"National Emergency" it is!

[Guest]

And if you can find 100 people in this country who oppose having and enforcing the border, I’d be shocked.

Well. EA is one. So we only have 99 more to go.

ref: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ ... en-borders

- Doc

[_subgenius]

And if you can find 100 people in this country who oppose having and enforcing the border, I’d be shocked.

Well. EA is one. So we only have 99 more to go.

- Doc

KG, Themis, and Canpakes….96 and counting down....

[_EAllusion]

And if you can find 100 people in this country who oppose having and enforcing the border, I’d be shocked.

Well. EAllusion is one. So we only have 99 more to go.

ref: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ ... en-borders

- Doc

An article arguing that libertarians should support open borders, with exceptions that makes it literally not support of open borders, proves that anyone who says they are libertarian supports open borders.

Logic.

The reason this article exists is that the paleos tend to be quite anti-immigration. It's part of their protectionist/isolationist streak. Ron Paul, for instance, is quite hostile to immigration. "Normal" libertarians tend to be very pro-immigration. This is one of the things that distinguishes them.

I support relatively open borders, but believe in orderly enforcement of immigration restrictions that include examples listed in this article, so not actual "open borders." There are some people who think the US should revert to the immigration policy of roughly its first 100 years of existence, which was more of a true open borders situation. But even then, our country "had a border." I can't think of anyone who opposes that. If it's so hard to imagine how a country can allow the free flow of immigrants and have a border, look at the map of the United States and see if states with definable boundaries and jurisdictions exist. I can enter and leave Illinois whenever I want, but Illinois has a border with jurisdictional authority that distinguishes it from Wisconsin.

Ajax et. al. describes anyone who opposes their draconian immigration policy as support of open borders as a rhetorical move to discredit anyone to the left of their positioning, which includes the vast majority of the country both now and in the past.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You gotta watch this video about Trump's efforts to build the wall on citizens' properties:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... -politics/

It's absolutely immoral to destroy their lives for political gain. Crazy.

- Doc

[_Doctor Steuss]

<snip pic>

And Trump said Obama should be impeached because of it. That pendulum...

[_Brackite]

This is good to see.

House Democrats challenged President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration Friday, setting up dramatic votes in Congress on whether to rein in the president's flex of executive power.
Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, introduced the measure to block Trump's action, which he took last week to divert money to build his proposed border wall. Democrats have called the president's move a power grab sparked by lawmakers denying him the funding he wanted to construct barriers between the U.S. and Mexico.

The Democratic-held House plans to vote on the bill Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters on Friday. On the same call where Pelosi spoke, Castro told reporters that the measure has at least 226 co-sponsors, including one Republican, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan. The number tops the 218 votes the plan needs to pass the House.
On Friday, Castro called the declaration "a historic power grab." Pelosi argued it "clearly violates Congress's exclusive power of the purse."
The challenge for Democrats starts when the proposal goes to the GOP-held Senate. Several Republicans have showed concerns about the precedent set by Trump's declaration. The resolution will put pressure on them to choose between acting on professed worries about expanded executive power, or backing a president with strong support among GOP voters.
At least one GOP senator — Susan Collins of Maine — will vote for a resolution to block the emergency declaration. To reach the majority needed for the measure to clear the Senate, the 47 Democrats in the chamber would then need only three more Republicans to join them. That could easily happen.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.c ... ation.html

[_Brackite]

And there is this about California's lawsuit.

California’s Lawsuit Against Trump’s Emergency Wall Is Written to Appeal to Neil Gorsuch

Last Friday, President Donald Trump declared a national state of emergency at the southern border, adding that it wasn’t one of those emergencies he actually “needed” to declare and then saying a bunch of other things. As he predicted, a coalition of 16 states filed a federal lawsuit on Monday night, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the president from acting on his emergency declaration. As he also predicted, that suit was filed in federal district court in California.

[_canpakes]

And if you can find 100 people in this country who oppose having and enforcing the border, I’d be shocked.

Well. EA is one. So we only have 99 more to go.

- Doc

KG, Themis, and Canpakes….96 and counting down....

Oops. As you often are elsewhere, you’re wrong here as well.

I know that your mind has difficulty grasping the concept, but a border wall is to border security as a Band-Aid on your shiny scalp is to head protection. And it doesn’t get any better by spending 5 billion dollars on that Band-Aid.

[_subgenius]

... on your shiny scalp ...

Such an odd, and specific, analogy.....explain to the audience why you assume such a detail.

[_Kevin Graham]

KG, Themis, and Canpakes….96 and counting down....

More stupid lies. Get back with us when you can figure out 700/10 =?