GOP Senators break from the President on National Emergency declaration

Mar 3, 2010
27,446
233
690
#1
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/14/romney-alexander-national-emergency-1221317

A growing number of Senate Republicans — including Mitt Romney of Utah and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee — will support a House resolution to overturn President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border.

Republicans Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rob Portman of Ohio as well as Romney and Alexander are the latest GOP senators to break with the president on his plans to unilaterally steer funds to his border wall, joining Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina had written an op-ed denouncing Trump’s national emergency declaration, though it was unclear this week how he would vote.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,243
919
540
#3
"But only a crazy leftists Orange Man Bad NPC would think Trumps' national emergency declaration is bad!"

I can hardly wait for the hypocrisy to roll in when a Democratic President uses this same tactic to fund a pet project, circumvent congress entirely, and most importantly defund billions of dollars from other systems previous scheduled by congressional power to be funded, including programs like military base housing improvements. I'm sure conservatives will totally not throw a fit.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,191
415
#4
How many breaking news stories can the media make of this? It seems pretty simple. Some R's will cross the aisle and vote in favor of the House bill,. Trump will then veto, and as of now there's no expectation enough R's will cross the aisle to override the veto. Yet I keep seeing breaking news to recap exactly what I just wrote for like 2 weeks now.
 
Dec 18, 2018
151
154
160
#6
I can hardly wait for the hypocrisy to roll in when a Democratic President uses this same tactic
There's a difference. Defending the USA's border from invasion is Trump's Constitutional responsibility. Arguably his most important responsibility. By rights he should already have the military on the border with orders to shoot anyone who crosses. So, he's not doing anything outrageous with this declaration of emergency.

In contrast, if a Democrat president were to declare a national emergency and seize all privately owned firearms, then he's violating the Constitution and that is outrageous. Saying that "circumventing congress" is automatically beyond the pale, is willfully ignoring a wider context.
 
Last edited:
Likes: TheGreatYosh

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,243
919
540
#7
There's a difference. Defending the USA's border from invasion is Trump's Constitutional responsibility. Arguably his most important responsibility. By rights he should already have the military on the border with orders to shoot anyone who crosses. So, he's not doing anything outrageous with this declaration of emergency.

In contrast, if a Democrat president were to declare a national emergency and seize all privately owned firearms, then he's violating the Constitution and that is outrageous. Saying that "circumventing congress" is automatically beyond the pale, is willfully ignoring a wider context.
The Latinos are coming to take your wife and kids, if you have any. Doubtful. Better go back to your bunker with your AKs keeping a sharp eye out for the brown army.

Also it'd be interesting to see your scenario out, in which the US military is murdering on sight women and children who cross the border. Your ideal world truly is a hellscape of partisan brainwashing.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,191
415
#9
The Latinos are coming to take your wife and kids, if you have any. Doubtful. Better go back to your bunker with your AKs keeping a sharp eye out for the brown army.

Also it'd be interesting to see your scenario out, in which the US military is murdering on sight women and children who cross the border. Your ideal world truly is a hellscape of partisan brainwashing.
I don't see how the intentions of the people who say screw your laws I am moving in, changes the fact that they are saying screw your laws I am moving in.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
639
448
845
Ottawa, Canada
#11
There's a difference. Defending the USA's border from invasion is Trump's Constitutional responsibility. Arguably his most important responsibility. By rights he should already have the military on the border with orders to shoot anyone who crosses. So, he's not doing anything outrageous with this declaration of emergency.

In contrast, if a Democrat president were to declare a national emergency and seize all privately owned firearms, then he's violating the Constitution and that is outrageous. Saying that "circumventing congress" is automatically beyond the pale, is willfully ignoring a wider context.
No, it's outrageous. He declared an emergency for something he thought was a problem two years ago, and illegal border crossings are actually at the lowest they've been in decades (those lows began during Obama's administration, I'd add). He only called an "emergency" because he's a brat who doesn't want to admit he's wrong or accept when people tell him "no."
 
Dec 18, 2018
151
154
160
#12

Yeah, open borders zealots like to call out posse comitatus, but it's not correct, or at least it's open to interpretation. The US military is not allowed to be used as a domestic police force, sure. So going door-to-door in San Diego looking for Guatemalans wouldn't fly. But patrolling the border is not domestic policing.

Under your interpretation of posse comitatus, we could have a Russian or North Korean army unit walk up to the border, and as soon as they set one foot on US soil, our troops couldn't touch them and would have to call ICE instead.

I agree your interpretation is "how it's been done" for decades, but that's because no one has really wanted to secure the border. Posse comitatus is just another excuse for our leaders to throw up their hands and say, "lol nothing we can do!"

If it comes down to it, well...I'm fine with hashing it out in the Supreme Court.
 
Mar 3, 2010
27,446
233
690
#13
How many breaking news stories can the media make of this? It seems pretty simple. Some R's will cross the aisle and vote in favor of the House bill,. Trump will then veto, and as of now there's no expectation enough R's will cross the aisle to override the veto. Yet I keep seeing breaking news to recap exactly what I just wrote for like 2 weeks now.
12 Republicans defected, which is quite a large group. The resolution passed 59-41.
 
Dec 18, 2018
151
154
160
#14
He declared an emergency for something he thought was a problem two years ago
I don't understand your point here. It was a problem 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago....it's still a problem now.


illegal border crossings are actually at the lowest they've been in decades

This is not relevant. Just because crossings may have slowed temporarily, so what? There are millions of illegals in the country already.
 
Jul 19, 2018
874
527
230
#16
No, it's outrageous. He declared an emergency for something he thought was a problem two years ago, and illegal border crossings are actually at the lowest they've been in decades (those lows began during Obama's administration, I'd add). He only called an "emergency" because he's a brat who doesn't want to admit he's wrong or accept when people tell him "no."
That's a straight lie. 76 thousand in February alone. NYT even covered it. On top of a lot of them being murderers, rapists, and low IQ. It turns out a number of them are diseased. So they are biological weapons as well.
 
Jan 7, 2007
33,399
26
1,030
#17
There's a difference. Defending the USA's border from invasion is Trump's Constitutional responsibility. Arguably his most important responsibility. By rights he should already have the military on the border with orders to shoot anyone who crosses. So, he's not doing anything outrageous with this declaration of emergency.

In contrast, if a Democrat president were to declare a national emergency and seize all privately owned firearms, then he's violating the Constitution and that is outrageous. Saying that "circumventing congress" is automatically beyond the pale, is willfully ignoring a wider context.
This is so insane. You seriously want the US military to indiscriminately and extrajudicially fire upon unidentified border crossers with the intent to kill? You somehow label these people who are mostly just desperate individuals as a "invaders?"

This is some sick shit and I'm extremely glad your views are not shared by people who have the power to decide things.

I don't understand your point here. It was a problem 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago....it's still a problem now.
There's a reason that "problem" and "emergency" are different words that are used differently.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,191
415
#19
It was 12 GOP Senators. They felt the national emergency declaration would set a dangerous precedent.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/14/romney-alexander-national-emergency-1221317
Some of the 12 definitely felt that way. Some just want to increase re-election chances by voting against him when it doesn't matter, just like Manchin voted for Kavanaugh when it did not matter. Regardless, 6, 8, 10, 12, all irrelevant. Anything short of the magic number to reach 2/3 for a veto override is irrelevant.
 
Likes: Joe T.
Dec 18, 2018
151
154
160
#21
This is so insane. You seriously want the US military to indiscriminately and extrajudicially fire upon unidentified border crossers with the intent to kill?
What I "seriously want" is a strong border wall, so these people show up at the border, mill around a bit at the base of the wall, see that they can't get in, and just go home. But Democrats (and the establishment Republicans) have prevented that solution. I would also have armed troops there to warn them to stop. If they continue to come across the border after a warning, yes definitely shoot them. It's their own fault at that point.


You somehow label these people who are mostly just desperate individuals as a "invaders?"
I don't care if they are "desperate," it's not their land to just come and take. They are foreigners who are coming in without being invited. Invaders is the correct term.
 
Last edited:
Aug 5, 2007
380
14
860
#22
Yeah, open borders zealots like to call out posse comitatus, but it's not correct, or at least it's open to interpretation. The US military is not allowed to be used as a domestic police force, sure. So going door-to-door in San Diego looking for Guatemalans wouldn't fly. But patrolling the border is not domestic policing.
Under your interpretation of posse comitatus, we could have a Russian or North Korean army unit walk up to the border, and as soon as they set one foot on US soil, our troops couldn't touch them and would have to call ICE instead.
Surely this would be covered under the self-defence provision and the "further a DoD or foreign affairs function of the United States" provision? The military is allowed to repel an attacking force, but that doesn't give it the right to gun down individual civilians.
 
Jan 7, 2007
33,399
26
1,030
#23
I don't care if they are "desperate," it's not their land to just come and take. They are foreigners who are coming in without being invited. Invaders is the correct term.
That is rich given how this country was founded and expanded upon. Is it safe to assume you subscribe to the might makes right doctrine when it comes to issues of sovereignty?

Either way, you're misclassifying the intent of the vast majority of border crossers. They aren't coming to "take" shit. They are coming to join, not steal the land and set up their own sovereign nation or claim it for Mexico.
 
Last edited:
Dec 18, 2018
151
154
160
#24
That is rich given how this country was founded and expanded upon.

Because some people were dicks to Indian tribes in the 18th and and 19th centuries, does not mean I have to turn over my country to anyone who shows up in the 21st century.

In other words, I have no guilt about colonialism because I did not participate in it, and it has no relevance to anything today.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,191
415
#25
What I "seriously want" is a strong border wall, so these people show up at the border, mill around a bit at the base of the wall, see that they can't get in, and just go home. But Democrats (and the establishment Republicans) have prevented that solution. I would also have armed troops there to warn them to stop. If they continue to come across the border after a warning, yes definitely shoot them. It's their own fault at that point.
We can preserve our values much better with just a wall and mandatory e-verify.
 
Jan 7, 2007
33,399
26
1,030
#27
Because some people were dicks to Indian tribes in the 18th and and 19th centuries, does not mean I have to turn over my country to anyone who shows up in the 21st century.

In other words, I have no guilt about colonialism because I did not participate in it, and it has no relevance to anything today.
Do you have any idea how Texas became a state not even 200 years ago, well after any "English dudes" were in control? It's part of your country's history.
 
Dec 18, 2018
151
154
160
#28
Ironic that you bring up Texas, because Texas was lost to Mexico because they allowed white immigration...once there were enough whites in Texas, they declared independence and seceded.

We might see the same happen (in reverse) to southern California or Arizona within my lifetime. hence why we need the Wall.
 
Apr 15, 2018
2,483
2,861
230
#29
How many breaking news stories can the media make of this? It seems pretty simple. Some R's will cross the aisle and vote in favor of the House bill,. Trump will then veto, and as of now there's no expectation enough R's will cross the aisle to override the veto. Yet I keep seeing breaking news to recap exactly what I just wrote for like 2 weeks now.
24/7 news cycle. You gotta fill the air up with sonething

It is funny watching CNN treat this like Earth shattering news.
 
Likes: NickFire
Dec 3, 2013
18,568
12,338
565
#30
Do you have any idea how Texas became a state not even 200 years ago, well after any "English dudes" were in control? It's part of your country's history.
One group of people who's ancestors were colonizers took it from another group who's ancestors were colonizers?

I love how Mexico always gets the free pass of the whole Spanish colonization thing, that the United States gets a stigma for with England.

Same for Canada with France.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,482
1,018
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#31
No, it's outrageous. He declared an emergency for something he thought was a problem two years ago, and illegal border crossings are actually at the lowest they've been in decades (those lows began during Obama's administration, I'd add).
From US Customs & Border protection:



Even at it's lowest point on that graph that is a very expensive problem that could become far less costly by renovating and completing the physical border. Solve the illegal border crossing problem and politicians can move onto expediting/increasing legal immigration, something Trump already said he supports.
 
Jan 7, 2007
33,399
26
1,030
#32
Ironic that you bring up Texas, because Texas was lost to Mexico because they allowed white immigration...once there were enough whites in Texas, they declared independence and seceded.

We might see the same happen (in reverse) to southern California or Arizona within my lifetime. hence why we need the Wall.
This is a completely irrational downright racist fear that because white people in this country completely fucked over a group of people a long time ago that their ancestors are just biding their time while plotting revenge. The secession of Arizona much less California at the hands of Latinos is just a batshit insane idea.

One group of people who's ancestors were colonizers took it from another group who's ancestors were colonizers?

I love how Mexico always gets the free pass of the whole Spanish colonization thing, that the United States gets a stigma for with England.

Same for Canada with France.
It's not a hard thing to get... or shouldn't be. It's because the majority in Mexico are of native descent or of mixed-native descent and not white Spanish. Perception of the US would be much different if the majority of the native population were not completely annihilated.
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2016
369
72
230
#33
yes because cleary the wall the gon
What I "seriously want" is a strong border wall, so these people show up at the border, mill around a bit at the base of the wall, see that they can't get in, and just go home. But Democrats (and the establishment Republicans) have prevented that solution. I would also have armed troops there to warn them to stop. If they continue to come across the border after a warning, yes definitely shoot them. It's their own fault at that point.




I don't care if they are "desperate," it's not their land to just come and take. They are foreigners who are coming in without being invited. Invaders is the correct term.
i like how everyone lives in this fantasy land were a mere wall is gonna stop people who are willing to die did the orange stuff so much bullshit in your brains that you guys forgot the those other country that have walls you also have people making it through did you guys forget about ladders. how many of those country's are fucked because of the us involvement tho im sure trumpets never think of such things instead of just scream MAGA like parrots while they tell eveyone its there "cultures" fault and how IQ is lower .9
 
Dec 3, 2013
18,568
12,338
565
#34
This is a completely irrational downright racist fear that because white people in this country completely fucked over a group of people a long time ago that their ancestors are just biding their time while plotting revenge. The secession of Arizona much less California at the hands of Latinos is just a batshit insane idea.



It's not a hard thing to get... or shouldn't be. It's because the majority in Mexico are of native descent or of mixed-native descent and not white Spanish. Perception of the US would be much different if the majority of the native population were not completely annihilated.
It's still a colonized land taken away from the natives that were there prior.

My goodness the mental gymnastics with identity politics. The color of the skin is irrelevant. Bigotry and soft racism, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
2,483
2,861
230
#35
yes because cleary the wall the gon


i like how everyone lives in this fantasy land were a mere wall is gonna stop people who are willing to die did the orange stuff so much bullshit in your brains that you guys forgot the those other country that have walls you also have people making it through did you guys forget about ladders. how many of those country's are fucked because of the us involvement tho im sure trumpets never think of such things instead of just scream MAGA like parrots while they tell eveyone its there "cultures" fault and how IQ is lower .9
Whenever I see someone bring up ladders, I just have to laugh. Have you ever been to the border?
 
Jan 7, 2007
33,399
26
1,030
#36
It's still a colonized land taken away from the natives that were there prior.

My goodness the mental gymnastics with identity politics. The color of the skin is irrelevant.
It's very relevant in terms of perception. Most of the globe does not view Mexico as an extension of Spain's colonial history, whereas the same can't be said for the US and Canada (or Australia, New Zealand, for example). I've just been arguing with a guy who is afraid of Latinos invading "his" country and taking "his" land and that they might even take over California and Arizona in his lifetime. He obviously cares a lot about skin color.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what you were arguing in that post.
 
Last edited:
Dec 18, 2018
151
154
160
#37
This is a completely irrational downright racist fear that because white people in this country completely fucked over a group of people a long time ago that their ancestors are just biding their time while plotting revenge.

Some latino groups do indeed consciously plan to take back the American Southwest. Look up the "Aztlan Plan," or the La Raza and Mecha groups sometime.

But in any case their intentions do not matter. Once there are enough of them in the territory and most whites are gone, they will effectively have a Latin American colony in the USA. Will they formally secede? Who knows, but I doubt they will feel much loyalty to the USA.

I'm sure Santa Anna thought the idea of Texas seceding was "irrational" too.
 
Jan 7, 2007
33,399
26
1,030
#38
Some latino groups do indeed consciously plan to take back the American Southwest. Look up the "Aztlan Plan," or the La Raza and Mecha groups sometime.

But in any case their intentions do not matter. Once there are enough of them in the territory and most whites are gone, they will effectively have a Latin American colony in the USA. Will they formally secede? Who knows, but I doubt they will feel much loyalty to the USA.

I'm sure Santa Anna thought the idea of Texas seceding was "irrational" too.
Thanks for making it crystal clear that you do not view non-whites as real Americans. Good fucking god.
 
Dec 3, 2013
18,568
12,338
565
#39
It's very relevant in terms of perception. Most of the globe does not view Mexico as an extension of Spain's colonial history, whereas the same can't be said for the US and Canada (or Australia, New Zealand, for example). I've just been arguing with a guy who is afraid of Latinos invading "his" country and taking "his" land and that they might even take over California and Arizona in his lifetime. He obviously cares a lot about skin color.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what you were arguing in that post.
Perception isn't always reality. They were both colonized lands taken away from the natives. It doesn't matter the color of the skin, that's just bigotry of the victim Olympics from an ideology that keeps getting pumped.

They have more in common with "white Spain" just by their current native tongue, and Catholocism, than they do speaking Mayan and the practices.

Every bit like the United States, every bit like Canada (another one almost never criticized for the colonization thing either, by the "perceptive ones".)
 
Jan 7, 2007
33,399
26
1,030
#40
Perception isn't always reality. They were both colonized lands taken away from the natives. It doesn't matter the color of the skin, that's just bigotry of the victim Olympics from an ideology that keeps getting pumped.

They have more in common with "white Spain" just by their current native tongue, and Catholocism, than they do speaking Mayan and the practices.

Every bit like the United States, every bit like Canada (another one almost never criticized for the colonization thing either, by the "perceptive ones".)
Perception dictates how people behave whether you like it or not. "skin color doesn't matter" is some wishful thinking.

Also, I think a lot of Spaniards would disagree that Mexico shares more in common with them than native South American cultures.
 
Dec 18, 2018
151
154
160
#41
i like how everyone lives in this fantasy land were a mere wall is gonna stop people
Take a look at how much border crossings into Hungary dropped once a wall was constructed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_border_barrier

Israel also built a border wall and cut illegal immigration by 99%.


you guys forgot the those other country that have walls
As I linked above, those walls work quite well.


did you guys forget about ladders.
No, hence the shooting of those who make it over.


how many of those country's are fucked because of the us involvement
Agreed, which is why Trump wants to remove US troops from many of those countries, and is not starting more wars.
 
Likes: cryptoadam
Dec 18, 2018
151
154
160
#42
Thanks for making it crystal clear that you do not view non-whites as real Americans. Good fucking god.

Thanks for being hysterical and triggered. The whole point of this thread is discussing the stopping of illegal immigration by people such as Mexicans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans and so forth. Nope, not Americans, by definition.
 
Dec 3, 2013
18,568
12,338
565
#43
Perception dictates how people behave whether you like it or not. "skin color doesn't matter" is some wishful thinking.

Also, I think a lot of Spaniards would disagree that Mexico shares more in common with them than native South American cultures.
Well that's a whole other can of worms when it comes to prejudice and schisms.

One of my really good friends who does modeling in Mexico City, introduced me to a whole culture there where her family is seen as fair white skin "Spaniard looking", and how they have their very own prejudices between each other and look down upon one another based on features, class, maneurisms, accents, and the color of the skin.
 
Last edited:
May 10, 2009
2,803
351
665
#44
Either way, you're misclassifying the intent of the vast majority of border crossers. They aren't coming to "take" shit. They are coming to join, not steal the land and set up their own sovereign nation or claim it for Mexico.
We have a path to citizenship/immigration based on our criteria and laws. It's not for Mexicans and Central Americans to decide who is allowed here. I hope Trump starts getting the best of the best regardless of their skin color and have them start their business, research, bring their money, etc., here. There are plenty of people around the world that would love to be Americans and appreciate it, it's a crime that the government doesn't actively look for these people.
 
Last edited:
Jan 7, 2007
33,399
26
1,030
#45
There are plenty of people around the world that would love to be Americans and appreciate it, it's a crime that the government doesn't actively look for these people.
I can certainly agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening right now and lots of highly qualified people are having their visa renewals denied.

Well that's a whole other can of worms when it comes to prejudice and schisms.

One of my really good friends who does modeling in Mexico City, introduced me to a whole culture there where her family is seen as fair white skin "Spaniard looking", and how they have their very own prejudices between each other and look down upon one another based on features, class, maneurisms, accents, and the color of the skin.
Watching Mexican TV is pretty wild. One might think the majority of the population was white if they didn't know better.
 
Last edited:
Likes: DeepEnigma
Jan 7, 2007
33,399
26
1,030
#46
Thanks for being hysterical and triggered. The whole point of this thread is discussing the stopping of illegal immigration by people such as Mexicans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans and so forth. Nope, not Americans, by definition.
"Hysterical and triggered" coming from the guy advocating for the on-sight execution of illegal border crossers at the hands of our military and who is legitimately afraid of a Latino takeover of California and Arizona. Master of projection right here.

Anyway, this is what you wrote:

"Once there are enough of them in the territory and most whites are gone, they will effectively have a Latin American colony in the USA."

It's pretty clear you're talking about non-white Latinos, regardless of their actual citizenship. You made it clear you don't view them as Americans and question their allegiance.
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2016
369
72
230
#47
Whenever I see someone bring up ladders, I just have to laugh. Have you ever been to the border?

nope but last time i checked theres always a way through a physical barrier and we have proof of that so i ask again why are we paying for the wall , and when are you trumpets gonna admit you been had the and the Mexicans arent gonna pay for it.
 
May 10, 2009
2,803
351
665
#49
I can certainly agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening right now and lots of highly qualified people are having their visa renewals denied.
Government is too worried about offending the illegal aliens I suppose or giving an appearance of 'Racism'.

On the bright side I honestly think those terms like 'racist' are getting so watered down that they won't be as useful in the future, which could eventually turn into a bad thing... again.
 
May 10, 2009
2,803
351
665
#50
nope but last time i checked theres always a way through a physical barrier and we have proof of that so i ask again why are we paying for the wall , and when are you trumpets gonna admit you been had the and the Mexicans arent gonna pay for it.
I don't think you have thought it through. It's hard to climb a wall depending on the ladder you use. It's hard to climb a 20 foot wall no matter what ladder you use. If you bring your own ladder(s) it's going to be heavy and expensive. Do you see how it would limit border crossings?