Keto Flow Gummies Australia - (Consumer...
Food & Drink0 min ago
Donald Trump's Wall
He said at the White House on Thursday before leaving for a tour of the border in Texas.
'They could solve this problem in literally 15 minutes. We could be back. We could have border security. They could stop this problem in 15 minutes if they wanted to. I really believe now that they don’t want to. I really believe that. I really believe that they don’t care about crime. I really believe this. The Democrats don’t care about crime.
They’ve been taken over by a group of young people who, frankly, in some cases — I’ve been watching — I actually think they’re crazy. But they’ve been taken over by a group that is so far left. I really don’t think they care about crime. And, you know, sadly, they’re viewing this as the beginning of the 2020 presidential race, and that’s okay with me. But they have been taken over by a group of people that don’t care about gangs. They don’t care about human trafficking and drugs. They don’t care about anything. I’ll tell you what — they have gone crazy.'
Legal experts say the president has the authority to declare an emergency and invoke a federal statute called the National Emergencies Act that President Gerald Ford signed into law on Sept. 14, 1976.
He ran for presidential candidacy with this as part of his policy and was voted in, is he right to dig in his heels and declare a national emergency?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim; //with the idea of employing more Border Patrol staff. Hardly an outrageous suggestion,//
It is really when you think of the logistics; - how many officers per mile on a 24/7 basis with much of it desert? 3 shifts a day, you are a mathematician work out the costs in salaries and expenses over say a five year period. One or two men couldn't stop a concerted armed group determined to enter - this happens already, and officers have had to face extreme violence.
A wall with satellite observation seems to me to be the answer, and btw, Mexico is paying for it indirectly through the new trade agreement
It is really when you think of the logistics; - how many officers per mile on a 24/7 basis with much of it desert? 3 shifts a day, you are a mathematician work out the costs in salaries and expenses over say a five year period. One or two men couldn't stop a concerted armed group determined to enter - this happens already, and officers have had to face extreme violence.
A wall with satellite observation seems to me to be the answer, and btw, Mexico is paying for it indirectly through the new trade agreement
"Mexico is paying for it indirectly through the new trade agreement"
That's firstly rather disputed -- because, after all, the new Trade Agreement has not yet come into effect -- and secondly, very different from what Trump was saying during the campaign. A classic bait-and-switch, and you've fallen for it.
With respect to the staff, you'd need at least some of them anyway even if you did have a wall, so the cost is almost by definition going to be bounded by that of the wall. And, again, your argument signally fails to recognise the progress already made over the last decade, when limited investment in border security, including staff alongside some minimal fencing, led to a 75% reduction.
The wall is not necessary, and Mexico is not now paying for it.
That's firstly rather disputed -- because, after all, the new Trade Agreement has not yet come into effect -- and secondly, very different from what Trump was saying during the campaign. A classic bait-and-switch, and you've fallen for it.
With respect to the staff, you'd need at least some of them anyway even if you did have a wall, so the cost is almost by definition going to be bounded by that of the wall. And, again, your argument signally fails to recognise the progress already made over the last decade, when limited investment in border security, including staff alongside some minimal fencing, led to a 75% reduction.
The wall is not necessary, and Mexico is not now paying for it.
Trump's border policy to date is actually resulting in fewer drug-related prosecutions:
https:/
Also there is no evidence whatsoever that the new trade agreement with Mexico is paying for the wall. The agreement is not yet in force and we have no data about how much it has increased govt income versus cost of the wall. It is a meaningless bit of spin.
https:/
Also there is no evidence whatsoever that the new trade agreement with Mexico is paying for the wall. The agreement is not yet in force and we have no data about how much it has increased govt income versus cost of the wall. It is a meaningless bit of spin.
Don’t know what happened to that link, try again
https:/
https:/
Both of them.
The US system is meant to encourage compromise and cooperation by ensuring that no one branch of government can control the others. For example, this shutdown could be ended this evening if the Senate and House are able to both reach a 2/3 majority and override Trump's refusal to sign the funding bill. Conversely, if both Houses of Congress passed a bill that lacked this level of support then the President would have the right to veto it. Thus, everyone keeps everyone else in check, and as a result measures can only pass that have a high volume of support.
If the US weren't so partisan, then this would potentially work quite well. Compromise, and slow progress, is preferable to stagnation, so that there's an incentive to make small but unradical changes. On the other hand, the US is extremely partisan currently, polarised on far too many very important issues.
The US system is meant to encourage compromise and cooperation by ensuring that no one branch of government can control the others. For example, this shutdown could be ended this evening if the Senate and House are able to both reach a 2/3 majority and override Trump's refusal to sign the funding bill. Conversely, if both Houses of Congress passed a bill that lacked this level of support then the President would have the right to veto it. Thus, everyone keeps everyone else in check, and as a result measures can only pass that have a high volume of support.
If the US weren't so partisan, then this would potentially work quite well. Compromise, and slow progress, is preferable to stagnation, so that there's an incentive to make small but unradical changes. On the other hand, the US is extremely partisan currently, polarised on far too many very important issues.
