amnesty is offered and taken up, there will be a flood of illegal immigrants like we've never seen before.

Well,...at least since the last time it happened.

Jim at said...

I'm sure those who support Trump and will applaud him for trying (and possibly succeeding) to govern by decree would harshly criticize a Democrat president for trying the same thing, calling it the first step in a president asserting dictatorial authority.

You mean, like with a pen and phone, Cookie?

CJinPA said...

“If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through it, go over it, go around it. But get to the other side of that wall.” ~ Donald Trump, Wagner College Commencement speech, 2004


Welcome to Metaphors Anonymous. If you read something, and can't tell if it is literal or a metaphor, this is your safe place. You won't be judged. There are cards under your seat to explain what a metaphor is. Read them when you wish. It's your decision.

CJinPA said...

I hope everyone realizes that if any sort of amnesty is offered and taken up, there will be a flood of illegal immigrants like we've never seen before.

"Well,...at least since the last time it happened."

On the bright side, every time the GOP has agreed to this, their share of the Hispanic vote has gone (quick Google of stats.....) down. Never mind.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Ha, even Meade calls him a Cuck.

And he goes into his creepy overly personal "Laurence" routine. Rant some more about a Pecan pie, you spergy little pussy. Send Althouse some more unsolicited emails.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Hey wait a minute... a famous democrat said this flood would not happen when the first amnesty was granted. But he was a drunk (and murderer). Chuck and Nancy are following a well worn scenario.

buwaya said...

Fortune gives you your sides, and your choices.
There is no avoiding them.
In the end, when the crisis happens, most are left with nothing but bad choices.

Circumstances are greater than any individuals preferences, or quibbles. Its the cumulative result of many millions of choices, or a smaller number by the very powerful. But when choices are made, they can rarely be unmade. Crises become crises because the range of options narrows, and narrows, and narrows, as all the paths not taken are passed by.

Even if the leaders of that point in time want to, sincerely, unmake them, its never an option. Power is remarkably constrained, free will in such a case is often a fantasy. The cats can't be herded. The only act of free will open to a player in power, often, is to get out of the contest. He can be free to be irrelevant.

That's one of the many tragic lessons of history.

The alternatives to Trump, now, are just two: Orwell's "boot stamping on a human face - forever", or the American version of the 17th of July, 1936. Nothing else.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Chuck: And that is, I really cannot say what an "effective" solution is, but a "better" solution would include...

That was beautiful, Chuck. I've never seen the perennial GOPe immigration "solution" better expressed.

You even put "effective" and "better" in scare quotes, for perfect clarity.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

buwaya - nice to see you. You were missed.

AJ Lynch said...

AllenS:

That is why we'd have to cap any amnesty at a fixed number [say 10 million] and deport all over and above that number. If you have not signed up for amnesty within 6 months, you get deported - no exceptions. If you sign up after we have reached 10 million, you get deported. No exceptions. And the law should be no more than 1 f-ing page long so the Dems can't add amendments aka legal outs like they did on the Secure Border Act.

Meade said...

"It's unfortunate the new barrier can't be fabricated from the same impenetrable material that encases Chuck's brain, but there just isn't very much of it."

Trump already has all the necessary materials to build the wall along the Mexican border. We should have known this. When Trump won the election, 60 million Democrats shit a brick…

Lucid-Ideas said...

@Buwaya,

Very well said. It's just like the Civil War (version 1.0). So many people (John Quincy Adams is an example) saw it coming, knew it was coming, even that it was necessary.

No backing down now. Alea iacta est.

Bob Boyd said...

@ Meade


HAHAHAHA!
The first corners are the worst corners.

Greg P said...

There's no reason, at all, for Trump to back down.

He can use his emergency powers to start building the wall, and still keep the gov't shut down until Congress approves funding.

The Democrats are in hock to the Gov't employee unions. The GOP are not. Let them starve

Michael K said...

" the 17th of July, 1936."

I keep hoping that Kurt Schlicter's novels stay fiction.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

AJ Lynch: That is why we'd have to cap any amnesty at a fixed number [say 10 million] and deport all over and above that number. If you have not signed up for amnesty within 6 months, you get deported - no exceptions....[yadda yadda yadda].

I believe you are completely missing Allen's point.

Amnesties (of which there have been a never-ending series in Western countries in the last 30-40 years) are always passed with all sorts of concomitant good intentions and "We Really We Mean It This Time and swear that this is *totally* the last amnesty we're gonna do" rules and enforcement provisions like the ones you outline here.

Amnesties (of which there have been a never-ending series in Western countries in the last 30-40 years) always (always) resulted in increased illegal immigration and enforcement provisions being ignored.

It's almost like Western countries are full of people who can't remember anything that happened before last week, and so can perennially be played for chumps by their governing class.

heyboom said...

@Tim Macguire:

I agree with your proposals, but it's not just illegal immigrants who are crossing the border. There are the cartels and terrorists as well. As a Californian, I've always believed changing the incentives does resolve a vast majority of it, but a wall is necessary for the other sordid threats.

AJ Lynch said...

Angel:

No I get AllenS's point. I'm with you on anything must be eteched in stone and have absolutely no outs/ exceptions or loose language.

Rusty said...

That is why you have security in depth. Not everuyone is a stupis as you are, Chuck.

Guildofcannonballs said...

https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/

STill kicking.

https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/index2.html#1547159083576_22

"When Henry Kissinger went down to Washington las t
week to address a meeting of academicians at what he though t
was a closed meeting, he spoke of Ronald Reagan and hi s
administration in terms he would not have used addressing a
Republican rally . But if you listened carefully to everythin g
Kissinger said, and weighed it comprehensively, you woul d
find him much more shocking to academicians than to Reaganit e
loyalists .
Of Ronald Reagan Kissinger said that, just to clea r
the air, he was in no way "indebted" to Reagan -- in th e
sense, let us say, that Henry Kissinger would be bound t o
acknowledge being indebted to Richard Nixon . He went on :
Moreover, if you meet Reagan and talk with him briefly, yo u
wonder how he managed to be elected governor of California ,
let alone president of the United States ."

Guildofcannonballs said...

So a t the DMV my shit looks fo fuked is she said: Look Down.

i did.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Fight or flight I just submitted.

Jealosusly hensely ought be my onlu legit goal.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Can't save me can't save you same old story.

Howard said...

President Cuck doesn't need to build the wall. He just needs to pretend to fight tooth and nail to keep you people on the hook. The emergency declaration is his path to win by losing.

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

I don't think anyone knows what I think. I'll show a video clip on how I think Trump should deal with the Democrats, and the GOPe. Listen to Michael say "I'll give you my answer now..."

Nothing



Guildofcannonballs said...

Obviously you are the apes and I am your smartphone, aka Kubrick's black block of matter.

Guildofcannonballs said...

If Trump goes down he will be Fredo.

But if America is America Guiliani.

Some, at the time, didn't see.

Guiliani.

Esy.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 228   Newer› Newest»