Building a wall will not kill puppies and kittens

Do you know how much illegial immagrants cost the U.S. per immagrant, about 70,000 dollars, i think it's smart, how bout you mr. intelligence

"illegial immagrants" tho..
Lulz

Here maybe he wasn’t clear enough for you: 2u4bhv.jpg (click to show)

It's nothing but blind hate

Illegal immigration costs the US approximately 116 billion a year and primarily affects poorer black communities. Don't you care about that?

I agree with a wall, even though most drugs and illegals come from legal ports. The problem is not the wall but that he is going around Congress, who has funding authority. Not saying Trump is a dictator, but this certainly resembles a first step, and is setting a bad precedent. An emergency is when funding is needed quickly, it is unforeseen. Our southern border causes death and tragedy, but it isn't an emergency. A national emergency is not for getting around the proper legal process.

People are dying, both migrants AND american citizens and congress is too blindly partisan to act. That IS a national emergency, even if the caravans themselves are not. We are essentially at their mercy because congress is absolutely unwilling to do ANYTHING. Moreso, the democrats(even mainstream presidential candidates) have now jumped fully behind abolishment of our immigration enforcement. That you're whining about emergency funding while they literally try to open our borders is a bit funny. If the wall was the ONLY thing this was about, that would be one thing.

I’d like to see your sources on the death toll of this crisis.

No point when you don't look at links.

You know, I’ve believe I’ve proven that I /do/ read your links.

The problem is I still might poke holes in your little narrative. I guess you’re just not up to the challenge. Now I’ll never believe you.

But what’s the point? You weren’t here to prove me wrong. You’re just here to vent, right?

http://missingmigrants.iom.int/region/americas?region=1422

That's more than a thousand dead migrants from south of the border in the last 5 years.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txcriminalalienstatistics.htm

There's 500+ arrests for murder within the last 8 years, with about half getting convictions, in JUST Texas. We're talking about deaths specifically so this is a little off-topic, but in addition to the deaths, we're talking tens of thousands of cases of theft, drug charges, assault, obstruction, thousands of sex crime cases and weapons violations, and hundreds of cases of kidnapping. All done by people who SHOULD NOT BE HERE. All in ONE state. And apparently this list only counts those who had previous encounters with DHS. Who knows how many more there are?

Well, it’s a pretty big state. I’ll have a look at these. Thank you. I’m sorry for baiting you but I really do like data. You can’t construct a good argument without facts, and I can’t construct a counter-argument without those same facts. If I got one, I’ll reply here.

You’re unlikely to get me to say we need a wall but I’m more than happy to support funding for alternative methods. But I’ll give you this. Dismantling ICE is a huge mistake.

I don't expect everyone to think we need one - I just don't understand why everyone is so absolutely dead set against one when compared to the money we spend on other (even more useless things) it's a drop in the pond. And I don't think many people expect the wall to be a solution in itself. It's just harder to get across a wall/fence/barrier than it is to walk across an open field. Obviously other things should be used to support it. But to act like it'll do nothing is a little bit foolish, too.

Oh, he means that you are me, because everyone just wuvs Twumpiepoo except me, don'tcha know?

Just don't ever use the word "confounded" because that's proof that you are one of my multiples I've piled up here in the future as I've travel to and fro across time from what will be called the Victorian era, where that word is still legal.

How confounded would you be if I told you that / am you... from the future!

Brace yourself. Trump wins a second term.

If I (you) succeed in my mission in preventing that future, I cease to exist.

Well, you will continue on the new timeline, but me? I will go into that sweet sweet void of non-existence.

I agree with a wall, even though most drugs and illegals come from legal ports. The problem is not the wall but that he is going around Congress, who has funding authority. Not saying Trump is a dictator, but this certainly resembles a first step, and is setting a bad precedent. An emergency is when funding is needed quickly, it is unforeseen. Our southern border causes death and tragedy, but it isn't an emergency. A national emergency is not for getting around the proper legal process.

He has every authority to do this. And if you think slave trading and copious amounts of death due to drugs trafficking along the southern border isn't an emergency, then I'm not sure what you think is.

But the bottom line is Trump has every legal right to do this.

You literally didnt read what I said. Look up the definition of emergency. I know it wont change your mind but here I go.
An emergency is a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action. UNEXPECTED. People knew about this. National emergency powers are to quickly appropriate funds for an actual emergency. Plus, illegal immigration is going DOWN. Obamas uses, for break out wars, are a good example. Going around Congress is a different thing. Congress has looked into wall funding and hasn't agreed to it. He is going around the Constitutional system in place.
Another thing I know you wont listen too but here.
This probably hurts for you, but it was Trumps idiocy and anti-Mexican language that caused the failure of a wall. Obama and Bush built the same thing that Trump wants. Fencing. Somehow he didnt get it through when he controlled both chambers of Congress. He was offered about 25 billion in a bill in exchange for DACA before the midterms (https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2018/03/trump-missed-best-chance-yet-get-funding-border-wall/), and then he offered DACA for only 5 billion (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown-trump-idUSKCN1PD0KF). Master negotiator my ass. Saying things like telling a Mexican reporter to go back to Univision, or that a Mexican judge wouldn't be fair to him turned off Dems that would have supported fencing under Obama or Bush.
His whole "wall" thing was to appeal to his less than smart base. Fencing would be helpful, but a "wall" wouldn't be the best use of money. According to immigration experts, the most efficient use of border money would be more in the courts, more inspectors, fencing in certain areas, and more border security agents. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/2019/01/08/wall-experts-give-best-ideas-5-billion-border-spending/2515167002/
The wall is just something that seems definitive and people can see. Now, he doesnt care about security, just his wall. Again MOST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND DRUGS COME FROM LEGAL PORTS OF ENTRY. (Visa overstays)

An emergency can also be something that has been going on for a long time and no one has done anything about it. Or you could say crisis. Either one would do.

One thing Nancy Pelosi has been floating around, that I think is equally bad. Guns kill more than illegal immigrants. Sounds like a national emergency. You really dont want those kinds of precedents. Your above explanation is exactly what a lib would say about guns.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg1255.pdf
Congress can terminate a national emergency, and can stop funds from being appropriated. I dont know if they will. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-weighs-whether-declare-national-emergency/580105/

Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and confirmed by multiple SCOTUS rulings.
Coming into the US without the proper documentation is NOT a right.

Apples and oranges.

Not to take guns but for more restrictions. Pelosi was talking about restrictions. It is infringement, but allowed.

Even “restrictions” (infringements) are being held as unConstitutional by multiplied SCOTUS rulings because gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
Still apples and oranges.

Really? Certain types of guns are banned in my state.

No one ever reads links but here goes anyway
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us.scotus.handgun.ban/index.html

Look up these cases:
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

In 2014, in Palmer v. District of Columbia, a federal judge overruled DC’s ban on carrying ready-to-use firearms in public. The same year, a federal judge struck down New York's seven-round ammo limit (10 rounds if being used in an incorporated firing range).

In Peruta v. County of San Diego and Richards v. Prieto, the 9th Circuit removed restrictive concealed-carry requirements in some California counties.

Gun rights advocates are finally on the winning side, but serious obstacles still remain. Legal challenges to assault weapon bans in California and New York have failed even in light of the Supreme Court's rulings in Heller and McDonald, thanks to the controversial legacy left by the Miller case ...

United States v. Miller (1939) began when bank robbers, Frank Layton and Jack Miller, were stopped by a cop while going from Oklahoma to Arkansas. They were carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun and were arrested under the NFA's Title II weapons provision.

Miller and Layton challenged the National Firearms Act as a violation of 2nd Amendment, but skipped town during the SCOTUS deliberation.

With no one to speak for them, the government held that the National Firearms Act was constitutional, arguing that the law was a revenue-collecting measure only, and not a gun control law. Because Miller and Layton transferred the shotgun across state lines, it fell under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

California's Fourth District Court ruled in 2013 that AK- and AR-type semi-automatic rifles are at least as "dangerous" and "unusual" as short-barreled shotguns, which were prohibited by the Miller decision. While outright assault weapon bans have not made it out of lower-level state and federal courts, blocked by the Miller ruling that only weapons "in common use" are protected by the Second Amendment, unfortunately California is seeing some substantial gun restrictions going into 2018.

New justices may be able to overturn those and restore our Constitutional rights though.

In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling, it's still up to the states to decide which types of weapons are "dangerous" or "unusual."

He begged for cooperation and got Never-Trumpers

https://i.imgflip.com/2txwmf.jpg

Yes , I did a meme featuring good old Bubba today . Google it and check the list and you will see some manufactured emergencies .

Beacause Trump’s concocted emergency was declared for the sole purpose of bypassing Congress.

Yes but Obama has 8 years and trump has only had 3