Oh, please, don’t even pretend this is about principles. It is politics, pure and simple.
Nevada’s Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford has joined the Democratic AGs in 15 other states to sue the Trump administration over his decision to declare an emergency to fund the building of more than 200 miles of border barrier after Congress refused to do so.
“President Trump cannot sidestep our Constitution for a political ploy,” Ford was quoted as saying by the Las Vegas newspaper. “The Trump Administration’s proposed diversion of funds would waste billions of dollars that is dedicated to supporting our military and law enforcement agencies. I am proud to join this lawsuit to defend our Constitution, our state’s military bases, and Nevada’s law enforcement agencies.”
Does anyone think any of these politicians would have sued after Obama issued an executive order creating the DACA program for illegal immigrants brought into the country as children after Congress repeatedly refused to authorize it?
Of course, Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt did join other states in suing the Obama administration over DACA. He said in a press release at the time, “Our immigration system is broken and clearly needs to be fixed. But just as clearly, the solution is not for the president to act unilaterally disregarding the U.S. Constitution and laws. The solution must be a permanent, legal result that includes, not ignores, the other branches of government and their constitutional roles. Anything less is a false hope undermining the rule of law that injures millions of people in America, including many in Nevada.”
At least Trump has the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to hang his constitutional hat on. That act by Congress — probably unconstitutionally allows Congress to shirk its duties to hold the nation’s purse strings — grants the president the power to declare emergencies to cover the expense.
There are no principles any more. It is all about politics.
A woman walks near the border fence on the ocean between Tijuana and San Diego. (AP pix)
4TH ST8 
The obvious question is why it’s an emergency now when it wasn’t during the Bush years when substantially more illegal aliens were coming across our borders. Two to four times as many if I remember correctly. A major legal question is whether a President can define anything he wants as an emergency or if the courts have the power to cry foul when the term is badly abused as it is in this case.
Justification for the wall is sketchy anyway, since most illegal aliens merely overstay their visa, and most drugs come through checkpoints, by air, and by sea. The wall just won’t address the majority of the problem. It will only make it a little more difficult to cross. The obvious solution for most will be to just cross where there is still no wall, but tunnels, smuggling people across at checkpoints, and scaling or cutting through the wall with modern demolition tools will probably still remain popular.
Of course, there is a possible happy ending to this. Trump could get away with this and the Republicans in Congress will almost certainly refuse to challenge him, making a veto proof majority impossible. Since Americans are opposed to the wall 60/40 or so, Republicans may lose a significant number of votes, and we’ll have a boondoggle in the desert. Not so awful.
The trouble with politicians is, everything they say or do is inherently political.
The trouble with politicians is, everything they say or do is inherently political.
This new “feature” blows.
For a minute there Thomas I thought you were going for the “truth in advertising” slogan for this column.
I mean, after dead silence about the actions of the retard in charge for so long, to pretend that there is any pretense of a principled stand around here would be…a stretch.
Another example of the freedom the Dotard has given everyone to be what they’ve always been.
It appears there were more illegals crossing the borders during the Bush years…because they were turned around and sent back across the border. The same illegal could cross numerous times and be sent back numerous times…thus the higher numbers of crossings. That all changed during the Obama years when they were allowed to apply for a court hearing. They would be allowed to stay, their hearing would be weeks or months later, and they usually disappeared into the countryside and never appeared at their hearings. Thus the lower numbers.
No one knows the number of illegals crossing inadequate barriers or where there are no barriers, so the percentages of those crossings compared to visa overstays are inconclusive. Hell, we don’t even have a clue as to how many illegal invaders are in the country! The estimates run from 8 million to 30 million! And same for the amount of drugs coming across where there are no barriers or inadequate barriers. How many caravans approaching and breaching the border does it take before it’s a crisis? How many tons of illegal drugs…MS 13 gang bangers with a child in tote, sex traffickers and potential terrorists from the middle east…before it’s a crisis? How many American citizens have to be murdered…sons, daughters, wives, husbands…or as in Gardnerville – grandparents…until it’s a crisis? How many citizens killed or maimed by drunken, unlicensed illegal alien drivers…before it’s a crisis?
According to Factcheck, the numbers of illegals apprehended on our southwest border are the lowest they have been since 1972. Apprehensions were much higher than today during the Carter, Reagan, George H.W., and Clinton years. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/the-stats-on-border-apprehensions/
Do you have a source explaining these numbers? It certainly appears to be the opposite of an emergency.
The quantity of drugs and illegals that cross the Mexican border where a fence might be placed appears to be tiny in comparison to those that arrive through checkpoints, overstay their visa or, in the case of drugs, arrive by air or sea. (And of course, if the wall does not extend for the nearly 2,000 miles of our southern border, who says the illegals won’t just cross where there is no wall?
Where is the approved design and why has it not been made public? So far as I know, there is no established design at present. How do we know if this mysterious wall would quickly yield to say, cutting torches, bulldozers, jackhammers, dynamite, etc.? I also want to know whether tunneling would be unfeasible with the proposed designs. What is on the top to prevent climbing up with a ladder or on a truck and cutting whatever impediments are mounted on the top with a cutting torch?
Would you buy a home without looking it over? Why can’t we look over the wall design before we buy?
Conservatives and Libertarians seem to respect the CATO Institute. You might want to examine their paper. The title gives it away: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work