-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
CNY2019 MAGA HUAT! GVGT Live! Desperate Dotard Signing STAE OF EMERGENCY For Great Wall $$$$
- Thread starter Ang4MohTrump
- Start date
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/donald-trump-state-of-emergency-executive-power-immigration
Trump Is About to Declare a State of Emergency. What Does It Mean?
By Corey Robin
Trump’s pending declaration of a state of emergency isn't a show of power — it's a show of desperation.
Donald Trump speaks to the nation in his first-prime address from the Oval Office of the White House on January 8, 2019 in Washington, D.C. Carlos Barria-Pool / Getty
Socialism is love! For Valentine’s Day, subscriptions start at just $14 if you follow this link.
What does Trump’s pending declaration of a state of emergency, so that he can commandeer funds to pay for his wall, mean politically? What does it tell us about his power or powerlessness?
I’ve talked on many occasions about Steve Skowronek’s theory of presidential power. In that account, presidential power is dependent on two factors: the strength and resilience of the existing regime, and the affiliation or orientation (supportive or opposed) of the president to that regime. The strongest presidents are those who come to power in opposition to an extraordinarily weak and tottering regime, who shatter that regime and construct a new one. Think Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. The weakest presidents are those who are affiliated to a weak and tottering regime, and completely saddled with their affiliation to that regime. Think Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter.
There’s one part of Skowronek’s argument — a third factor, if you will — that I’ve not talked about. That is the organizational resources that a president has at his disposal. Where Skowronek’s theory of regimes and affiliations is cyclical — regimes rise and fall — the organizational element of his theory is linear. The organizational resources of the presidency grow over time. Early in the history of the American state, the material resources presidents had at their disposal were few; with time, they became many. Reagan had far more resources than Lincoln had or than Jefferson had, merely because of the expansion of the state apparatus itself.
One of the most fascinating twists in Skowronek’s argument is that the steady expansion of state power, the growth of material resources, works differently for different types of presidents.
For presidents who are in the strong or realignment position — Reagan, etc., back to Jefferson — there are more resources at their disposal over time. Reagan has more material power than Lincoln had. But there are also more resources available to state actors who would oppose these presidents. So Skowronek argues that if you compare Jefferson to Reagan, you’ll see that despite Reagan’s possession of greater material and organizational resources, Jefferson had far more political power and room for maneuver than Reagan did. Jefferson’s reconstruction of the political universe was far more comprehensive than Reagan’s — Reagan was never able to get rid of Social Security or Medicare, he tried to launch a new Cold War but wound up having to illegally fund the Contras because Congress would not allow him to do it legally, and so on — precisely because the state apparatus under Jefferson was not as strong as the one that was under Reagan. Which meant that Jefferson’s opponents had equally fewer resources to oppose him. Jefferson’s opponents, the Federalists, had the courts, and that was about it. And with time, and more judicial appointments, that went away, too.
But for presidents who are the in Carter/Hoover position — and this also includes John Adams and John Quincy Adams — the expansion of the state apparatus has the opposite effect. Though those presidents are in the weakest political position possible, over time, they are able to do more, despite their weakened position, precisely because there is so much more material and organizational power at their disposal. Yes, their opponents have power, too, but that power is not nearly as effective as the other kind of power their opponents have, namely, the political power that comes under a tottering regime.
So Carter, despite his very weak position, is able to do unbelievable things, things Jefferson (in a strong position) could only have dreamed of. Despite the tottering of the New Deal regime, there is still enough belief in government under Carter that he’s able to get two new Cabinet positions and departments (Energy and Education). He’s able to launch a military buildup. He’s able to deregulate whole industries. Most potent of all, he gets Paul Volcker at the Fed. John Adams and John Quincy Adams, who were in comparable positions, scrambled to do anything; Carter, despite being in the same position, is able to do a lot.
Now we come to Trump and his declaration of emergency.
From a political point of view, the situation looks like that of a classic weakened presidency. For two years, while his party had control over Congress, Trump got not a single dollar for building his wall. Amid the debacle of the shutdown (more on that in one second), it’s easy to forget that while Trump did manage to extract $1.375 billion from a Democratic-controlled House to build 55 new miles of wall, he could not even get that from a Republican-controlled Congress.
After his first two years in office, Trump played what he thought was his strongest suit: he provoked the longest government shutdown in American history hoping to finally get Congress to do what he had not yet been able to get it to do. Despite that power play, he came out with even less than he had going into the fight in December.
These are signs of classic presidential weakness. Remember, Trump staked his entire reputation on winning the midterms over the issue of immigration and the wall. His message heading into the November elections was as clear as it was crude: “If you don’t want America to be overrun by masses of illegal immigrants and massive caravans, you better vote Republican,” he said in a campaign speech. Well, the voters heard him, and cast their ballots accordingly, leading to the Democrats’ largest midterm gain since Watergate.
Losing big on a signature issue, not once, not twice, but three times — during the first two years when the Republicans controlled Congress; during the midterm elections; and then, with the shutdown — is a classic sign of what Skowronek calls presidential disjunction.
Like Carter, Trump is in a very weakened position. His ability to define the political field has been almost minimal.
Yet, like Carter, Trump is the beneficiary of the increased resources that are available to a president.
Over time, Congress has granted the presidency the power to declare national emergencies. Though the 1976 National Emergencies Act was meant to constrain the president, it hasn’t worked out that way. As Elizabeth Gotein of the Brennan Center writes in the current issue of The Atlantic:
Trump Is About to Declare a State of Emergency. What Does It Mean?
By Corey Robin
Trump’s pending declaration of a state of emergency isn't a show of power — it's a show of desperation.
Donald Trump speaks to the nation in his first-prime address from the Oval Office of the White House on January 8, 2019 in Washington, D.C. Carlos Barria-Pool / Getty
Socialism is love! For Valentine’s Day, subscriptions start at just $14 if you follow this link.
What does Trump’s pending declaration of a state of emergency, so that he can commandeer funds to pay for his wall, mean politically? What does it tell us about his power or powerlessness?
I’ve talked on many occasions about Steve Skowronek’s theory of presidential power. In that account, presidential power is dependent on two factors: the strength and resilience of the existing regime, and the affiliation or orientation (supportive or opposed) of the president to that regime. The strongest presidents are those who come to power in opposition to an extraordinarily weak and tottering regime, who shatter that regime and construct a new one. Think Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. The weakest presidents are those who are affiliated to a weak and tottering regime, and completely saddled with their affiliation to that regime. Think Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter.
There’s one part of Skowronek’s argument — a third factor, if you will — that I’ve not talked about. That is the organizational resources that a president has at his disposal. Where Skowronek’s theory of regimes and affiliations is cyclical — regimes rise and fall — the organizational element of his theory is linear. The organizational resources of the presidency grow over time. Early in the history of the American state, the material resources presidents had at their disposal were few; with time, they became many. Reagan had far more resources than Lincoln had or than Jefferson had, merely because of the expansion of the state apparatus itself.
One of the most fascinating twists in Skowronek’s argument is that the steady expansion of state power, the growth of material resources, works differently for different types of presidents.
For presidents who are in the strong or realignment position — Reagan, etc., back to Jefferson — there are more resources at their disposal over time. Reagan has more material power than Lincoln had. But there are also more resources available to state actors who would oppose these presidents. So Skowronek argues that if you compare Jefferson to Reagan, you’ll see that despite Reagan’s possession of greater material and organizational resources, Jefferson had far more political power and room for maneuver than Reagan did. Jefferson’s reconstruction of the political universe was far more comprehensive than Reagan’s — Reagan was never able to get rid of Social Security or Medicare, he tried to launch a new Cold War but wound up having to illegally fund the Contras because Congress would not allow him to do it legally, and so on — precisely because the state apparatus under Jefferson was not as strong as the one that was under Reagan. Which meant that Jefferson’s opponents had equally fewer resources to oppose him. Jefferson’s opponents, the Federalists, had the courts, and that was about it. And with time, and more judicial appointments, that went away, too.
But for presidents who are the in Carter/Hoover position — and this also includes John Adams and John Quincy Adams — the expansion of the state apparatus has the opposite effect. Though those presidents are in the weakest political position possible, over time, they are able to do more, despite their weakened position, precisely because there is so much more material and organizational power at their disposal. Yes, their opponents have power, too, but that power is not nearly as effective as the other kind of power their opponents have, namely, the political power that comes under a tottering regime.
So Carter, despite his very weak position, is able to do unbelievable things, things Jefferson (in a strong position) could only have dreamed of. Despite the tottering of the New Deal regime, there is still enough belief in government under Carter that he’s able to get two new Cabinet positions and departments (Energy and Education). He’s able to launch a military buildup. He’s able to deregulate whole industries. Most potent of all, he gets Paul Volcker at the Fed. John Adams and John Quincy Adams, who were in comparable positions, scrambled to do anything; Carter, despite being in the same position, is able to do a lot.
Now we come to Trump and his declaration of emergency.
From a political point of view, the situation looks like that of a classic weakened presidency. For two years, while his party had control over Congress, Trump got not a single dollar for building his wall. Amid the debacle of the shutdown (more on that in one second), it’s easy to forget that while Trump did manage to extract $1.375 billion from a Democratic-controlled House to build 55 new miles of wall, he could not even get that from a Republican-controlled Congress.
After his first two years in office, Trump played what he thought was his strongest suit: he provoked the longest government shutdown in American history hoping to finally get Congress to do what he had not yet been able to get it to do. Despite that power play, he came out with even less than he had going into the fight in December.
These are signs of classic presidential weakness. Remember, Trump staked his entire reputation on winning the midterms over the issue of immigration and the wall. His message heading into the November elections was as clear as it was crude: “If you don’t want America to be overrun by masses of illegal immigrants and massive caravans, you better vote Republican,” he said in a campaign speech. Well, the voters heard him, and cast their ballots accordingly, leading to the Democrats’ largest midterm gain since Watergate.
Losing big on a signature issue, not once, not twice, but three times — during the first two years when the Republicans controlled Congress; during the midterm elections; and then, with the shutdown — is a classic sign of what Skowronek calls presidential disjunction.
Like Carter, Trump is in a very weakened position. His ability to define the political field has been almost minimal.
Yet, like Carter, Trump is the beneficiary of the increased resources that are available to a president.
Over time, Congress has granted the presidency the power to declare national emergencies. Though the 1976 National Emergencies Act was meant to constrain the president, it hasn’t worked out that way. As Elizabeth Gotein of the Brennan Center writes in the current issue of The Atlantic:
Under this law, the president still has complete discretion to issue an emergency declaration—but he must specify in the declaration which powers he intends to use, issue public updates if he decides to invoke additional powers, and report to Congress on the government’s emergency-related expenditures every six months. The state of emergency expires after a year unless the president renews it, and the Senate and the House must meet every six months while the emergency is in effect “to consider a vote” on termination.
By any objective measure, the law has failed. Thirty states of emergency are in effect today—several times more than when the act was passed. Most have been renewed for years on end. And during the 40 years the law has been in place, Congress has not met even once, let alone every six months, to vote on whether to end them.
As a result, the president has access to emergency powers contained in 123 statutory provisions.
Trump is now pushing the presidency’s organizational resources, in the form of presidential emergencies, to their limit. Like Carter, he’s got resources at his disposal that John Adams did not have. But as was true of Carter, Trump’s dependence on those resources is not a sign of strength but weakness.By any objective measure, the law has failed. Thirty states of emergency are in effect today—several times more than when the act was passed. Most have been renewed for years on end. And during the 40 years the law has been in place, Congress has not met even once, let alone every six months, to vote on whether to end them.
As a result, the president has access to emergency powers contained in 123 statutory provisions.
https://www.wtnh.com/news/politics/...cted-to-declare-state-of-emergency/1784392447
WATCH LIVE: President Trump expected to declare State of Emergency
By:
Posted: Feb 15, 2019 10:40 AM EST
Updated: Feb 15, 2019 10:41 AM EST
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Google Bookmark
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to More
President Donald Trump is expected to declare a State of Emergency during remarks in the Rose Garden.
Copyright 2019 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Google Bookmark
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to More
Previous
Trump says he'll sign national emergency
Next
EPA sets toxins response plan amid...
WATCH LIVE: President Trump expected to declare State of Emergency
By:
Posted: Feb 15, 2019 10:40 AM EST
Updated: Feb 15, 2019 10:41 AM EST
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Google Bookmark
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to More
President Donald Trump is expected to declare a State of Emergency during remarks in the Rose Garden.
Copyright 2019 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Google Bookmark
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to More
Previous
Trump says he'll sign national emergency
Next
EPA sets toxins response plan amid...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-national-emergency-violation-constitution-225336204.html
Congressman: Trump declaring national emergency is 'a violation of the Constitution'
Adriana Belmonte
Associate Editor
Yahoo FinanceFebruary 15, 2019
Video Not Available
Unfortunately, this video is not available in your region.
SS-100-202
This post has been updated.
Worries over another government shutdown came to an end after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Thursday that President Trump agreed to sign a budget deal.
However, McConnell noted that the president is also planning to declare a national emergency, scheduled for Friday morning at 10 ET, since the legislation will only provide $1.375 billion out of his desired $5.7 billion for a border wall.
Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) told Yahoo Finance “there’s no question” that the president declaring a national emergency in this instance would be brought to court, calling it “a violation of the Constitution.” (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Democrats “may” file a legal challenge over a national emergency declaration.)
ABC News reported that the Justice Department “warned the White House a national emergency declaration is nearly certain to be blocked by the courts on, at least, a temporary basis, preventing the immediate implementation of the president's plan to circumvent Congress and build the wall using his executives powers.”
View photos
U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and First Lady Melania Trump listen during a meeting with Ivan Duque, Colombia's president, not pictured, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Feb. 13, 2019. (Photo: Michael Reynolds/Pool via Bloomberg)
“The power of the appropriations of dollars vests in the hands of the U.S. Congress, not the executive branch,” Meeks said on The Final Round. “That’s the check and balance that the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution. We should not allow, and we will not allow, this president to try to violate the Constitution to try to maintain a campaign promise he made that does not make any sense and does not keep us protected.”
Trump had hinted at declaring a national emergency after the initial government shutdown, citing “tremendous obstruction by Democrats.” McConnell initially warned the president against such a move.
The National Emergencies Act of 1976 dictates that for Trump to legally declare a national emergency, he must couple it with a separate law that authorizes funds for emergency use. White House Press Secretary stated that the executive action is “to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border.”
Much of Trump’s 2016 campaign hedged on his promise to build a wall and ensure border security, arguing that the illegal flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants into the U.S. from Mexico amounted to a “crisis.” Meeks disagrees these conidtions amount to a national emergency, stating that the crisis “was made up” by Trump.
View photos
Rep. Meeks disapproves of Trump's national emergency declaration. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
“He’s now trying to attempt a campaign promise that he even lied about, because he said Mexico was going to pay for his wall,” Meeks said. “He’s not getting his wall, and we’re not going to allow him to avert the Constitution of the United States of America and to go around what is within the jurisdiction of the United States Congress.”
Adriana is an associate editor for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter @adrianambells.
READ MORE:
Congressman: Trump declaring national emergency is 'a violation of the Constitution'
Adriana Belmonte
Associate Editor
Yahoo FinanceFebruary 15, 2019
Video Not Available
Unfortunately, this video is not available in your region.
SS-100-202
This post has been updated.
Worries over another government shutdown came to an end after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Thursday that President Trump agreed to sign a budget deal.
However, McConnell noted that the president is also planning to declare a national emergency, scheduled for Friday morning at 10 ET, since the legislation will only provide $1.375 billion out of his desired $5.7 billion for a border wall.
Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) told Yahoo Finance “there’s no question” that the president declaring a national emergency in this instance would be brought to court, calling it “a violation of the Constitution.” (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Democrats “may” file a legal challenge over a national emergency declaration.)
ABC News reported that the Justice Department “warned the White House a national emergency declaration is nearly certain to be blocked by the courts on, at least, a temporary basis, preventing the immediate implementation of the president's plan to circumvent Congress and build the wall using his executives powers.”
View photos
U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and First Lady Melania Trump listen during a meeting with Ivan Duque, Colombia's president, not pictured, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Feb. 13, 2019. (Photo: Michael Reynolds/Pool via Bloomberg)
“The power of the appropriations of dollars vests in the hands of the U.S. Congress, not the executive branch,” Meeks said on The Final Round. “That’s the check and balance that the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution. We should not allow, and we will not allow, this president to try to violate the Constitution to try to maintain a campaign promise he made that does not make any sense and does not keep us protected.”
Trump had hinted at declaring a national emergency after the initial government shutdown, citing “tremendous obstruction by Democrats.” McConnell initially warned the president against such a move.
The National Emergencies Act of 1976 dictates that for Trump to legally declare a national emergency, he must couple it with a separate law that authorizes funds for emergency use. White House Press Secretary stated that the executive action is “to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border.”
Much of Trump’s 2016 campaign hedged on his promise to build a wall and ensure border security, arguing that the illegal flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants into the U.S. from Mexico amounted to a “crisis.” Meeks disagrees these conidtions amount to a national emergency, stating that the crisis “was made up” by Trump.
View photos
Rep. Meeks disapproves of Trump's national emergency declaration. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
“He’s now trying to attempt a campaign promise that he even lied about, because he said Mexico was going to pay for his wall,” Meeks said. “He’s not getting his wall, and we’re not going to allow him to avert the Constitution of the United States of America and to go around what is within the jurisdiction of the United States Congress.”
Adriana is an associate editor for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter @adrianambells.
READ MORE:
Even the world's totally blind people can see that, USA is in a very weak poor and desperate state. It cannot protect it's own soil from even refugees and asylum seekers. They call these people who they were once proud to help INVADERS! Desperately looking for money to build a wall to stop them from coming!
As hopeless and helpless as this, can they stop terrorist from invading? Can they stop drug trafficking? Can they stop missiles whacking at them? Can they stop ICBM nuke warheads? Can they stop Hypersonic HGV nukes? Can they stop any of Putin's 6 new deadly doomsday weapons?
Can they intercept Hwasong-15 from Pyongyang? Can they stop Allahs' missiles from Iran?
CAN THEY DEFEND PAP'S PEE SAI?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
As hopeless and helpless as this, can they stop terrorist from invading? Can they stop drug trafficking? Can they stop missiles whacking at them? Can they stop ICBM nuke warheads? Can they stop Hypersonic HGV nukes? Can they stop any of Putin's 6 new deadly doomsday weapons?
Can they intercept Hwasong-15 from Pyongyang? Can they stop Allahs' missiles from Iran?
CAN THEY DEFEND PAP'S PEE SAI?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
He has saved the taxpayer many times over.
Congress impeachment against Dotard is getting closer and closer.
Hitler became Hitler by signing Emergency Power!
Others want to just shoot him or throw him life imprisoned.
This is the first time that Trump has used emergency powers during his two years as President.
Recent past presidents have used them countless times while they were in office.
Bill Clinton declared 17 national emergencies,
Bush declared one 13 times and Obama, used it 12 times.
Many were for trivial reasons.
None of the above were accused of acting like Hitler.
That is the real issue, other presidents appropriately exercise emergency power, e.g. Hurricane, Flood, Quake, SARS/Mad-Cow/Epidemic hits.... e.g. People were dead and hurt and homeless, and dying, all expecting emergency helps. Congress and tax payers will have absolutely no objection to State of Emergencies like that.
Fucking Dotard DOES NOT USE EMERGENCY when people were killed in 16 Atlantic Hurricanes in 2018 Alone! Nothing! He let people die. And MAGA himself provoking Kim Jong Nuke to fire Hwasong in 2018. As for his only use of EMERGENCY is an ABSOLUTE ABUSE, and only for ROBBERY OF TAX FUNDS where CONGRESS CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY OBJECTED & REJECTED HIS PLANS & MAGA POLICIES.
Dotard did not even Declare Emergency When Hwasong were hitting near Guam. He just changed his arrogance to suck-up to hug and kiss Kim Jong Nuke!
That is why we know that Putin & Xi must nuke USA and get Mushrooms Rising by hundreds in USA, Dotard will suck and kiss and love them, and declare himself a Russian & Chinese Citizen & sing their anthems daily!
The human suffering, death and carnage caused by uncontrolled immigration across the Southern border is far, far worse than any one off event like a Hurricane or flood.
Natural disasters happen, they kill and then a community recovers. The communities that live in the border towns experience regular tragedies with no end in sight till the wall is built.
And as far as your claim that past Presidents used national emergency powers for floods, hurricanes and epidemics nothing could be further from the truth. You can see for yourself the list is at http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...iesUndertheNationalEmergenciesAct_2.13.19.pdf
As you can see none of the past national emergency declarations involved noble causes. Most were politically motivated and designed to influence foreign policy.
I would like to congratulate Trump for doing the right thing for the American people.
Last edited:
Americans - at least the original version took pride in saving migrants and with only the Natives Indians (red necks) exception, all the rest regardless of colors are migrants. I was a bit appreciating this when Chow Ang Moh told me what was American History of Thanks-Giving Days.
It was when Chow Ang Moh White Ass themselves were Migrants in the early days, and were suffering hunger and dying and were rescued by Red Neck Indians giving them TURKEY MEAT to survive from Cold & Starvation. And Thanks-Giving Days was to thank them. But Chow Ang Moh bastards later gun away countless tribes of Indians and plundered everything from them!
Original Americans APPRECIATE MIGRANTS AND RENDER THEM HELP & WELCOME them! Share with them. That was what I understood and what made America Great.
This MAGA DOTARD REVERSED THAT TO THE MAX! and he robbed from Congress and Tax Payers funds abusing White House's Power, to build fucking NON-GREAT WALL to BLOCK MIGRANTS call that MAGA!
In the Original American Spirit, he should be skinned alive and fed to wolfs.
Americans - at least the original version took pride in saving migrants and with only the Natives Indians (red necks) exception, all the rest regardless of colors are migrants. I was a bit appreciating this when Chow Ang Moh told me what was American History of Thanks-Giving Days.
It was when Chow Ang Moh White Ass themselves were Migrants in the early days, and were suffering hunger and dying and were rescued by Red Neck Indians giving them TURKEY MEAT to survive from Cold & Starvation. And Thanks-Giving Days was to thank them. But Chow Ang Moh bastards later gun away countless tribes of Indians and plundered everything from them!
Original Americans APPRECIATE MIGRANTS AND RENDER THEM HELP & WELCOME them! Share with them. That was what I understood and what made America Great.
This MAGA DOTARD REVERSED THAT TO THE MAX! and he robbed from Congress and Tax Payers funds abusing White House's Power, to build fucking NON-GREAT WALL to BLOCK MIGRANTS call that MAGA!
In the Original American Spirit, he should be skinned alive and fed to wolfs.
The wall is not there to block immigrants. It is there to block illegal immigrants.
Chow Ang Moh saved by Turkey sharing Red Necks were even more ILLEGAL MIGRANTS than, there were actually BANDITS TERRORISTS & PLUNDERING BASTARDS, like dogs which bit hands who fed them, they shot Indians by entire tribe (George Washington personally worn skin boots skin from Indians = worst then ISIS!) Rush to Wild Wild West to plunder gold.
What are legal migrants?
Those who suckers who brought millions to get green card?
They will never need help never need thanksgiving turkey to safe their ass from starvation. Those have more money than congress and can build great walls themselves. Those already got smart - they left USA!
The Ang Mohs were not immigrants you twit they were invaders and that is what invaders do. You are obviously ignorant of the rules of warfare.
You need to get your facts right.
INVADERS = WORSE THEN ILLEGAL MIGRANTS = TERRORISTS & ENEMIES, should be skinned and fed to wolfs. And yet the kind Native Americans red necks save their ass and shared turkeys with them. Should had watch them staved dead and use their corpse to feed beats. There is a a whole lot of primitive brutalities Dotard ought to face from Original American spirits.
American Flag and Constitution is BETRAYED & HUMILIATED to the MAX by MAGA DOTARD.
Similar threads
