The Law and building the "wall"

[imported_tajmahal]

The law giving President Trump the legal right to proceed with the building of a border wall already exists and is only waiting for Jan. 20th for President Trump to be sworn in before action is taken. A relevant link from wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

Good article by Byron York.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...onald-trump-to-build-the-wall/article/2609082
Quote from the article.

"As in other areas of immigration enforcement, Trump will be able to effect radical change simply by following the law. In this case, it is the Secure Fence Act, passed in 2006 with bipartisan support — 283 votes in the House and 80 in the Senate, including then-Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The law ordered the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of passage, to "take all actions the secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States."

More information is included in the article and if there's one thing that Donald Trump has to do when he gains office it's begin to enforce the laws on immigration and secure the borders of the United States. It's the law, he just needs to enforce it.

 

[amenx]

The law is not the point. Its the viability, cost vs effectiveness of the sort of wall Trump wants to achieve his objective of stopping illegals from getting in.

 

[agent00f]

He was never going to build much of any wall, and his sycophants know this even if they're going to blame it on everyone else anyway.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The law is not the point. Its the viability, cost vs effectiveness of the sort of wall Trump wants to achieve his objective of stopping illegals from getting in.

If you read the story you'll see that some massive wall about 2,000 miles long is not what's under consideration. Instead it's a combination of a wall along with double fencing and possibly other alternatives to making the border more secure. All are within the purview of the law and with what President-elect Trump said.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

He was never going to build much of any wall, and his sycophants know this even if they're going to blame it on everyone else anyway.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton didn't think so when they voted for the law in 2006, but maybe you're right.

 

[MrSquished]

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton didn't think so when they voted for the law in 2006, but maybe you're right.

I appreciate your enthusiasm. And it may happen. But I think Trump is too engaged with things like - running his business and Celebrity Apprentice to actually give a shit about major campaign promises. Pence is running the show, and this is going to be a socially regressive administration as a result.

 

[umbrella39]

Please update this thread when construction on the wall begins... I have bookmarked it for posterity...

 

[Balt]

So when is Mexico sending the check?

They're still paying for it, right?

...

Right?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Please update this thread when construction on the wall begins... I have bookmarked it for posterity...

You have no valid opinion now?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So when is Mexico sending the check?

They're still paying for it, right?

...

Right?

Ways to fund it were mentioned in the article, it's a pretty simple read and worth a few minutes of your time.

 

[Balt]

Ways to fund it were mentioned in the article, it's a pretty simple read and worth a few minutes of your time.

Remittance fees and extra visa fees, yes yes. Let's see how much Western Union and the American businesses that hire H2 visa workers like that.

 

[Meghan54]

If you read the story you'll see that some massive wall about 2,000 miles long is not what's under consideration. Instead it's a combination of a wall along with double fencing and possibly other alternatives to making the border more secure. All are within the purview of the law and with what President-elect Trump said.

It certainly wasn't what Trump was braying while campaigning...but you are right, Trump's backtracked on the wall, so we'll see what really gets done. (Nothing...or as SNL put it--Scrap it!)

 

[jackstar7]

It's the washington examiner. You saying it is worth anyone's time is dishonest, at best.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It certainly wasn't what Trump was braying while campaigning...but you are right, Trump's backtracked on the wall, so we'll see what really gets done. (Nothing...or as SNL put it--Scrap it!)

And you really need to listen to Saturday Night Live to really understand what Donald Trump has said.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's the washington examiner. You saying it is worth anyone's time is dishonest, at best.

It's a story in there, you can also read about the Border Wall law in wiki to judge how accurate it is. After all Senators Obama and Clinton voted in favor of it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I appreciate your enthusiasm. And it may happen. But I think Trump is too engaged with things like - running his business and Celebrity Apprentice to actually give a shit about major campaign promises. Pence is running the show, and this is going to be a socially regressive administration as a result.

The idea that he can continue active participation in his business and be an effective Presidential leader is ludicrous. The reason he thinks he can do it arises from his UberMensch delusion of infallibility.

I think we're going to be in for at least four years of bad government, high risk, crisis -- maybe even more military catastrophes.

Can anyone tell me, if the military budget was $250 billion in 2000, it was boosted to well over a trillion if you lump DOD and Homeland Security together during a period of two simultaneous wars, why the Trumpies feel it needs to be increased -- possibly even doubled?

I see Trump boasting of pie-in-the-sky, and all his followers blindly marching forward, but I predict another four years of disaster.

Personally, I feel hostage to madness.

 

[boomerang]

The law is not the point. Its the viability, cost vs effectiveness of the sort of wall Trump wants to achieve his objective of stopping illegals from getting in.

Sort of like LBJ's war on poverty? What's the figures regarding cost vs effectiveness on that?

I really have to laugh at those on the left that use the fiscal argument when something they don't like is proposed. The same people that judge themselves based on intentions instead of actual results will apply totally unreasonable criteria to anything they don't like.

Funds have already been allocated. The money is there at least in theory. Building it is easy, humans have been building walls forever. It absolutely will not be 100% effective. Little if anything is. The wall along with enforcement of existing laws,, human and high-tech monitoring will result in enormous reductions in both illegal immigration and the movement of drugs into the nation. (I can't help but think that the drug aspect is the one most upsetting to many.)

The left wants everything. They want it and they want it now. Free healthcare, high speed rail, free education, magic sources of clean energy, the list goes on and on and on. And they want it for all the people of the world. If you can sneak in here, you should be entitled to it too. What, you're seeking asylum? Well, here's your subsidized this, this, and this and your subsidized that. What they can't wrap their heads around is that we don't have the money to do the things they want because they can't prioritize. They want it all.

The times they are a-changin'. One constant in life is change.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Trump is impressive. Very few people can be a caricature of themselves.

 

[Meghan54]

Actually, I don't think the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the name given to the passed legislation you and your linked article are speaking of, gives Trump any authority to build anything.

Why?

If it was still a viable Act, why did Rep. Duncan Hunter, (R-CA), in 2008, introduce H.R. 5124, Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008? From your wiki link:

On January 23, 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles (1,100 km) of two layered, 14 foot (4 m) high fencing along the southwest border. The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.

So why was H.R. 5124 needed if the 2006 Act was still in force?

And why did this occur if the 2006 Act was still in force:

In May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced his “Finish the Fence” amendment for the second time, which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the US-Mexico border.

Seems logical to me, at least, that if the 2006 Fence Act was still a viable Act, neither the 2008 nor the 2010 H.R.'s would have been necessary at all. But they were.

Now, the answer seems to be in the article you linked from Byron York. While York did paraphrase part of the answer, he left out a significant part.

The section I'm referring to:

Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following--

York left out a quite significant piece of the above quoted section, namely this, which preceded the quoted section above:

2.(a) <<NOTE: Deadline.>>

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ367/html/PLAW-109publ367.htm

Deadline. Sounds like a cutoff point. A point by which the Act's requirements have expired. If that's not a correct interpretation on my part, why were H.R.'s introduced or even necessary to extend the 2006 Act?

So, no, I don't think Trump has any legal authority to build anything without authorization from Congress.

The law giving President Trump the legal right to proceed with the building of a border wall already exists and is only waiting for Jan. 20th for President Trump to be sworn in before action is taken. A relevant link from wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

Good article by Byron York.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...onald-trump-to-build-the-wall/article/2609082
Quote from the article.

"As in other areas of immigration enforcement, Trump will be able to effect radical change simply by following the law. In this case, it is the Secure Fence Act, passed in 2006 with bipartisan support — 283 votes in the House and 80 in the Senate, including then-Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The law ordered the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of passage, to "take all actions the secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States."

More information is included in the article and if there's one thing that Donald Trump has to do when he gains office it's begin to enforce the laws on immigration and secure the borders of the United States. It's the law, he just needs to enforce it.

 

[fskimospy]

Who cares about the legal authority to do it? It's a dumb idea regardless.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Actually, I don't think the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the name given to the passed legislation you and your linked article are speaking of, gives Trump any authority to build anything.

Why?

If it was still a viable Act, why did Rep. Duncan Hunter, (R-CA), in 2008, introduce H.R. 5124, Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008? From your wiki link:



So why was H.R. 5124 needed if the 2006 Act was still in force?

And why did this occur if the 2006 Act was still in force:



Seems logical to me, at least, that if the 2006 Fence Act was still a viable Act, neither the 2008 nor the 2010 H.R.'s would have been necessary at all. But they were.

Now, the answer seems to be in the article you linked from Byron York. While York did paraphrase part of the answer, he left out a significant part.

The section I'm referring to:



York left out a quite significant piece of the above quoted section, namely this, which preceded the quoted section above:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ367/html/PLAW-109publ367.htm

Deadline. Sounds like a cutoff point. A point by which the Act's requirements have expired. If that's not a correct interpretation on my part, why were H.R.'s introduced or even necessary to extend the 2006 Act?

So, no, I don't think Trump has any legal authority to build anything without authorization from Congress.

I doubt if it would be the first infrastructure plan to overrun it's date of completion deadline. You can see the same problem in almost any rail system.

 

[PottedMeat]

of all his crazy gimmicks this is in my mind the worst. with a wall all i see is a gigantic waste of steel and concrete that could have been used for infrastructure improvements everywhere. spend a little more money on drones/cameras/seismic monitoring/etc or even a dedicated satellite.

he could probably strongarm mexico into revising trade deals and throw in a small portion of the wall cash and get them to use their military to seal up their side of the border.

 

[IronWing]

of all his crazy gimmicks this is in my mind the worst. with a wall all i see is a gigantic waste of steel and concrete that could have been used for infrastructure improvements everywhere. spend a little more money on drones/cameras/seismic monitoring/etc or even a dedicated satellite.

he could probably strongarm mexico into revising trade deals and throw in a small portion of the wall cash and get them to use their military to seal up their side of the border.

It isn't needed. The BP has all the resources it needs to secure the border today. There are enough agents to hold hands along the border. The strategy of the BP needs to change from defense in depth to actually patrol the border. We also need to nail employer asses to the wall when they hire illegals. All that supply side interdiction ever accomplishes is that it raises prices for smugglers. Demand reduction is the key ending the human and drug trafficking. But employers in jail and drug treatment are no where near as sexy as high tech walls and high speed chases.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

of all his crazy gimmicks this is in my mind the worst. with a wall all i see is a gigantic waste of steel and concrete that could have been used for infrastructure improvements everywhere. spend a little more money on drones/cameras/seismic monitoring/etc or even a dedicated satellite.

he could probably strongarm mexico into revising trade deals and throw in a small portion of the wall cash and get them to use their military to seal up their side of the border.

That pretty much ignores the fact that President-elect Trump has pushed the idea of some type of wall or barrier on our southern border and has the legal and moral authority to do so.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It isn't needed. The BP has all the resources it needs to secure the border today. There are enough agents to hold hands along the border. The strategy of the BP needs to change from defense in depth to actually patrol the border. We also need to nail employer asses to the wall when they hire illegals. All that supply side interdiction ever accomplishes is that it raises prices for smugglers. Demand reduction is the key ending the human and drug trafficking. But employers in jail and drug treatment are no where near as sexy as high tech walls and high speed chases.

Then why hasn't it been done for the last 8 years ? If it's the law ?