PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Chamber of Commerce lies by omission over threatened border closing!




johnwk
03-30-2019, 04:57 PM
See: One Way to Tank Markets and the U.S. Economy? Close the Border with Mexico. (https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/one-way-tank-markets-and-the-us-economy-close-the-border-mexico)

3/29/19

“While the whole country stands to lose from even a short-term closure of the U.S.-Mexico frontier, no group stands to lose more than U.S. border communities like Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo, El Paso and San Diego, for which economic and social ties to Mexico are essential. According to the Laredo Chamber of Commerce, an average of 16,000 trucks and 1,400 rail cars crossed the city’s border each day as the Port of Laredo alone handled more than 50% of U.S.-Mexico bilateral goods traded in 2017.

The article goes on to point out The San Ysidro border crossing in San Diego County is the busiest passenger land port in the Western Hemisphere, processing 120,000 commuter vehicles and 63,000 pedestrians each day. So many area residents cross the border daily to work, shop, or attend school that the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce estimates that the local economy suffered lost revenues of $5.3 million just in the five-hour period the border was closed last November.”

What the Chamber of Commerce omits from its figures is the daily and devastating financial and social costs inflicted upon American citizens throughout the United States from illegal border crossings, and fraudulent asylum seekers who have left Central America to escape poverty which is not a lawful reason to seek asylum.

The cost to American Citizens is staggering! In a Washington Examiner ARTICLE (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/refugee-costs-88-billion-80-000-per-immigrant-free-welfare-medicaid) published before the Central American caravan explosions into the United States, it announced “… the five-year price tag at $8.8 billion in federal and state costs, or nearly $80,000 per refugee. There are some 18 federal and state programs refugees can tap for financial help, including food stamps, child care, public housing and school loans.

On a yearly average, it is $1.8 billion, or $15,900 per refugee. Included in that are enormous refugee resettlement costs such as $867 million in welfare, housing assistance and education.”

Keep in mind these figures do not take into account the added devastating social costs such as crime, the overburdening of local emergency rooms, and the inability of local schools to handle the flood of children of illegal entrants and fraudulent asylum seekers.

So, while the Chamber of Commerce whines about a short term financial loss in economic activity between Mexico and the United States if President Trump closes down the border ___ an act which would undoubtedly bring the Mexican Government to its senses and encourage it to stop the flood of Central Americans from entering their country on their way to reach the United States ___ the callus scum at the Chamber of Commerce ignores the devastating social and financial impact inflicted upon American citizens across the United States due to an uncontrolled border, and likewise ignore Mexico’s unwillingness to stop the flood of Central American fraudulent asylum seekers who really are trying to escape poverty caused by their own corrupted governments.

Anyone who does not support President Trump closing down the border which would bring Mexico’s government to its senses and encourage it to help end the invasion of the United States by those wanting to escape poverty, ought to be viewed as highly suspicious for not supporting the President, and highly suspicious for not supporting an abrupt solution to end to this ongoing invasion of America’s border. And this includes federal judges and Justices who may ignore a fundamental principal of survival . . . no law can be justified if it operates as a suicide pact on the nation.


JWK


There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.

Zippyjuan
03-30-2019, 06:32 PM
Anyone who does not support President Trump closing down the border which would bring Mexico’s government to its senses and encourage it to help end the invasion of the United States by those wanting to escape poverty, ought to be viewed as highly suspicious for not supporting the President, and highly suspicious for not supporting an abrupt solution to end to this ongoing invasion of America’s border. And this includes federal judges and Justices who may ignore a fundamental principal of survival . . . no law can be justified if it operates as a suicide pact on the nation.

Ron Paul is now a Suspicious Person. Rand Paul must be too since he opposed Trump's declaration of emergency so he could steal funds to build more wall than Congress authorized.

johnwk
03-30-2019, 06:47 PM
Ron Paul is now a Suspicious Person. Rand Paul must be too since he opposed Trump's declaration of emergency so he could steal funds to build more wall than Congress authorized.

Steal funds? Stop making crap up.

JWK


It was March of 2019 when an ongoing invasion of America’s borders swelled to tens of thousands a month, not a shot was fired to defend the borders of the United States, and America’s domestic enemies ___ socialists, communists and anarchists in Congress ___ continued with their obstruction against securing America’s borders and refused to pass laws allowing an immediate repatriation of undesirable foreigners who are invading America’s borders.

Zippyjuan
03-30-2019, 06:57 PM
Steal funds? Stop making crap up.

JWK


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-i-support-president-trump-but-i-cant-support-this-national-emergency-declaration


Sen. Rand Paul: I support President Trump, but I can't support this National Emergency Declaration

In September of 2014, I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution. He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”


I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)

I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

I was against foreign aid and foreign intervention without a true national security threat — under Republicans and Democrats.

I’ve stood up and voted against budgets that pile up endless debt and borrow too much — under Republicans and Democrats.

I will stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances we have — under Republicans and Democrats.

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding. First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders, and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders? As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power. In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.



Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

Swordsmyth
03-30-2019, 06:59 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-i-support-president-trump-but-i-cant-support-this-national-emergency-declaration

Congress appropriated the money in the emergency laws.

Zippyjuan
03-30-2019, 07:00 PM
Congress appropriated the money in the emergency laws.

The emergency law includes no appropriations.

Swordsmyth
03-30-2019, 07:03 PM
The emergency law includes no appropriations.

Yes it does, it appropriates whatever money it allows the President to divert to the emergency.

Zippyjuan
03-30-2019, 07:09 PM
Yes it does, it appropriates whatever money it allows the President to divert to the emergency.

How much money was appropriated in the Emergency bill? Link?

Swordsmyth
03-30-2019, 07:12 PM
How much money was appropriated in the Emergency bill? Link?

As much as the President required:

33 U.S.C. § 2293 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2293)

Secretary of the Army may terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense, without regard to any other provision of law (1986)


19 U.S.C. § 1318 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1318)

Secretary of the Treasury may eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or port of entry of the Customs Service; modify hours of service, alter services rendered at any location, or reduce the number of employees at any location; or take any other action that may be necessary to respond directly to the national emergency or specific threat

Zippyjuan
03-30-2019, 07:19 PM
As much as the President required:

33 U.S.C. § 2293 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2293)

Secretary of the Army may terminate or defer any Army civil works project and apply the resources, including funds, personnel, and equipment, of the Army’s civil works program to authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense, without regard to any other provision of law (1986)


19 U.S.C. § 1318 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1318)

Secretary of the Treasury may eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or port of entry of the Customs Service; modify hours of service, alter services rendered at any location, or reduce the number of employees at any location; or take any other action that may be necessary to respond directly to the national emergency or specific threat

There are no appropriations in that bill. You said the money was appropriated in the bill.

But if we take that logic, a President Clinton could declare a national medical emergency and institute a federal national healthcare program for all the people in the country and fund it by taking money from other programs (including border security or National Defense) and it would be perfectly legal. Would you support that?

johnwk
03-30-2019, 10:20 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-i-support-president-trump-but-i-cant-support-this-national-emergency-declaration

You made the preposterous statement "Rand Paul must be too since he opposed Trump's declaration of emergency so he could steal funds to build more wall than Congress authorized."


Under The National Emergencies Act, President Trump may declare an emergency and has access to certain funds. See: 10 U.S. Code Section 2808 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808) and 33 U.S. Code Section 2293 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2293).

Using that authority is not stealing funds. Stop making crap up!


JWK



Illegal immigration is now costing American citizens over $18 billion a year in healthcare costs alone! Far more than the measly $5.7 billion asked for to build a wall! LINK (https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-american-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/#193737f912c4)

Swordsmyth
03-30-2019, 10:58 PM
There are no appropriations in that bill. You said the money was appropriated in the bill.
It appropriates money for emergencies.


But if we take that logic, a President Clinton could declare a national medical emergency and institute a federal national healthcare program for all the people in the country and fund it by taking money from other programs (including border security or National Defense) and it would be perfectly legal. Would you support that?
That is not a use that has been approved by Congress nor is it Constitutional, border security and a wall/fence/barrier/whatever is Constitutional and has been approved by Congress.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-03-2019, 08:52 PM
Link?

Why?