US judge blocks funds for Trump border wall plan

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48406296

A US federal judge has temporarily blocked the use of defence department funds to build a border wall between the US and Mexico.

The judge granted the injunction to block the use of $1bn (£786m) in Arizona and Texas because it had not been approved by Congress.

President Donald Trump declared an emergency earlier this year, saying he needed $6.7bn to build the wall as a matter of national security.

It was a major campaign promise.

About 20 states, along with groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have filed lawsuits to try to stop the president using the emergency declaration to bypass Congress.

What did the judge say?

"The position that when Congress declines the executive's request to appropriate funds, the executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds 'without Congress' does not square with the fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic," Judge Haywood Gilliam said in his ruling.

He said plaintiffs were likely to show that administration officials "exceeded their statutory authority, and that irreparable harm will result from those actions"

Construction was due to begin as early as this weekend in the two states.

[oyarde]

I believe the judge is wrong . While it certainly should go through congress the existing authority is there . The authority is at least being used to theoretically protect america too for a change . Which I guess must be better than invading a country.

[spudea]

Congress' failure to allocate funds led to this emergency. Congress' failure to reform immigration led to this emergency. The executive must continue to enforce the law until congress gets their act together.

[juleswin]

zTrump ignored this policy promise the first 2 years in office while he had the senate and the house. So remember that he did this to himself.

[PAF]

I do not agree with restrictionism and funneling people through entry/exit points in order to process them into Fed databases, so for me this is a good thing.

I hope the people will begin to change the conversation to the root cause which does not whittle the Bill of Rights and that is shutting off the free money spigot.

Slim chance though, the statists can not wait to help fund more of the Fed and grow the police state. “Nationalism” is the new en Vogue.

[Schifference]

Lock up the judge.

[Schifference]

[Swordsmyth]

Thia was entirely predictable and it will be overturned.

[PAF]

One hundred percent STATIST garbage. Every word of that promoted growing government and not a single word about “get “documented”, you’ll get free money and all you want”.

So, is the “deep state” against Donald Trump, or is it really against Ron Paul...

Here is real news you do not want to miss:


A Better Solution Than Trump’s Border Wall
written by ron paul
monday january 30, 2017


Just one week in office, President Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His January 25th executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the US-Mexico border. While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.

First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will of course hurt the poorest Americans the most.

Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Though President Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.

Likewise, the 40 year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the United States.

We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more US states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.

Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990. Last year President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs. Thousands of civilians have been killed in US drone attacks. The grand US plan to “remake” the Middle East has produced only misery, bloodshed, and terrorism. Ending this senseless intervention will go a long way toward removing the incentive to attack the United States.

I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders, but unfortunately President Trump’s plan to build a wall will end up costing a fortune while ignoring the real problem of why people cross the borders illegally. They will keep coming as long as those incentives remain.


http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...-s-border-wall

[Swordsmyth]

Trump said he was asking for an "expedited appeal."
"Another activist Obama appointed judge has just ruled against us on a section of the Southern Wall that is already under construction. This is a ruling against Border Security and in favor of crime, drugs and human trafficking," he said in a tweet.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/us-judge-deal...035810125.html

[AngryCanadian]

Trump said he was asking for an "expedited appeal."
"Another activist Obama appointed judge has just ruled against us on a section of the Southern Wall that is already under construction. This is a ruling against Border Security and in favor of crime, drugs and human trafficking," he said in a tweet.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/us-judge-deal...035810125.html

Well Trump is right about that one.

[DamianTV]

So the logic of Congress is to invade every other country on the planet, but, leave our borders wide the $#@! open and just let everyone else invade us at the exact same time? We really do have TRAITORS in high positions of power in this country.

[Anti Federalist]

So the logic of Congress is to invade every other country on the planet, but, leave our borders wide the $#@! open and just let everyone else invade us at the exact same time? We really do have TRAITORS in high positions of power in this country.

Yes we do.

[Anti Federalist]

I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders - Ron Paul

The problem is that most of the people who are stonewalling efforts to eliminate the welfare state and erect some form of defensive border control, do not believe that.

[Superfluous Man]

The problem is that most of the people who are stonewalling efforts to eliminate the welfare state and erect some form of defensive border control, do not believe that.

The other problem is that the people who think "secure borders" means restricting the immigration of peaceful people coming here to work by their own means or the voluntary help of others are using the phrase totally differently than Ron Paul.

[Superfluous Man]

So the logic of Congress is to invade every other country on the planet, but, leave our borders wide the $#@! open and just let everyone else invade us at the exact same time? We really do have TRAITORS in high positions of power in this country.

Yes we do.

So along with this Judge, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Judge Napolitano, and every other constitutionalist who opposes an action by Trump that blatantly and unquestionably violates his oath of office is a traitor?

[ATruepatriot]

The other problem is that the people who think "secure borders" means restricting the immigration of peaceful people coming here to work by their own means or the voluntary help of others are using the phrase totally differently than Ron Paul.

"are using the phrase totally differently than Ron Paul." Some of us have longer memories than you do apparently...

By Ron Paul

With the November elections looming, politics is taking priority over sensible policy. It appears congressional leaders have no intention of addressing the issue of illegal immigration this year, preferring not to tackle such a thorny problem for fear of angering voters one way or another.

But this is a mistake. The American people want something done about illegal immigration now — not next year. All sides in the immigration debate agree that the current, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy cannot continue. That’s why I am joining several of my colleagues in demanding that the Senate vote this month on a border security bill already passed by the House earlier this year. I truly believe border security is the most important issue for millions of Americans.

Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It’s as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.

Although the border security bill already passed by the House is a good start, Congress needs to pass broader legislation this year based on the following simple points:

First, physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must have control over who enters our country before we even begin to consider complicated immigration reform proposals.

Second, enforce visa rules on those already in the country. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport individuals who overstay their visas or otherwise violate U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that some of the 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

Third, reject amnesty. If we reward lawbreakers who enter this country illegally with citizenship, then any new laws Congress might pass likewise can be ignored. Reform must begin with a new mentality that immigration laws will be enforced.

Fourth, end welfare-state incentives for illegals. Americans are quick to welcome immigrants who simply wish to work hard and make a better life for themselves. But taxpayers cannot continue to pay when illegal immigrants use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

Fifth, end birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth.

Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process. The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

If we keep these points in mind, immigration reform does not need to be complicated or expensive. It does, however, need to happen this year.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/09/...ration-reform/

Voters Want Action On Immigration

Rep. Ron Paul wants his colleagues to think about America—not reelection on issue of illegal immigration

With the November elections looming, politics is taking priority over sensible policy. It appears congressional leaders have no intention of addressing the issue of illegal immigration this year, preferring not to tackle such a thorny problem for fear of angering voters one way or another.

But this is a mistake. The American people want something done about illegal immigration now—not next year. All sides in the immigration debate agree that the current, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy cannot continue.

That’s why I am joining several of my colleagues in demanding that the Senate vote this month on a border security bill already passed by the House earlier this year. I truly believe border security is the most important issue for millions of Americans.

Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It’s as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.

Although the border security bill already passed by the House is a good start, Congress needs to pass broader legislation this year based on the following simple points:

First, physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must have control over who enters our country before we even begin to consider complicated immigration reform proposals.

Second, enforce visa rules on those already in the country. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport individuals who overstay their visas or otherwise violate U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that some of the 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

Third, reject amnesty. If we reward lawbreakers who enter this country illegally with citizenship, then any new laws Congress might pass likewise can be ignored. Reform must begin with a new mentality that immigration laws will be enforced.

Fourth, end welfare-state incentives for illegals. Americans are quick to welcome immigrants who simply wish to work hard and make a better life for themselves. But taxpayers cannot continue to pay when illegal immigrants use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

Fifth, end birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. True citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth.

Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process. The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods. If we keep these points in mind, immigration reform does not need to be complicated or expensive. It does, however, need to happen this year.

(Issue #38 & 39, September 18 & 25, 2006)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...migration.html

The 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Dr. Ron Paul’s 11-Point Plan That Could Save America

Have Americans read Dr. Ron Paul’s written plan for the country? Are Americans ready to upset the apple cart in a controlled and methodical way for the betterment of the greater good? The main source I am referencing here is Dr. Ron Paul’s website, so that we can debate his priorities and proposed approaches. I have paraphrased items from his site; however, I encourage the reader to thoroughly review all the links.

Here is Dr. Ron Paul’s 11-point plan:

11. Energy Independence: Eliminate the federal gas tax of $0.18 per gallon and eliminate the EPA, allowing prosecution of polluters to answer to citizens, not Washington, and allowing coal, oil, nuclear and other forms of energy to be safely explored.

10. Education: Dr. Paul would like to see the U.S. Department of Education return its powers to the states and parents. He proposes and intends to give parents a $5,000 tax credit per child for kids K-12 to help with all the costs of education. He is supportive of home-schooling and will veto legislation that interferes with parents choosing to home-school their children.

9. Workers’ Rights: Dr. Ron Paul is against forcing workers to join unions and pay dues if they do not want to, citing the $8 billion that union leaders bring in annually that is often given to political candidates. He does not want workers forced to belong to unions or to be under union control against their will.

8. Protect Gun Rights: Protecting the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Here is an example of a town that required each head of household to own a gun. This policy resulted in decreased crime.

7. Heath Care: Dr. Ron Paul will repeal Obamacare, allow for tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses and not allow money that belongs in Medicare or Medicaid to be misused for other purposes. He will protect the privacy of American citizens’ medical records from the federal government, remove barriers for all citizens to have HSAs and keep the FDA out of vitamins and alternative treatments. Also, he wants to provide payroll deductions for terminal illnesses and caregivers.

6. Pro-Life Issue: Here is the one fact all Americans need to know. Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate who has said, “So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.” Abortion is one of the most divisive issues and may always be a divisive issue as long as Americans have freedom of religion and the right to be, think and feel differently. Dr. Ron Paul may be personally pro-life; however, his voting record indicates that, even if a bill attempting to make abortion illegal federally in the U.S. were passed by the House and Senate, Dr. Paul would veto the bill as unconstitutional. Which other Republican candidate has a track record to indicate that? Would Dr. Paul look to put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court bench? Probably as much as past Republican presidents. The current Democratic President has recently placed two women on the Supreme Court, and new Justices are appointed only when a Justice dies or retires. Six Republican Presidential candidates have already signed the Susan B. Anthony List 2012. Dr. Ron Paul is the safest Republican candidate because he would veto anti-abortion bills at the federal level and support states that chose to protect women’s reproductive rights. His other strong Constitution-based reforms outweigh the small risk that Roe v. Wade would be overturned during his term, returning the power to the states, who can then protect women’s reproductive rights, as Vermont has. Would he truly respect the states’ rights on this, considering his strong personal stand? Many progressive states have anti-abortion laws on their books that are not enforceable due to Roe v. Wade. So far, Dr. Paul has written bills to make it possible for states to make abortion illegal in the Sanctity of Life bill. He wrote the We the People Act, which, if passed, would render Roe v. Wade invalid and return powers to the states. He signed the Susan B. Anthony list, which describes federally defunding all abortions and Planned Parenthood. If Dr. Paul can fix the economic mess, is the slight chance that Roe v. Wade would be rendered invalid something Americans are willing risk for the betterment of the country in many other important areas? We will not ever go back to a time before birth control, morning-after pills, RU 486, the Internet and other advancements. Certain states, even with Roe v. Wade, are extremely restrictive.

5. Immigration: In Dr. Paul’s own words:

Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists.

Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department’s list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.

Also:

Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It’s as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.

In short, Dr. Paul’s plan is to secure the border, end amnesty, abolish welfare to illegal immigrants, end birthright citizenship and protect lawful immigrants.

4. National Defense: Dr. Paul’s approach is simple. He believes in a strong national defense and is against militarism — in other words, protect the U.S. but do not police the world and require congressional approval before declaring war. The last time the U.S. formally declared war was World War II in 1941. Dr. Paul would bring the troops home to protect America. Dr. Paul said he would get the troops home as soon as the ships would get here. He is the largest recipient of donations from soldiers in the U.S. military, getting 71 percent of all military donations.

3. Taxes: Dr. Paul would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that abolishes income and death taxes. Ideally, he’d like to close the IRS. He would seek to repeal capital gains taxes and reduce then abolish taxes on Social Security. Before a flat or fair tax would be implemented, Dr. Paul would ensure that the 16th Amendment, which made income taxation legal, would be repealed so we don’t end up with both.

2. End the Fed: The Fed was created in a time of turmoil and seems similar to the Patriot Act in that it was done from a position of hysteria, not logical and rational decision-making. The U.S. Constitution is considered such a well thought-through document as it was drafted in a time of peace rather than as a reaction to a panic. Documents and policies that are reviewed and seen in the light of day by calm, rational people tend to be better for the long-term wellness of the people than policies passed quickly in an emotional, reactive and hurried manner. Dr. Paul equates the Fed with deeply-in-debt parents sending their teenagers out with credit cards and blank checks. Dr. Paul’s ultimate goal would be to see the Fed end, yet he would not act rashly. What his focus would be is a full and complete audit of the Fed, as Congress is currently unable to audit the Fed. Dr. Paul would commit to passing legislation that requires transparency and accountability from the Fed. At this time, the Fed can keep secret to whom they are lending trillions of taxpayers’ dollars. If the Fed is handling American money responsibly, for what reason would they refuse to open their books? We American citizens are all subject to audits from the IRS, but the U.S. central bank is not? Please take three minutes to watch this amazing video of Bernie Sanders asking Ben Bernanke, where $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money is. Bernanke will not answer the question and will not disclose where $2.2 trillion went, and he doesn’t have to.

1. Economy: Dr. Paul’s plan is to audit the Fed, veto any unbalanced budget and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. He is also committed to getting rid of self-dealing and corruption in D.C. Additionally, he will eliminate income taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes. It would be a breath of fresh air to have the Fed audited and wasteful government spending eliminated, and to actually be able to keep more of the money we make. America’s debt did not come out of nowhere. In 2008, the U.S. had spent $3 trillion on the war in Iraq. The current costs are at $3.2 to $4 trillion. How much did we vote to increase the debt ceiling? We raised the $14.3-trillion debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, to $16.7 trillion on Aug. 2, 2011. Here is a great 10-minute video with Dr. Paul clearly stating how, if elected president in 2012, he would balance the budget in one year.

In this discussion, I request that emotional reactions and sarcasm be set aside. The goal is an accurate, clear and truthful dialogue. We are blessed with a group of knowledgeable Americans making comments here. What I want to suggest is that we discuss what is best for the greater good for our country, not just for ourselves.

Any presidential choice we make involves a risk. Is he lying and manipulating to win the election, or is he honest? Will she serve American citizens ethically and honorably as president? The U.S. Constitution was created to unite the states in our country in certain crucial areas, like national defense, while allowing states their autonomy and uniqueness. In the spirit of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, good character is the most essential quality to bring to our government. Dr. Paul combines solid character and backbone with seasoned wisdom and experience. He has not compromised the values and principles that America holds dear.

If you are not going to register as a Republican and vote for Dr. Ron Paul in the primary, who do you think is better, and for what reasons? Don’t state what you dislike about Dr. Paul’s plan. It is easy to shoot someone’s ideas down.

http://pecangroup.org/tag/ron-paul-2012/page/2/

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations. (Jan 2003)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Government services in English only. (Mar 2008)
Rated C by the ALI, indicating an acceptably anti-amnesty stance. (Nov 2010)
Declare English as the official language of the US. (Feb 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Immigration

[Anti Globalist]

So the logic of Congress is to invade every other country on the planet, but, leave our borders wide the $#@! open and just let everyone else invade us at the exact same time? We really do have TRAITORS in high positions of power in this country.

Indeed we do and it sickens me.

[ATruepatriot]

Federal judge who blocked Trump's border wall donated $20K to Obama

A federal judge who partially blocked President Trump’s plans to build a border wall along the United States-Mexico border previously donated almost $30,000 to former President Obama, other Democrats, and a political action committee.

U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, donated $6,900 to Barack Obama’s debut campaign for president and $14,500 to his reelection campaign, according to federal election records. The same records also indicate he contributed $4,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2012 and, between 2012 and 2015, sent $3,100 to the Covington Burling LLP PAC, which supports candidates from both parties. His contributions totaled $29,000.

Gilliam made the donations, first reported by the Epoch Times, prior to serving as a U.S. District judge. He had said during his confirmation hearing that he “would base my decisions solely on the facts of each case and the applicable precedent, without regard to any political ideology or motivation,” and that “any personal views would not interfere in any way with my ability to neutrally apply the law.”

Gilliam is one of three federal judges who have donated to Democratic candidates in the past and recently ruled against the Trump administration.

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos and U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, both Obama appointees, ruled to release Trump’s financial documents demanded by Democratic subpoenas as investigations into President Trump continue in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. U.S. Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report stated that while it “does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” and Democrats have insisted the report provides a basis for further investigations into the Trump campaign.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...d-20k-to-obama

[spudea]

The other problem is that the people who think "secure borders" means restricting the immigration of peaceful people coming here to work by their own means or the voluntary help of others are using the phrase totally differently than Ron Paul.

How do you know who is peaceful and who isn't if you don't have a border and a process of monitoring who comes in and who should be restricted?

[Zippyjuan]

How do you know who is peaceful and who isn't if you don't have a border and a process of monitoring who comes in and who should be restricted?

We do that.

[donnay]

zTrump ignored this policy promise the first 2 years in office while he had the senate and the house. So remember that he did this to himself.

I hope that was sarcasm. If you're serious, you're simply not paying attention. Just because a person has an "R" next to their name doesn't mean they are going to work with the President. Many turncoats in the first half of his administration, still some linger in the second half on the payrolls of the globalists.

[donnay]

The other problem is that the people who think "secure borders" means restricting the immigration of peaceful people coming here to work by their own means or the voluntary help of others are using the phrase totally differently than Ron Paul.

Yes those peaceful MS-13 and those peaceful jihadis'.

[enhanced_deficit]

During DACA Breitbart controversy, some conspiracy theorists on Right had claimed that MAGA team was playing 'good cop/bad cop' strategy to fool the GOP bases and achieves policy outcomes not popular with GOP base through courts but such theories have never proven true in any MSM reporting. Also, courts are highly neutral and not political.

[r3volution 3.0]

A US federal judge has temporarily blocked the use of defence department funds to build a border wall between the US and Mexico.

Good, less spending

[Ron says:] The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

Those are solutions to the actual problems, but the nationalists don't care about the actual problems; they simply hate foreigners.

...so, suffice it to say, they want a wall.

How do you know who is peaceful and who isn't if you don't have a border and a process of monitoring who comes in and who should be restricted?

Better put up roadblocks at every street corner in the US to make sure no criminals are passing through

[Swordsmyth]

Good, less spending

Bad, more spending on more welfare ticks.

Those are solutions to the actual problems, but the nationalists don't care about the actual problems; they simply hate foreigners.

...so, suffice it to say, they want a wall.

The solutions can't be brought to pass when the enemy is able to import unlimited reinforcements.

Better put up roadblocks at every street corner in the US to make sure no criminals are passing through

Citizens have a right to be here and to travel freely through our territory, foreigners do not have a right to come here and turn us into a communist dictatorship.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bad, more spending on more welfare ticks.

So eliminate welfare for immigrants (duh).

But nationalists don't focus on this, because it doesn't solve what they consider the real problem.

The solutions can't be brought to pass when the enemy is able to import unlimited reinforcements.

Most of the voting public (i.e. the part already here, born here) is the enemy.

Citizens have a right to be here and to travel freely through our territory, foreigners do not

Yes, I'm aware that nationalists believe that foreigners are sub-human: possessed of fewer rights than the glorious natives.

I have a different view.

[Swordsmyth]

So eliminate welfare for immigrants (duh).

But nationalists don't focus on this, because it doesn't solve what they consider the real problem.

Trump is doing what he can about that but aside from the limitations placed on him by Congress and the courts there is the problem that communist immigrants will vote to give themselves ever more OPM.

Most of the voting public (i.e. the part already here, born here) is the enemy.

Giving them unlimited reinforcements that are more radical than they are will not help.

Yes, I'm aware that nationalists believe that foreigners are sub-human: possessed of fewer rights than the glorious natives.

I have a different view.

I sense that you are the repressed racist, they have all the same rights in their territory that we do in ours.

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump is doing what he can about that but aside from the limitations placed on him by Congress and the courts there is the problem that communist immigrants will vote to give themselves ever more OPM.

Trump is increasing welfare spending.

I sense that you are the repressed racist

they have all the same rights in their territory that we do in ours.

My mistake, your particular brand of nationalism (contra the norm) doesn't hold only foreigners to be sub-human.

It holds all humans to be sub-human; i.e. all people lack the right to go about their business peacefully without being caged, kidnapped, etc.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump is increasing welfare spending.

No, he is reducing it for both natives and foreigners.

You seem unable to understand international issues without applying a race lens.

My mistake, your particular brand of nationalism (contra the norm) doesn't hold only foreigners to be sub-human.

It holds all humans to be sub-human; i.e. all people lack the right to go about their business peacefully without being caged, kidnapped, etc.

You hold all humans as sub-human, you deny them the right to defend themselves from hostiles bent on imposing tyranny on them and you wish to deprive them of any say in their government and subject them to rule by force of those you believe to be superior.