Donald Trump needs to give up on his wall

February 5, 2019, 10:05 am

Agree91 Disagree51


The debate "Donald Trump needs to give up on his wall" was started by historybuff on February 5, 2019, 10:05 am. 91 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 51 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

historybuff posted 10 arguments, Saam posted 1 argument, District9 posted 1 argument, Willyis posted 1 argument to the agreers part.

historybuff, Redsun, mzidanr, mozezee, SMNR, chrissurvivor, District9, InfinityMachine, tmjcb99, Willyis, Walter, amir_alhakim07, lukeluckynuke123, Communistguy, chelseat99, Agrumentman and 75 visitors agree.
Saam, beautynbrainz, AryaLp1, FiteNite, saad786, hollieg and 45 visitors disagree.

That's kind of like saying I don't know what haircut to get so i will shoot myself. Not having a solution is not an excuse for doing something terrible and stupid. The wall would be a ridiculous expense that will do damage and have very little actual use. Doing nothing is better than building the wall.

4 months, 1 week ago

It's not like anyone else had a better idea.

4 months, 1 week ago

I'm all for Border security. But the wall isn't the answer.

9 months, 2 weeks ago
replied to...

sure maybe our work force are retiring,. but if a illegal immigrant gets the job instead of a U.S citizen, Or a Legal resident. Then people like you to I don't get these jobs because we allowed someone breaking a law get something that he doesn't deserve.

9 months, 2 weeks ago
replied to...

no. I'm saying the laws are bad and should be fixed.

you do realize 1st world, including America's, birth rates are dropping and a large chunk of our workforce (boomers) are getting close to retiring?

you do realize more people is good for a nation? especially the action oriented risk takers that people who pack up in search of a better life tend to be.

9 months, 2 weeks ago
replied to...

so what your saying is. they should just come in because getting in legally is too expensive?

9 months, 2 weeks ago
replied to...

except legal immigration is extremely restrictive and expensive, hurdles that didnt exist for our grandparents who came legally because there were much fewer laws against immigration.

you cant judge people without judging the circumstances. that's like hating on people for being illiterate in a time before school was available. you would be illiterate too.

9 months, 2 weeks ago
replied to...

And they do. They just need to come in legally.

9 months, 2 weeks ago

I think Trump needs to give up on Presidency but besides the point, I think this wall idea is dumb and that everyone should be given the chance to be a citizen (unless it's like a fleeing criminal of course) but yes, everyone should be given a chance for a new life in the USA if they so wish

1 year ago

It doesn't seem like this conversation is going to continue without some self righteous imagination, where the bigots are the problem. As if my propositions weren't also a part of making the immigration system more effective, but you can pick your examples and expand immigration statements to say it hurts everyone. But if it isn't clear enough, clearly that is not what I said.

You aren't fighting someone with Nazi arguments, you aren't fighting a Nazi either. Posturing and pushing torture imaginations doesn't make it the truth, because the goal isn't waterboarding illegal immigrants or calling them all rapists and murderers.

If you actually want me to rephrase my last paragraph, let me reiterate - enforcing a country's laws is not immoral in itself. If the person breaking the law is from another country or has a different skin color than imagined they get punished all the same, no need to be separate but equal, everyone is sure as hell equal if they break the law. I don't see what's wrong with that, but I guess it's a Nazi policy? I guess it's racist to say illegal immigrants from south of the border don't get a free pass? I don't remember saying they should be tortured.

Last chance on the bad faith arguments. I won't say it again, or you can argue with someone else.

1 year ago

We would definitely disagree on cost effective returns. Specifically because you think there would be a return and all the evidence says there wouldn't be. There is virtually no evidence that more wall would make any noticeable positive effect.

If you want to plead ignorance then I'm sure I can track down examples of right wing pundits bashing immigration. But frankly it happens so frequently it is hard to believe you aren't aware of it. It is far more likely you see it all the time that you don't even recognize it any more.

Arrest rates for 2018 were higher than 2017, but were lower than 2016. So it is a bit disingenuous to say arrests rose with trump's election because they fell in 2017. No one is saying illegal immigration is the solution. They are saying it is a symptom of the problem. Focusing on the wall without fixing the problem, the broken immigration system, is worse than useless. It is just continuing to spend huge amounts of money to hurt people.

Your last paragraph doesn't really make sense. Could you rephrase it? I understand you don't like the Nazi comparison, but making the argument that because an entire group of people is bad that you should be allowed to do bad things to them is the kind of logic dictators use to justify mass murder. And not just nazi's. Duarte is doing it right now. Drug dealers are bad, so go out and kill anyone you suspect is a drug dealer. That is insanity. Trump's (but probably actually coming from stephen miller) argument is basically that he wants to treat illegal immigrants as badly as he possibly can try to dissuade them from coming. That is no different than torturing criminals, which is expressly forbidden.

If people don't want to be compared to nazi's, they should stop saying and doing things the nazi's said and did. It really isn't that hard.

1 year ago

I simply believe we would disagree on the cost effective returns. Since there are lies, damn lies, and statistics (especially covering the wall alone, not including how much illegal immigration costs) I figured we'd get nowhere. Arguing on principle if America can enforce it's own laws and build the wall is slightly different, seeing how the previous statements started with a wall being impossible. Economic viability was just icing on the cake to say Trump was stupid for pushing on a wall he couldn't get. So now you've introduced a new element, and now criticize me for not commenting on it? For shame.

I don't know about republicans bashing legal immigrants. I have two cousins that are very close legal immigrants that, about two years ago, legally came over and 5 months ago got their cards. Not citizenship. If I didn't care about the system, and didn't want it to work, that would be cruel. However, I do fear their status would be in danger if approvals couldn't be made, and it is at least true that illegal immigrants slow down the legal process for legal immigrants. If we wait for them to get over first, naturally the legal immigrants will be troubled. As for the economics, it's as highly debatable as the wall itself, and would require another element if you'd like to add.

Of course I didn't say they all are trafficked. But the arrest rates since Trump have gotten higher. I will accept that people were separated, but like the time magazine crying kid, lacking the context or background. Even with the background, certainly there are criticisms, yet illegal immigration is not how the problem is solved. America has some propositions to aid Venezuela you know, it is better to stop the problem than "hide" it by simply allowing more immigrants like it's summer vacation. Of course, America should know who it lets in, since even strangers need passports, if the convoy chooses a legal port I'll be sure to say hola. Along the original convoy there were plenty of those, so the existing convoy members ending on the west coast is more likely a political stunt, why travel farther? Acceptable answers are possible, just curious.

I despise the strawman Nazi argument, then a quick turn face to redirect racist policy. If all we have on a debate is what arguments or policies, not even our real identities, aren't you implying racism or Nazis? In no way do the statements made separate commenter from the salient features, and it's an easy mistake I suggest you correct.

1 year ago

If I threw out the 300 miles number I apologize, this debate has been going awhile and i did not recall saying that.

Your argument seems to be that you have no idea how much it will cost, and therefore it must be cost effective. That seems like a ridiculous argument to me. Step 1 should be getting a realistic cost analysis. But Trump throws out a different numbers all the time. They have no plan for what they want because trump has no idea what he's talking about. They have no idea how much what they want will cost. They just want a bunch of money to build some stuff. That is not a viable plan.

You seem to not understand. Your economy needs those immigrants. The vast majority of them are good people and a vital resource. You should be letting them in. If you fixed the immigration system you could then determine which are the bad ones and keep them out while letting in the good ones. But your political discourse is so broken that even talking about letting in more people legally is a non starter for a lot of republicans. You therefore get hundreds of thousands of illegal ones because there is no possible way to do it legally. Fix the immigration system and let in the good ones. Then it will be easier to target the bad ones and keep them out.

A) you have no evidence at all those kids were being trafficked. All the stats I see say they largely families. provide evidence for that or accept that they were families that have been torn apart forever by cruel policy and negligent enforcement. b) if you are trying to avoid starving to death or being murdered then fleeing to a better life is their only option. ripping families apart is in no way a solution to that. Saying "they are bad so we can do bad things to them" is the kind of argument the Nazi's would make.

I didn't say all republicans are racist. I said that this trope of people coming across the southern border as dangerous, rapist murderers is xenophobic and racist. Everyone is afraid of things they don't understand and that aren't like them. Being afraid of "convoys" from Venezuela doesn't make you a racist. Arguing that convoys from Venezuela are filled with terrorists, rapists, murderers etc and that they are a huge national threat, that makes you a racist. So no, i'm not saying all republicans are racist. That would be ridiculous. I am saying the republican party, and especially Trump, use racist fear tactics to distract gullible and/or uninformed people that don't understand the issue.

1 year ago

You said if the next 300 miles were as unaffected, I said as if the next 300 miles were as secure. I hate bad faith arguments.

The startup may not appear to be cost effective, but it is the as if a wall or fence has to be built every time, just once and maintained. I don't list the costs because different pundits list different savings or losses associated with the wall, and might put us off of a direction of if it is possible. I don't think a ladder to the Moon was proposed, I think a border barricade has, and those has been done successfully for longer than anyone currently alive.

We can't determine a cause for illegal action based on a need, because there are always outlets that are legal. If not emigrating to America, then to where?

I did say fortifying checkpoints could be easier if forces weren't spread thin, so I would claim even checkpoints would be affected. I thought I already said this? In any case it isn't a fraction of a percent, it would be a fraction of a percentage, as high as 38%, which could mean more than 1/3. I won't be able to make such a claim honestly, but neither could you. In any case fortified checkpoints is something I support too. Yay, common ground!

But among those locked up, human trafficking were as well. Most programs that highlight the separation will say that all those separated without saying why and assume it is families. They will pan in on the cold eyes of a no longer caring child... Without knowing the cause, it's all manipulation, like the TIME'S magazine cover of a crying child. In any case, I think dragging a kid across a desert is abuse, if leaving a kid in a hot car is also abuse.

Yeah, sarcastically I would say it's because I hate Mexicans and the rising Venezuelan immigration. Unsarcastically, I would say that Republicans have been painted as racists an xenophobic even when that doesn't apply... wait a minute, didn't we have a debate where everyone here denied republicans were racist, and a few claimed it was a character nobody believed?

Anyhow, it is a concern because there are costs and there are repeat offenders. I don't think America should be responsible, but the only way to be sure is to take action and to be sure the law can be enforced. If it cannot, blatant disregard for the law as it has been recently will continue.

1 year ago

Where are you getting that there is a 300 mile gap? the border is 2,000 miles long. There is 700 miles of wall. Are you just making up numbers?

You are never going to be able to 100% secure a 2,000 mile long border. it cannot, and should not be done. Primarily because trying to do so would be insanely expensive for very little benefit. So remove that as an option. The question is what is the most cost effective way of securing the border. Fencing in high traffic areas is useful. That is why that fencing was built years ago. At this point more fences are not an answer. They are only a campaign promise.

The main problem is the ports of entry and that the path to legally immigrate to the US doesn't work. Those are things that need improvement. Not a wall in the middle of the desert.

62% of people in the US illegally are in the country on an overstayed Visa. This means they entered the country legally. Then they didn't go home afterwards. So right off the top 62% of "illegal immigrants" would be completely unaffected by a wall. And you're right, of the remaining 38% it is difficult to determine how exactly the bulk of them entered. Some of them came through ports of entry since they don't have the manpower to check very many of the trucks coming in. Some of them came across the northern border with Canada.

So it is tough to say for certain. But why would you put your primary fight and resources into such a small portion of the issue? Strengthening the ports of entry is much more likely to garner positive results than a wall in the desert.

Here is the link for the stats about the visa overstays.

Border security always has been, and still is, a bipartisan issue. There is no objection to increasing security at the border. The problem is wasting billions on a useless wall. It is demonizing people who are looking for a better life as murderers and rapists. It is locking children in cages, separating them from their parents and then losing them. (yes the current administration is permanently separating small children from their families because they were too incompetent to keep records of who their parents were when they took them.)

So no the democratic position hasn't really changed at all. The republicans have changed. They now see immigrants as a threat rather than a vitally important part of america. They see xenophobia and racism as good ways to fire up their base.

1 year ago

And yet I acknowledged there was a wall in spite of the lawsuits you claimed would stop it, sorry, fence. And yet I also agree it was insufficient, but not for the reasons you do. I think better fortifications do assist in border security, yet 300 miles is still a large gap. Can proper surveilance be done over 300 miles without assistance?

It isn't a slippery slope if border security is an issue, and if there wasn't blatant disregard for the immigration process. I will admit it is harder to get into America legally, but illegally other countries are better at securing their borders. I didn't think absolving American doctors in either fair or unfair capacity in another country (which should take care of its own crisis) was a national emergency for America, yet such powers were expanded before Trump.

I was being favorable to your potential statistics, actually. The estimates on crossing through legal checkpoints at 60% through improper paperwork... I didn't quite know the methodology cited on different websites, but I figured I could give you the full 60. I can only assume that you don't know the actual number either because you don't make a claim. It would be rather hard to get an accurate number without the illegal immigrants pointing to where they illegally crossed over, assuming they won't sell out a potential ride back into America. -Not to mention we could put a stronger focus on legal checkpoints if our surveilance could be condensed rather than spread thin without a wall. I mean, if we both really do want to know a close percentage, a wall can help us estimate past figures.

And yet 'catch and release' programs exist, 'Sanctuary cities' exist, to address a problem some believe that the issue doesn't exist or create opportunities to let the problem go away. This last paragraph doesn't seem to do much with the wall and more about Trump. Because you know that support for border security simply became a Republican issue when it should have been bipartisan. Support for the fence was bipartisan, so did Democrats just 'wake up' and realize it was ineffective? Rather, it is easier to believe that Trump has nothing in his favor as both parties go to extremes in Primaries, then go moderate in the General. The border is not a moderate sell in that case. Trump wasn't expected, but you don't win elections by having nothing- In that case 8 years of president Trump's is more and more likely, the less Democrats show support for a concern the public has.

1 year ago

I think you missed one of my main points. There already is a wall. like 700 miles of it. The vast majority of places that could use a wall, have one. And it hasn't fixed the problem. Doubling down and saying the next 300 miles of wall will totally work when the last 700 miles didn't stop the problems is a completely irrational argument.

My point about gun control and global warming was not to start another debate about these topics. It was to point out the insanity of allowing Trump to use a national emergency to push through a campaign promise that the majority of the country doesn't agree with. It will open up a HUGE can of worms where other presidents can use this power to push through whatever they want as long as they say it is an emergency. If building a wall is an emergency (it isn't), then pretty much anything could be.

So you have no evidence at all that 40% come through the desert, got it. How many of them sneak through points of entry, which a wall would help. How many of them are crossing from Canada, which a wall wouldn't help. America has huge problems in numerous areas. Poor central Americans trying to find a better life is not one of them.

The places that need a wall, overwhelmingly already have one. If you asked most republican members of congress 6 months ago if the wall was important they pretty much all would have said no. No one other than Trump, and those who choose to believe him over reality, thinks the wall is important. But trump is going to trigger a constitutional crises because fox news called him names. He is a weak, pathetic excuse for a president. He will hurt millions of american citizens to make right wing pundits be nice to him.

1 year ago

This isn't to mention the contradiction. If the secure fence act did secure the border, and the fence was built, and the lawsuits are still pending from that, doesn't it mean that it would be done? I mean 90 lawsuits (Not quite a shocking number) and yet the border was partially secured, it's definitely a start but it isn't as secure as it could be.

I agree that tools are an important aspect. I also think our checkpoints could be better, so to keep them from being spread thin I think a tool that could allow the best concentration possible is a tool that prevents passage... let's call it a fence. Surveillance is good, can be great, but swift enforcement is necessary, it is better if our border enforcement doesn't need to react.

1 year ago

It does matter, because what they are in court for will decide how much of the wall can be built at once. Court for compensation will naturally result in having compensation, not the original land. If it even needs to go that far, I doubt it is the majority of cases, unless there is a reason to believe so.

You've decided what should be effective, rather than considering how it can be effective. The wall is part of border reform, and though arguably not strong by itself, a wall cannot be bribed, it gives no visibility, it makes actions conspicuous and has been supported before in both parties as a "fence". Maybe if I call it a fence I'll get more support.

School shootings can have an emergency, but I doubt you'd like the solution if it requires the military to make a contract with public schools. I can agree that actions like clear backpacks would make it harder for kids to inflict damage, because it wouldn't be hidden, though metal detectors aren't quite effective. Though security guards have been given guns, I also doubt it was to stop the kid with a cakeknife or a strategically chewed chicken nugget.

Global climate could be considered, but many of the choices and laws to counter the problem are not really 'green', they're actually a financial bill. I believe I had this discussion with nemiroff on the Paris Climate Agreement. Though I would also say America is nowhere near the largest contributor, or wasteful when it comes to disposal, Asian countries take that one. But it is true, an emergency could be declared like Ebola, then private contractors could solve a problem rather than a tax bill.

That's a guess about Trump. It is true that one of the rules of power is to take other's work and claim it as your own for ease, but there is a problem for sure.

If 60% of illegal immigrants arrived by overstaying or improper paperwork, that means 40% arrived how...? If it's through a checkpoint, that is also under the wall reform, sorry, 'fence' reform. In any case, the estimate is still low end because if a crossing is never detected, is it still a border crossing? (The answer is yes, checkpoints can be a point to backtrack, but no record means no trace. They just need to say how.)

And I would argue that 40% is still a large number. Coyotes will need to find new ways, doesn't mean they should be comfortable with their business. With a line in the ground at least these other avenues listed can be explored better, coyotes don't need to change right now.

1 year ago

Why would it matter what they are in court for? They would be tied up in court far longer than trump will be in office. Little to no wall would actually get built. And you have set a precedent that the president can declare whatever he wants an emergency. School shootings? national emergency and force through gun laws. Global warming? national emergency and force through new environmental laws. at least those are actual emergencies. But do you really want that percent set over something this stupid, especially when it wont actually accomplish anything?

The parts of the border that need walls, got wall built over the last 15 years. America already has hundreds of miles of walls. Where trump wants to put walls in places that don't need them just so that he can go on TV and say "I built the wall". It is stupid.

Could you please provide references for why you think 40% of illegal immigrants are sneaking through the desert. Because that number isn't correct.

Walls don't stop coyotes. They make lots of money smuggling people. They have the resources to find other paths. Tunnels, trucks, boats, planes etc. They will adapt and change their route far faster and cheaper than you can put up a wall. It is not an effective plan. Especially since the critical areas already have walls.

Bush signed the secure fences act in 2006. of the more the 300 lawsuits in Texas alone, there are still 90 pending (as of 2017). Do you have any idea how much money 11 years of legal costs for the US government are fighting hundreds of lawsuits? You are much, MUCH better off putting that money into useful things like drones, extra officers and tools at the ports of entry. That is where virtually all the drugs are coming in.

1 year ago

Or, perhaps certain inhabited area don't need to be completed. Depending on how good of a handle police have on immigrants passing through towns on the border, it's an area that might already be secure. But there's plenty of places where it isn't, an Arizona landowner camera has shown some "don't need to sneak". I don't doubt some landowners will make a deal.

1 year ago

If it isn't announced, there's nothing to report on, at that point it's speculation. just because it can be "strong armed" doesn't mean it will be, public perception is important.

But they wouldn't be in court for funding, and settlements aren't impossible. I know that political action for a standstill would happen but realistically an "exception" to the NEA, an emergency authority not comprised in the act for approval. It's kind of in the name 'commander in chief' as well, when defense issues need immediate action. If Ebola counts, why wouldn't harmful immigration? At this point I would say the lawsuits aren't towards meaningful damages, only obstruction tactics.

Most court cases settle as well, eminent domain doesn't leave homeowners or landowners with nothing. Even if fighting did occur, it would be compensation, not the original land itself. Not saying it has to all be acquired through eminent domain, or that it has to start where the most conflict would happen, it could easily start in uninhabited areas and work down. Which is also plenty of time to work out details for inhabited parts if uninhabited parts are finished first.

As for the effectiveness of a wall, spotters can survey patrols, but not always through walls. Digging holes or breaking portions of a barricade take time, and ladders are conspicuous. If it takes only a few seconds to pass a few feet in visible space, or minutes to hold a group together to an unpredictable path, a patrol could easily catch illegal immigrants by surprise. It won't just be a wall, but a wall is the first measure to deter. It's at least the 40% that cross the border rather than overstay visas or fly, I still think 40% is a significant chunk.

And no walls are great for coyotes, they don't just break laws out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it for money, or rape, and can easily raise the price. Legal trade can happen on the table, through legal checkpoints, where a deal is a deal. To fix the problem, the best way is to understand it.The ATF gunwalking scandal was an attempt to understand cartel paths. If we learned anything, it's that we don't know enough yet to resolve the issue. Draw a line, and both legal and illegal issues have definite borders.

1 year ago

Not giving up on making the wall itself a moot point Mexican themselves will somehow migrate to America and a f***ing wall can't do anything and also it would be bad for Mexican and American trade businesses, and most importantly the people who are residing in the place of wall which will automatically destroy there residency

1 year ago

Again, i'm not a lawyer and i haven't heard anyone with a legitimate legal background make the case that this could be used. If it really was useful in this case, there would be law professors all over fox news saying he can do this. But there is nothing. That would lead me to believe that there is a reason this wouldn't be relevant.

But even if it were relevant, there would still be lawsuits. For example, eminent domain is pretty much bullet proof when it is an act of congress. If congress does not approve the funds, like with an emergency declaration, then people have alot more room to fight it in court. If he declares an emergency they will be in court for years just trying to get the land so they can start building.

1 year ago

So the president declares an emergency, he doesn't shutdown the government like Ebola and since it only requires his approval to take action it will occur. In 1990 the bill was amended to remove congressional disapproval as an overriding power. In you can view this law, which is also known as USC 1431-1435 for all modifications and it does have a section which claims 'the provisions of the national emergencies act shall not apply to the powers and authorities conferred by this section and actions hereunder'.

Therefore, there would be no lost lawsuits. No standstill, still a national emergency, I could have phrased it better, but admittedly the legal code could be phrased better too.

Though it may be possible to avoid an Emergency under the department of defense's contract, or how 'related reports to Congress by departments and agencies acting under authority of this chapter and required published congressional record' was repealed. I could be wrong, but that doesn't mean that a national emergency 'exception' as it is listed could be stopped.

Notice also that you list the 'effective period' where it may be preemptively signed and postponed regarding certain circumstances. I am no lawyer, but that is hardly a restriction Congress could use. Congress willingly gave up their bid on this law anyhow.

I did say it would be a final quarter play if done anyhow.

1 year ago

I saw a forum post saying the law had been changed since it was originally written, but I can't find any official source that says it has. The original text says:

"This Act shall be effective only during a national emergency
declared by Congress or the President and for six months after the
termination thereof or until such earlier time as Congress, by concurrent resolution, may designate. "

That sounds to me like this is useless. In order to use it he has to declare a national emergency anyway.

1 year ago

There's nothing in the law itself that would prevent him as of the 1990 amendment not requiring 60 day notice. But I can see why it would be a final quarter play as it is already being called tyranny.

I believe it was law of power 45 that suggested change must be done, comfortably. Once the short term victory of funding is done, long term it can invigorate the Democrat voterbase. It also isn't a fast way to make friends, if you show you don't need them politically.

Unfortunately I myself am not a lawyer, but I am toying with the idea of being a paralegal, so I do a bit of studying on the side as a hobby. I've got a degree in criminal Justice though so it'll be easier to get certified, but I know that's not the qualifications needed.

I'll keep my eye out for someone who can speak legally on this though, since I think this at least provides another avenue which, may or may not work, but doesn't put political opposition at an impasse.

1 year ago

I had a look and cannot find anyone with any legal credibility discussing using that. As I am not a lawyer, and I can't find any examples of anyone with any idea how the law really works discussing it, I have no idea if that is a possibility or if right wing people are just desperately looking for any way for trump to increase his level of tyranny.

But I would have to assume that if it were an option, Trump would have used it already. He has alot of lawyers working for him. This appears to be a widely known law, so if it is actually usable in this case then why wouldn't he use it? I mean he shut down the government and trashed the republicans and betrayed the leader of the senate. Then got blamed for everything and had to slink away with his tail between his legs. I don't think we would be at this point if he had other options.

If you have examples of someone with a real legal background discussing this please let me know. All i can find are right wing bloggers.

1 year ago

Or he could circumvent both a shutdown or standstill by using public law 85-804. A National defense case allows for advance payments. Whether or not the border can personally be considered an issue, the law itself is black letter law which does not have debate about it's power and was used as recent as Obama's presidency to protect Ebola treatment in Africa (not necessarily America, but this shows the law is flexible in terms of security). Federal contracts to private companies is entirely possible this way.

1 year ago

The democrats have made it clear that there will be no funding for his wall. That leaves him with 3 options.

1) Shut down the government again - This would be a huge mistake. the majority of americans blame trump and the republicans for the shutdown. The large majority of americans don't think that the wall is worth a shut down. Republican senators wont let this happen again. Most likely the senate would be forced to overrule him.

2) declare a national emergency - This is an even bigger mistake. This would trigger tons of lawsuits which the government would almost certainly lose. if you have months to negotiate, not to mention the 1st 2 years of his presidency where he didn't make this a priority, then it isn't an emergency. It is just a policy you want. Add to that that trump has made numerous statements saying that he will negotiate, but if he doesn't get what he wants he will just declare an emergency. That is a public admission that it is political, not an emergency.

Add to this that declaring an emergency would be a huge abuse of presidential power. What it to stop a democratic president from declaring a national emergency about global warming and use executive authority to make sweeping changes to industrial standards. What is to stop them from declaring it a national emergency after a mass shooting to force through new gun laws?

3) he gives up on his wall for the last 2 years of his term, and likely forever.

1 year ago
Discuss "Donald Trump needs to give up on his wall" celebrities news people
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.