What exactly is a national emergency? Here’s what that means and what happens next.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/15/what-exactly-is-national-emergency-heres-what-that-means-what-happens-next/?utm_term=.d3e21cebcb21


After teasing it for months, President Trump is officially declaring the U. S-Mexico border a “national emergency,” which will allow him to circumvent Congress’s constitutional powers to control spending and divert federal funds toward his much ballyhooed border wall.

His decision to do so, after not getting the money he wanted from Congress to put toward construction of his wall, has drawn immense criticism as an overreach of executive power. So, is it? Can he do this?

Let’s review the basic facts of what it means for a president to declare a national emergency.

What is a national emergency?

In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, which permits the president to pronounce a national emergency when he considers it appropriate. The act offers no specific definition of “emergency” and allows a president to declare one entirely at his or her discretion.

By declaring a national emergency, the president avails himself or herself of dozens of specialized laws. Some of these powers have funds the president otherwise could not access.

Under current law, emergency powers lapse within a year unless the president renews them. A national emergency can be re-declared indefinitely, and, in practice, that is done frequently. There have been 58 pronounced under the National Emergencies Act, of which 31 are still in effect.

When have they been declared in the past?

Presidents have declared national emergencies since World War II. As The Washington Post reported, President Bill Clinton declared emergencies 17 times, George W. Bush 12 and Barack Obama 13.

The vast majority have been economic sanctions against foreign actors whose activities pose a national threat, according to Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. A handful of declarations have involved noneconomic crises:

Clinton declared a national emergency during the 1996 Cuba embargo, preventing U.S. ships or aircraft from entering Cuban territory without authorization. Obama declared a national emergency during the H1N1 swine flu epidemic in 2009 to activate disaster plans to set up proper patient treatment.

Bush declared a national emergency after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; the order is still in effect.

Is a national emergency the same thing as an executive order?

In general, national emergencies have been declared through executive orders. An executive order is a command issued by the president that carries the force of law. The power is authorized, in part, by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Executive orders direct federal agencies on how to spend available resources. Thousands have been created by past presidents, covering topics as varied as the duties of the commander in chief.

The U.S. Supreme Court has only rarely held an executive order invalid, including one issued by Harry S. Truman in 1952 that seized the country’s steel mills during the Korean War, and another from Clinton in 1995 involving workers on strike.

Executive orders do not create new law or allocate additional funding, which is where Trump has run up against congressional hurdles.

Following his inauguration, Trump issued an executive order making construction of a barrier wall across the southwest U.S. border a federal priority. The wall could not be built unless Congress provided him with the funds.

How does a president declare a national emergency?

A president must issue a written and signed declaration that specifies the specific emergency powers he plans to rely on and invoke.

“Unlike other executive orders, one that declares a national emergency unlocks the powers contained in more than 100 other laws,” Goitein told The Post.

Of the vast statutory powers Trump would avail himself of, Goitein said two could arguably allow him to build the border wall with Defense Department funding. These federal statutes make available funds set aside for military construction projects or repurpose money originally dedicated to civil projects supporting the military and national defense.

What happens once a national emergency is declared?

Even though there aren’t many limits on a president’s ability to declare an emergency, it does not create complete freedom to act.

Anyone directly affected by the order can challenge it in court, which Goitein said will almost certainly happen in this case. Congress can also draft a concurrent resolution to terminate the state of emergency, leading to a somewhat novel act. Ordinarily, congressional resolutions support a president’s declaration of a national emergency.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is expected to bring up a “joint resolution of termination” in the House. Doing so would force Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to also bring up the resolution in the GOP-majority Senate, putting his members in a difficult position.

The House Democrats can also join an outside lawsuit or choose to sue on their own.

Does Congress have enough votes to terminate the emergency declaration?

Like any legislation passed by Congress, the president could veto the resolution unless it has received supermajority support (two-thirds in each chamber). Many Republicans have been critical of this approach by Trump, mainly because they see it as a slippery slope for a future Democratic president using the power to advance his or her policy goals. But it’s unclear whether there’s enough of them to vote against the president (and his base) to override a veto.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693128901/if-trump-declares-an-emergency-to-build-the-wall-congress-can-block-him


If Trump Declares An Emergency To Build The Wall, Congress Can Block Him

Under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, the president can declare an emergency for just about anything. As President Trump has considered using that authority to circumvent Congress and build a wall along the Southern border, that near-unlimited presidential power has gotten a lot of attention. But it isn't the whole story.

Congress also gave itself the ability to terminate an emergency declaration. In the more than 40 years since the law was passed, only one member of Congress has ever tried it.

"It was a lever that we had," said George Miller, the former Democratic congressman from California. "We decided to use it."

It was 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when President George W. Bush issued a proclamation saying government contractors could pay workers less than usual for recovery-related projects. He justified it by saying the conditions caused by Katrina constituted a "national emergency" and waiving federal wage requirement would "result in greater assistance to these devastated communities" and "permit the employment of thousands of additional individuals."

Miller and others in Congress saw it differently. There was a major natural disaster. Many of the people doing the recovery work would be victims of the disaster themselves, and "to suggest that they should work at lower wages was just an insult," Miller said.

Miller introduced a resolution under the National Emergencies Act to terminate Bush's action.

Under the law, the relevant committee had 15 days to consider the measure and vote. Fourteen days later, President Bush announced he would revoke his own proclamation. That was the closest Congress ever came to voting to rescind a presidential emergency under the 1976 law.

After Watergate and Vietnam

To understand the intent of the law, it helps to understand the time when it was passed, in the wake of Watergate and the Vietnam War.

"Congress [was], really on a bipartisan basis, reaching to claw back power from what was then known as an imperial presidency," said John Lawrence, who was a young congressional staffer and has gone on to write a book about the congressional Class of 1974.

In the mid-1970s, Congress passed the War Powers Act and the Budget Act, it expanded its oversight functions, and "the National Emergencies Act, which was enacted in 1976, was very much in that tradition, an attempt to put constraints around the use of presidential power."

At the time, there were nearly 500 emergency-related statutes on the books, granting the president special powers when he declared a national emergency but with little ability for Congress to constrain the president. The National Emergencies Act cut those way back. It required the president to specify which emergency authorities he intended to invoke once the emergency was declared. It required those emergencies to be renewed on a regular basis. And it created a fast-track mechanism for Congress to terminate a presidential emergency.

"The catch was that for them to actually rein in presidential power, Congress would have to take action," said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College. "They'd have to pay attention. They'd have to be willing to go against the will of a president, even of their own party. They haven't done that."

But that could change if President Trump follows through on his threat. A Democratic leadership aide tells NPR the House will "vigorously challenge any declaration that seeks an end run around Congress's power of the purse." That would likely include a resolution like the one Miller introduced in 2005.

If the Democrat-controlled House were to pass it, the Republican-controlled Senate would have no choice but to vote on it under the law. Several Republican senators have been cautioning the president not to put them in that position.

"I have real concerns about it, but I'm not gonna start talking about the floor strategy and how I'm going to vote and how the House is going to vote until we get there, and I hope we don't get there," said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

But if they do get there and a resolution were to pass, President Trump could still veto it. It's unlikely either chamber would have the two-thirds majority needed to reverse a veto.

That high bar may be one reason Congress hasn't been more active in pushing back on emergencies in the past. Another reason is presidents have typically used emergencies in line with congressional intent, said Russell Riley, a presidential scholar at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. But what Trump is contemplating would be different, he says.

"Having gone to Congress repeatedly having not gotten his way with them ... you can't simply throw your hands up and say, 'Ah, you know my commander in chief powers now will be invoked' to declare an emergency," said Riley.

For a president whose time in office has been defined by busting norms, and who relishes being different from his predecessors, it would be fitting that Trump could become the first president to have Congress actually vote to terminate an emergency declaration.

[Grandmastersexsay]

Hate to agree with zippy. Ron Paul wouldn't never declare a state of emergency for something like this. Then again he would simply let a government shutdown go on indefinitely. Then again he couldn't get elected.

[Superfluous Man]

In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, which permits the president to pronounce a national emergency when he considers it appropriate. The act offers no specific definition of “emergency” and allows a president to declare one entirely at his or her discretion.

This was a blatant dereliction of their duty. And every year they don't repeal this law is another.

[spudea]

Hate to agree with zippy. Ron Paul wouldn't never declare a state of emergency for something like this. Then again he would simply let a government shutdown go on indefinitely. Then again he couldn't get elected.

and he wouldn't get any of his agenda or campaign promises done, so its good that he lost, what a waste of time that would have been.

[Zippyjuan]

This was a blatant dereliction of their duty. And every year they don't repeal this law is another.

Actually the law was to try to take back the unlimited power Presidents had tried to grab. At the time of the law there were 500 "emergency orders" on the books. It forces a limit on the scope of the emergency- which must be stated at the beginning- instead of being unlimited and gave Congress back powers to call for an end to the emergency. An emergency order must be regularly re-approved by Congress to remain in effect. Repealing the law would restore unlimited emergency powers to a President.

[Anti Globalist]

Can we get a national emergency declared on the national debt?

[RonZeplin]

and he wouldn't get any of his agenda or campaign promises done, so its good that he lost, what a waste of time that would have been.
https://i2.wp.com/libertyhangout.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ronpaul2020.jpg?fit=752%2C440

[Dr.3D]

Can we get a national emergency declared on the national debt?
Maybe whoever that debt is owed to, can just forgive it.

[RonZeplin]

5 insane provisions in the amnesty omnibus bill (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/5-insane-provisions-amnesty-omnibus-bill/)

Before getting into the details of this crazy omnibus bill, it’s important to recognize that we don’t understand all the details. The worst provisions are written in vague language ensconced in an 1,169-page bill (https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20190211/CRPT-116hrpt9_u2-.pdf), which has already been posted online in two different versions (the first was 10 pages shorter (https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20190211/CRPT-116hrpt9.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1TQtRTOJTuAAvZhocOFC-nuA-8EXQsJ7_dIS2vYSCnPgLnhwWdJY-0MNw)). That is exactly why
Democrats are salivating to vote on this within a few hours of passage, which is exactly why Trump has a responsibility to oppose it immediately and demand at least a short-term clean (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/new-border-deal-building-3-wall-making-ice-pay/)continuing resolution so that he can digest the consequences of this bill. If he cannot make that simple demand, which would not even trigger a phony shutdown, then his presidency is worthless.

The process is indefensible: It is immoral, from any ideological perspective, to vote on an 1,169-page omnibus with new provisions on immigration amid a border crisis. We are already four and a half months into this fiscal year and have been operating on stopgap bills. There is no rush to vote on something like this, which will fund seven departments for the remainder of the year, within a few hours when we should have another stopgap bill while we debate, and even discover, the contents of this long-term bill that makes important statutory changes. The only reason one would pursue this process is to hide things from the American people.
Here are the immediate issues to flag:

1) Less of a wall than even what Democrats already agreed to: Trump originally demanded $25 billion for the wall. Then he negotiated himself down to $5.6 billion. Democrats balked and only agreed to $1.6 billion. This bill calls it a day at $1.375 billion, enough to construct 55 miles. But it’s worse than that. This bill limits the president’s ability to construct “barriers” to just the Rio Grande Valley sector and only bollard fencing, not concrete walls of any kind. There’s no ability to adapt. Furthermore, section 231 prohibits construction even within the RGV in five locations that are either federal or state lands. Remember, the challenge with building a wall in Texas is that, unlike in other states, the feds need to navigate issues with private lands. The first place you’d construct fencing is on public lands, which are now prohibited. The national parks along the border have gotten so bad that park rangers are scared to travel alone in them.

2) Liberal local officials have veto power over wall: Actually, on second thought, it’s likely that not a single mile of fence will be built. Section 232(a) of this bill states that “prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers” the Department of Homeland Security “shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city.” With whom must the feds consult? “The local elected officials.” Now you can understand the brilliance of limiting the wall to the Rio Grande Valley. These are the most liberal counties on the border (thanks to demographics of open borders itself!), and there is practically no local official who supports the wall in these counties.

What are the consequences? This bill stipulates that “Such consultations shall continue until September 30, 2019 (or until agreement is reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available in this Act shall be used for such construction while consultations are continuing.” Thus, all the Beto O’Rourke type of politicians in that region have de facto veto power. There’s a reason why they didn’t authorize fencing in conservative counties like Cochise and Yuma in Arizona.

3) This bill contains a blatant amnesty for the worst cartel smugglers: Section 224(a) prohibits the deportation of anyone who is sponsoring an “unaccompanied” minor illegal alien – or who says they might sponsor a UAC, or lives in a household with a UAC, or a household that potentially might sponsor a UAC. It’s truly difficult to understate the betrayal behind this provision. One of the driving factors of the invasion is the misinterpretation of the UAC law (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/dont-fooled-lies-unaccompanied-alien-children/). Under current law, Central American teenagers are only treated as refugees if they are A) a victim of “A severe form of trafficking” and B) have no relatives in the country. Yet almost all of them are self-trafficked by these very illegal relatives who are indeed present in the country. Rather than clamping down on this fleecing of the American people, the bill gives amnesty to the very people paying the cartels to invade us!

“We can call this the MS-13 Household Protection Act of 2019,” said Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies. “We know that 80 percent of the UAC sponsors are in the country illegally. The number of people this would protect would reach into the hundreds of thousands, if all of the household or potential household members are counted. ICE has estimated that 30-40 percent of the MS-13 members it has arrested in the last two years arrived as UACs. There is no reason to shield any of these individuals from deportation. After all, if the minor is living with family, they should no longer be considered unaccompanied anyway. If there are illegal aliens here who do not yet have a child here to serve as a deportation shield, this certainly is an incentive for them to make the arrangements to bring one.”

4) More funding to manage and induce the invasion rather than to deter it: While offering no new funding for ICE deportation agents or immigration judges to speed up asylum claims, as the president requested, this bill adds another $40 million for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which moves asylum seekers to facilities in the interior of the country, where they are usually released. Vaughan, who has studied interior immigration enforcement for decades, warned that “this bill will further expand and institutionalize the catch-and-release policies for those arriving illegally at the border from all over the world.”

What are the effects of the ATD program? “Most of these people have no intention of asking for asylum and know they don’t qualify for it, but are simply joining the illegal population, knowing it’s unlikely that they will be deported. The bill funds ‘case management’ staff to keep tabs on those who don’t abscond immediately, but no money for ICE officers to find and remove them. This is going to saddle the communities that have been forced to absorb these new arrivals with billions of dollars of future costs for schooling, health care, and other welfare services.”

At the same time, this bill reduces border detention beds from 49,060 to 40,520 rather than expanding them as Trump demanded. It contains no funding for more border agents. It offers $3.4 billion for refugee resettlement, more than last year’s record levels. Remember, much of the refugee program has been used not just for bringing in traditional refugees from overseas but to resettle the aforementioned Central American teenagers being self-trafficked through the border, empowering cartels, and taking advantage of us.

5) Doubling low-skilled workers: This bill (p. 1,161) doubles the number of H-2B non-agricultural, unskilled seasonal workers who will continue to be a public charge on America. This gives you a glimpse of what is driving this amnesty bill on the Republican side.

This is just a cursory glance through the bill. Taken together, these provisions will aggravate the criminal conspiracy of the cartels and continue the invasion. Just this week, 1,800 family units came in during one 24-hour period, a new record (https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Migrant-families-arrived-in-record-numbers-near-13611601.php). The message of this bill is to come here and seek bogus asylum or to grab a kid and you and others will get amnesty. Plus, there are no wall or policy changes to mitigate these effects.

Moreover, this bill will likely override Trump’s executive powers because of the sneaky limitations on wall construction. This is the sort of omnibus bill that ensnared Reagan in Iran-Contra. Signing this bill will undermine his case for an emergency (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/new-border-deal-building-3-wall-making-ice-pay/) at the border both legally and politically.

If Trump signs this bill instead of vetoing it and firing the people in the White House promoting it (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/politics/deal-government-shutdown.html), he deserves to lose re-election.

[CaptUSA]

What is a national emergency???

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52440820_1448429315288520_7680247191423680512_n.jp g?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=e262564b6416a69a13fb3e05a3a14755&oe=5CF86AD3

http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/H_-L_-Mencken-Quotes-2.jpg

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-our-government-has-kept-us-in-a-perpetual-state-of-fear-kept-us-in-a-continuous-stampede-douglas-macarthur-18-20-33.jpg

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Orwell-Continuous-War.jpg

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-love-casts-out-fear-but-conversely-fear-casts-out-love-and-not-only-love-fear-also-casts-aldous-huxley-85-82-77.jpg


https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/r/ralphwaldoemerson/134898/ralphwaldoemerson1-2x.jpg

Something like that.

[TheTexan]

Creating emergencies is a time honored tradition enjoyed by all American presidents.

Why should Trump be denied that right?

[Swordsmyth]

5 insane provisions in the amnesty omnibus bill (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/5-insane-provisions-amnesty-omnibus-bill/)

Before getting into the details of this crazy omnibus bill, it’s important to recognize that we don’t understand all the details. The worst provisions are written in vague language ensconced in an 1,169-page bill (https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20190211/CRPT-116hrpt9_u2-.pdf), which has already been posted online in two different versions (the first was 10 pages shorter (https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20190211/CRPT-116hrpt9.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1TQtRTOJTuAAvZhocOFC-nuA-8EXQsJ7_dIS2vYSCnPgLnhwWdJY-0MNw)). That is exactly why
Democrats are salivating to vote on this within a few hours of passage, which is exactly why Trump has a responsibility to oppose it immediately and demand at least a short-term clean (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/new-border-deal-building-3-wall-making-ice-pay/)continuing resolution so that he can digest the consequences of this bill. If he cannot make that simple demand, which would not even trigger a phony shutdown, then his presidency is worthless.

The process is indefensible: It is immoral, from any ideological perspective, to vote on an 1,169-page omnibus with new provisions on immigration amid a border crisis. We are already four and a half months into this fiscal year and have been operating on stopgap bills. There is no rush to vote on something like this, which will fund seven departments for the remainder of the year, within a few hours when we should have another stopgap bill while we debate, and even discover, the contents of this long-term bill that makes important statutory changes. The only reason one would pursue this process is to hide things from the American people.
Here are the immediate issues to flag:

1) Less of a wall than even what Democrats already agreed to: Trump originally demanded $25 billion for the wall. Then he negotiated himself down to $5.6 billion. Democrats balked and only agreed to $1.6 billion. This bill calls it a day at $1.375 billion, enough to construct 55 miles. But it’s worse than that. This bill limits the president’s ability to construct “barriers” to just the Rio Grande Valley sector and only bollard fencing, not concrete walls of any kind. There’s no ability to adapt. Furthermore, section 231 prohibits construction even within the RGV in five locations that are either federal or state lands. Remember, the challenge with building a wall in Texas is that, unlike in other states, the feds need to navigate issues with private lands. The first place you’d construct fencing is on public lands, which are now prohibited. The national parks along the border have gotten so bad that park rangers are scared to travel alone in them.

2) Liberal local officials have veto power over wall: Actually, on second thought, it’s likely that not a single mile of fence will be built. Section 232(a) of this bill states that “prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers” the Department of Homeland Security “shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city.” With whom must the feds consult? “The local elected officials.” Now you can understand the brilliance of limiting the wall to the Rio Grande Valley. These are the most liberal counties on the border (thanks to demographics of open borders itself!), and there is practically no local official who supports the wall in these counties.

What are the consequences? This bill stipulates that “Such consultations shall continue until September 30, 2019 (or until agreement is reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available in this Act shall be used for such construction while consultations are continuing.” Thus, all the Beto O’Rourke type of politicians in that region have de facto veto power. There’s a reason why they didn’t authorize fencing in conservative counties like Cochise and Yuma in Arizona.

3) This bill contains a blatant amnesty for the worst cartel smugglers: Section 224(a) prohibits the deportation of anyone who is sponsoring an “unaccompanied” minor illegal alien – or who says they might sponsor a UAC, or lives in a household with a UAC, or a household that potentially might sponsor a UAC. It’s truly difficult to understate the betrayal behind this provision. One of the driving factors of the invasion is the misinterpretation of the UAC law (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/dont-fooled-lies-unaccompanied-alien-children/). Under current law, Central American teenagers are only treated as refugees if they are A) a victim of “A severe form of trafficking” and B) have no relatives in the country. Yet almost all of them are self-trafficked by these very illegal relatives who are indeed present in the country. Rather than clamping down on this fleecing of the American people, the bill gives amnesty to the very people paying the cartels to invade us!

“We can call this the MS-13 Household Protection Act of 2019,” said Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies. “We know that 80 percent of the UAC sponsors are in the country illegally. The number of people this would protect would reach into the hundreds of thousands, if all of the household or potential household members are counted. ICE has estimated that 30-40 percent of the MS-13 members it has arrested in the last two years arrived as UACs. There is no reason to shield any of these individuals from deportation. After all, if the minor is living with family, they should no longer be considered unaccompanied anyway. If there are illegal aliens here who do not yet have a child here to serve as a deportation shield, this certainly is an incentive for them to make the arrangements to bring one.”

4) More funding to manage and induce the invasion rather than to deter it: While offering no new funding for ICE deportation agents or immigration judges to speed up asylum claims, as the president requested, this bill adds another $40 million for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which moves asylum seekers to facilities in the interior of the country, where they are usually released. Vaughan, who has studied interior immigration enforcement for decades, warned that “this bill will further expand and institutionalize the catch-and-release policies for those arriving illegally at the border from all over the world.”

What are the effects of the ATD program? “Most of these people have no intention of asking for asylum and know they don’t qualify for it, but are simply joining the illegal population, knowing it’s unlikely that they will be deported. The bill funds ‘case management’ staff to keep tabs on those who don’t abscond immediately, but no money for ICE officers to find and remove them. This is going to saddle the communities that have been forced to absorb these new arrivals with billions of dollars of future costs for schooling, health care, and other welfare services.”

At the same time, this bill reduces border detention beds from 49,060 to 40,520 rather than expanding them as Trump demanded. It contains no funding for more border agents. It offers $3.4 billion for refugee resettlement, more than last year’s record levels. Remember, much of the refugee program has been used not just for bringing in traditional refugees from overseas but to resettle the aforementioned Central American teenagers being self-trafficked through the border, empowering cartels, and taking advantage of us.

5) Doubling low-skilled workers: This bill (p. 1,161) doubles the number of H-2B non-agricultural, unskilled seasonal workers who will continue to be a public charge on America. This gives you a glimpse of what is driving this amnesty bill on the Republican side.

This is just a cursory glance through the bill. Taken together, these provisions will aggravate the criminal conspiracy of the cartels and continue the invasion. Just this week, 1,800 family units came in during one 24-hour period, a new record (https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Migrant-families-arrived-in-record-numbers-near-13611601.php). The message of this bill is to come here and seek bogus asylum or to grab a kid and you and others will get amnesty. Plus, there are no wall or policy changes to mitigate these effects.

Moreover, this bill will likely override Trump’s executive powers because of the sneaky limitations on wall construction. This is the sort of omnibus bill that ensnared Reagan in Iran-Contra. Signing this bill will undermine his case for an emergency (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/new-border-deal-building-3-wall-making-ice-pay/) at the border both legally and politically.

If Trump signs this bill instead of vetoing it and firing the people in the White House promoting it (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/politics/deal-government-shutdown.html), he deserves to lose re-election.
That ‘amnesty’ claim is based on section 224 of the budget -- which appears, on first glance, to block the deportation of many people who are illegally in the U.S.
That’s because it states that no funds may be used to detain or deport any "sponsor" or "potential sponsor" of an "unaccompanied alien child." It adds that even any "member of a household" of a "potential sponsor" is now immune from deportation.
But a DHS official told Fox News that terms like "potential sponsor" have precise meanings in Department of Homeland Security regulations -- meanings that severely limit the number of people the budget keeps safe from deportation.


For example, to be a "potential sponsor" according to the DHS regulations, one must file significant paperwork -- such as showing ID (U.S. or foreign) and proof of residency. The adult applying must also submit documents about the child.
Further, because the bill only applies to kids who are unaccompanied, it does not provide protection for those bringing kids into the US.
That would significantly limit the number of people to whom the no-deportation provision applies.


Chris Chmielenski, the deputy director of NumbersUSA, which fights for lower immigration levels and which urged President Trump to veto the budget, told Fox News that the provision is still problematic despite DHS’s clarifications.
“We still have some serious concerns about the provision,” Chmielenski told Fox News. “It still protects these sponsors and/or relatives who make it into the US. That’s not a precedent we should be setting.”
He noted that, despite the paperwork DHS demands of someone to become a “potential sponsor,” some might still try to game the system and that it could still encourage “unaccompanied” kids to be sent over the border.


“We would prefer this wasn't in there. We would also hope this is something that expires at the end of fiscal year,” he said.
The provision in the budget will be replaced by whatever the next budget says.
Another major alleged “poison pill” that may be misunderstood is a clause requiring the federal government to "confer and seek to reach mutual agreement" with local governments before building any wall.
The Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower immigration levels, tweeted that “the spending bill would give local governments in the Rio Grande (all of which are *heavily* Democratic) the ability to veto the fence. If those blue municipalities don't agree with DHS, the fence can't get built.”
But the DHS official told Fox News on background that the exact language in the budget -- "confer and seek to reach mutual agreement" – nowhere requires the federal government to actually reach an agreement before building fences.
Rather, it just requires DHS to consult with local governments – something DHS already generally does, the official noted.

Trump allies say that the information from DHS shines light on why Trump ultimately signed the bill after reviewing it. Some warned about “disinformation” on Thursday.
“Just spoke with the White House. There will be NO Amnesty and NO path to citizenship,” Sebastian Gorka, a former deputy assistant to President Trump and a Fox News contributor, tweeted Thursday.
Other criticisms of the budget Trump signed include that it allows the Department of Homeland Security to more than double the number of guest worker visas, from 65,000 to 135,000. However, the law merely allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to make such an increase; it would only happen if the secretary authorizes it.
Another matter of contention is that the budget authorizes 45,000 ICE detention beds; an increase from the past budget which paid for 40,520 beds, but less than the number of detention beds ICE actually has.
However, the number of beds authorized by Congress does not actually force ICE to reduce its number of beds, as they can use money from other parts of the budget.
Gorka says the claims of the sky falling are overblown, and also told Fox News that it was silly to call anything in the budget “amnesty” because it’s just an annual budget.
“How is a funding bill that expires before the end of the fiscal year able to create conditions for a lasting ‘amnesty?’” Gorka said.

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs...y-poison-pills (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-official-border-security-bill-does-not-contain-amnesty-poison-pills)

[Swordsmyth]

What is a national emergency???

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52440820_1448429315288520_7680247191423680512_n.jp g?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=e262564b6416a69a13fb3e05a3a14755&oe=5CF86AD3

http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/H_-L_-Mencken-Quotes-2.jpg

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-our-government-has-kept-us-in-a-perpetual-state-of-fear-kept-us-in-a-continuous-stampede-douglas-macarthur-18-20-33.jpg

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Orwell-Continuous-War.jpg

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-love-casts-out-fear-but-conversely-fear-casts-out-love-and-not-only-love-fear-also-casts-aldous-huxley-85-82-77.jpg


https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/r/ralphwaldoemerson/134898/ralphwaldoemerson1-2x.jpg

Something like that.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. 46yymvlAICnAXbnABclGywHaIV%26pid%3D15.1&f=1