Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, January 07, 2018

The Trump administration has told lawmakers that it wants $18 billion over the next decade for the initial phase of a Mexico border wall, laying out for the first time a detailed financial blueprint for the president's signature campaign promise. The money would pay for 316 miles of new fencing and reinforce another 407 miles where barriers are already in place, according to cost estimates sent to senators Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If the work was completed, more than half of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico would have a wall or other physical structure by 2027.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Democratic lawmakers blasted the $18 billion request, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, and it arrived in the middle of delicate budget negotiations that include the risk of a government shutdown Jan. 20 if no deal is reached.

"President Trump has said he may need a good government shutdown to get his wall. With this demand, he seems to be heading in that direction," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Immigration subcommittee.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So... Bank of Mexico shut their doors when they saw him crossing the street?

#1 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-01-06 06:07 AM | Reply

DOC

" president's signature campaign promise."

That wasn't his signature campaign promise. He must have said it a thousand times ~ " Who's gonna pay for the wall? Mexico's gonna pay for the wall!"

He must have been lying. Whoda thunk it?

#2 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-06 07:29 AM | Reply

BTW DOC. Before anybody else shows up, how are things on Jupiter?

#3 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-06 07:40 AM | Reply

How much does a jet-pack cost?..
www.google.com

How much does a drone capable of lifting 200 lbs cost?...
www.google.com

How much security will 18 Billion actually buy?

Not a very good cost/benefit plan is it?

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-01-06 12:34 PM | Reply

I would be in favor of building as grandiose a wall as Trump wants provided construction couldn't start until the check arrived from Mexico and cleared the bank.

#5 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2018-01-06 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

SOMEBODY

Trump would just buy a construction company and award the bid to himself.

#6 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-06 04:42 PM | Reply

How much does impeachment cost?

#7 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-01-07 02:18 PM | Reply

"If the work was completed, more than half of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico would have a wall or other physical structure by 2027."

That's not even close to what was promised.

Needless to say, Trump voters still support it without reservation.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-07 02:19 PM | Reply

Give it to him with the provision that only U.S. materials and labor be used in its construction.

#9 | Posted by TenMile at 2018-01-07 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Re #5

Exactly that.

He can have his FN "wall" if he can get Mexico to pay for it.

Just like he said he would. And it is not just that he said it. It is how he said it.

Otherwise, we shouldn't agree to a damn thing.

Not unless we can agree on a complete immigration reform package.

It's time to quit effing around.

Lives are in the balance.

All or Nothing.

"Border security depends on the smart and efficient use of available resources. At the same, border enforcement cannot and should not be done in isolation. Instead, it must be examined in the larger context of reforms needed for the entire immigration system."

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-07 02:28 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Nope, the Dems shouldn't agree to this trade-off, and I hope they won't.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-07 02:48 PM | Reply

WILL. NEVER. HAPPEN.

The Dems see this not only as a colossal waste of money but also as the linchpin of Trump's political narrative. Deny the funds and Trump will tell his base all sorts of nasty things about the Dems. The Dems, meanwhile, will tell their base they saved taxpayers $18B that The Dotard promised would come from Mexico--at a time when Trump et alia just gave Americans another $1T of debt. That's a meaningful message that no GOP pol can reasonable contradict...

#12 | Posted by catdog at 2018-01-07 02:57 PM | Reply

" I will make sure that Mexico pays for the wall..of that you can be sure ". there's a word for people that don't keep their word...and so after all the dog-whistle BS we've had to listen to for the last 8 years, what do we end up with in the white house a damn --------

#13 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-01-07 03:53 PM | Reply

Screw this. I might be up for building a wall around the republic of Texas, and make Texas pay for it however! :)

#14 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-01-07 05:10 PM | Reply

His obsession with a border wall is stupid. His policies have resulted in a drastic reduction in illegal border crossings. Just keep doing that and don't worry about a wall.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-07 10:31 PM | Reply

His obsession with a border wall is stupid. His policies have resulted in a drastic reduction in illegal border crossings. Just keep doing that and don't worry about a wall.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-07 10:31 PM | Reply

Yeah and watch produce losses rise as well.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-07 10:32 PM | Reply

His policies have resulted in a drastic reduction in illegal border crossings.

link?

#17 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-07 11:07 PM | Reply

His policies have resulted in a drastic reduction in illegal border crossings.
link?

#17 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

'Trump effect' fades, but 2017 illegal crossings at U.S.-Mexico border hit historic low

www.azcentral.com

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-07 11:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Better give him that wall or DACA isn't happening. Dems need to compromise or they're gonna screw over a lot of people.

#19 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 09:49 AM | Reply

"Dems need to compromise or they're gonna screw over a lot of people." - #19 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 09:49 AM

Republicans hold the majority in the US House and US Senate, plus they have the presidency.

If anyone does the screwing, it is the party in charge of everything.

So, why do Democrats have to compromise?

#20 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 10:41 AM | Reply

'Trump effect' fades, but 2017 illegal crossings at U.S.-Mexico border hit historic low

Thank you President Obama.

#21 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 10:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

So, why do Democrats have to compromise?

#20 | POSTED BY HANS

They don't have to do anything. And they've made it abundantly clear they won't compromise with Trump on anything. Time will tell whether or not their tack is good politics.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 11:02 AM | Reply

If they don't want to compromise, then DACA is done. There will be a wall one way or another.

#23 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 11:40 AM | Reply

"If they don't want to compromise, then DACA is done." - #23 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 11:40 AM

Laid right at the feet of the majority party.

Will make for interesting campaigning this coming fall.

#24 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 11:44 AM | Reply

"Laid right at the feet of the majority party.
Will make for interesting campaigning this coming fall."

That's why this country is starting to suck. Things will never work well if there can't be compromises. Not all republicans agree with DACA. If the Dems want to get it passed, they will have to work with the MAJORITY. What is so wrong with passing wall funding with DACA?

#25 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 11:58 AM | Reply

"Things will never work well if there can't be compromises." - #25 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 11:58 AM

"I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view." - Richard Mourdock
"What is so wrong with passing wall funding with DACA?"

Four things come immediately to mind:

✘ The wall is a solution in search of a problem.

✘ The wall will never stop people from wanting to come to America.

✘ The wall the antithesis of the Statue of Liberty.

✘ The wall is a symbol of institutional bigotry.

#26 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 12:06 PM | Reply

✘ The wall is a solution in search of a problem.
There is a problem with illegal immigration

✘ The wall will never stop people from wanting to come to America.
It will deter people and inevitably stop some, maybe not all, but some

✘ The wall the antithesis of the Statue of Liberty.
It is not. Maybe the Dems should be pushing harder for immigration reform. Come here legally.

✘ The wall is a symbol of institutional bigotry.
This point is dumb. Statements like this are why Trump is president.

#27 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 12:14 PM | Reply

Statements like this are why Trump is president.

#27 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08

People like you are why Trump is president.

The people of Texas don't want this stupid wall.

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-08 12:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For that matter, the people of Texas don't want Trump's stupid tax plan.

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-08 12:17 PM | Reply

Nice to see you speak for all of Texas

#30 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 12:18 PM | Reply

What is so wrong with passing wall funding with DACA?

#25 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 11:58 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Because the wall is stupid. Because Trump and the GOP are not be trusted with DACA.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-08 12:20 PM | Reply

Nice to see you speak for all of Texas

#30 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 12:

I'm a Texan. What are you?

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-08 12:20 PM | Reply

Tell me, WILL. Ever visited Big Ben National Park? Think there should be a wall through it? Think Texans will ever support that idea?

#33 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-08 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm sorry, Big Ben National Park is in England. Big Bend is in Texas.

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-08 12:22 PM | Reply

What is so wrong with passing wall funding with DACA?
#25 | Posted by Will123

Because blackmailing the fate of 800,000 people is well, immoral.

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 12:23 PM | Reply

Again, do you speak for all of Texas?

#36 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 12:23 PM | Reply

Again, do you speak for all of Texas?

#36 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-

Again, what are you?

#37 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-08 12:24 PM | Reply

In what way is this blackmailing? It's a compromise. One side can't completely have it their way. Would you rather have the republicans come together and get the wall and not pass DACA?

Because blackmailing the fate of 800,000 people is well, immoral.

#35 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2018-01-08 12:23 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#38 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 12:24 PM | Reply

"There is a problem with illegal immigration" - #27 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 12:14 PM

A further demonstration as to why the conservative mind doesn't understand proportionality.

"This point is dumb."

Only to idiots.

"Statements like this are why Trump is president."

More than 10,000,000 American voters voted against Trump for president than voted for him.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

#39 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 12:27 PM | Reply

"One side can't completely have it their way"

Good. I look forward to the public hearings on Trump's tax plan.

Get it? Public hearings? I crack myself up.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-08 12:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Would you rather have the republicans come together and get the wall and not pass DACA?" - #38 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 12:24 PM

Would make for delicious campaign commercials in the fall.

#41 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 12:28 PM | Reply

Yes, as that will eliminate any Hispanic voting for a republican for like 100 years.

As for the wall, my recommendation is invest in Mexican ladder manufacturers.

Any billion dollar structure that can be defeated by a rope is a poor ROI.

#42 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 12:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Where in the DACA/Wall bill are their penalties for hiring illegals?

Asking for a friend.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

✘ The wall is a solution in search of a problem.
There is a problem with illegal immigration

No actually there is no problem. It's only in the minds of the racist bigots

✘ The wall will never stop people from wanting to come to America.
It will deter people and inevitably stop some, maybe not all, but some

Yeah and watch produce losses rise exponentially

✘ The wall the antithesis of the Statue of Liberty.
It is not. Maybe the Dems should be pushing harder for immigration reform. Come here legally.

You have NO CLUES on how bad these peoples situations are. Do you ask for permission to escape horrific situations or do you get the hell out of dodge??

✘ The wall is a symbol of institutional bigotry.
This point is dumb. Statements like this are why Trump is president.

It IS racist bigotry nothing more

Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 12:14 PM | Reply

#44 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-08 12:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#27 | POSTED BY WILL123

"The wall is a solution in search of a problem."
✘There is a problem with illegal immigration
The wall does not address the source of illegal immigration

"The wall will never stop people from wanting to come to America."
✘ It will deter people and inevitably stop some, maybe not all, but some
It will deter tourists; not illegal immigrants.

"The wall the antithesis of the Statue of Liberty."
✘It is not. Maybe the Dems should be pushing harder for immigration reform. Come here legally.
I don't know where you are from but it certainly isn't the United States or France. The meaning of the Statue of Liberty is pretty well established in Western culture, and you clearly do not agree with it. Again, the wall does nothing to address illegal immigration. It is a symbol of idiocy...

"The wall is a symbol of institutional bigotry."
✘This point is dumb. Statements like this are why Trump is president.
In some ways you are correct. The point is dumb because institutional racism is dumb. The point is true, nonetheless. As is yours. Morons like you that blindly support institutional racism are why trump is president. Again, the wall also represents stupidity, fearfulness, and willful ignorance.

#45 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-08 12:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The Dems should run a commercial EVERY DAY with a montage of President Fredotard saying over and over Mexico will pay for the wall, with a voice-over at end saying "this is why no democrat will support this deficit-expanding bill."

#46 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-01-08 12:35 PM | Reply

✘ The wall the antithesis of the Statue of Liberty.
"It is not." - #27 | Posted by Will123 at 2018-01-08 12:14 PM

The Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

The Mexico wall: "Stay the f*** out of here, brown people"

Yep.

The antithesis of the Statue of Liberty.

#47 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 12:35 PM | Reply

HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get your own style of answering question IJ LMAO

#48 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-08 12:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Will123:
As a Texan, I too am still waiting for you to answer Zed's question: are you a Texan, or not?

#49 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-01-08 12:38 PM | Reply

The stupidity of the wall is highlighted by the fact that most "illegal aliens" entered the United States legally and then overstayed their visa. Many of them flew to the U.S. and could have looked down and giggled when they flew over any such wall.

"The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally, raising questions about the effectiveness of President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border."

www.nbcnews.com

#50 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-08 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because blackmailing the fate of 800,000 people is well, immoral. - #35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 12:23 PM

Which do you consider to be more immoral, bargaining with the fate of 800k people, or enforcing our laws and removing them from the country?

#51 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 12:55 PM | Reply

Morons like you - #45 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-08 12:35 PM

Why do you feel the need to be abusive, IndianaJones?

#52 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 12:56 PM | Reply

"...or enforcing our laws and removing them from the country?" - #51 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 12:55 PM

DACA relates to immigrants who came to America with their parents when they were children. Most of them know nothing about the country of their birth, and often speak only the language of the only country they ever only really known.

Why do you feel the need to be abusive to such people, Avigdore?

#53 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 01:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Which do you consider to be more immoral, bargaining with the fate of 800k people, or enforcing our laws and removing them from the country?
#51 | Posted by Avigdore

that's easy, enforcing the law to disrupt and destroy the lives of 800K people

#54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 01:05 PM | Reply

He should ask for an advance from his boss at the Kremlin

#55 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-08 01:32 PM | Reply

The problem with DACA was it's unconstitutional. It conferred positive benefits unto a large group of people who don't qualify for said benefits based upon their immigration status. Basically, it was a piece of legislation created by the Executive branch of government. Anyone who watched Schoolhouse Rock as a kid knows POTUS can't create laws.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 01:34 PM | Reply

If you can guarantee every American will have healthcare, a roof over their head and food on the table we will let you have your wall

#57 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-08 01:35 PM | Reply

Why do you feel the need to be abusive to such people, Avigdore? - #53 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 01:00 PM

Why don't you quote where you imagine I call for the abuse of such people, Hans.
I'm not going to address a false premise along the lines of asking 'Have you stopped beating your wife'.
Also, I understand that you admire me, but you really should let up a bit.
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"


that's easy, enforcing the law to disrupt and destroy the lives of 800K people - #54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 01:05 PM

So then addressing DACA in the wall discussion is the more moral choice.

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 01:37 PM | Reply

Wait. I'm confused. Trump told me Mexico would pay for the wall. Did something change? Was I lied to?

#59 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-01-08 01:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The problem with DACA was it's unconstitutional. It conferred positive benefits unto a large group of people who don't qualify for said benefits based upon their immigration status. Basically, it was a piece of legislation created by the Executive branch of government. Anyone who watched Schoolhouse Rock as a kid knows POTUS can't create laws.

#56 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-08 01:34 PM | REPLY |

But POTUS can change how laws are applied. Until and uless you start calling for the reversal of all the megamergers since Reagan loosened antitrust enforcement you have no leg to stand on

#60 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-08 01:41 PM | Reply

that's easy, enforcing the law to disrupt and destroy the lives of 800K people - #54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 01:05 PM

So then addressing DACA in the wall discussion is the more moral choice.
#58 | Posted by Avigdore

no it is not, they are separate issues. Tying them together places the fate of 800K innocent people at the whim of spending on a wall-again, immoral.

Be moral, separate the issues.

#61 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 01:45 PM | Reply

"Why don't you quote where you imagine I call for the abuse of such people, Hans." - #58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 01:37 PM

"...or enforcing our laws and removing them from the country?" - #51 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 12:55 PM
You're welcome.

#62 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 01:47 PM | Reply

Why do you feel the need to be abusive, IndianaJones?

#52 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I'm not being abusive; I'm being observant. Wil123 has a history of posting objective falsehoods and obvious anti-West propaganda. Morons should be called out; we gave them a pass for too long and they elected a Russian puppet.

www.merriam-webster.com

#63 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-08 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The problem with DACA was it's unconstitutional.

#56 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

ACTUALLY, that has yet to be determined.

#64 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 01:51 PM | Reply

But POTUS can change how laws are applied. Until and uless you start calling for the reversal of all the megamergers since Reagan loosened antitrust enforcement you have no leg to stand on

#60 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

That is one heck of a deflection.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 01:56 PM | Reply

That is one heck of a deflection.
#65 | Posted by JeffJ

No it's not. the Executive branch has enforcement discretion. The courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of the methods that Obama used. So no not unconstitutional and consistent with actions taken by previous presidents.

#66 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 01:59 PM | Reply

Was I lied to?
#59 | Posted by moder8

Yes.

#67 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2018-01-08 02:01 PM | Reply

The problem with DACA was it's unconstitutional.
#56 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
ACTUALLY, that has yet to be determined.
#64 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Obama, constitutional lawyer, thinks it isn't unconstitutional.

Jeffj, internet troll, thinks it is unconstitutional.

Place your bets people.

#68 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-08 02:08 PM | Reply

Wait IJ are you saying that most cases against DACA have been thrown out by the courts?

#69 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:13 PM | Reply

Obama, constitutional lawyer, thinks it isn't unconstitutional.
Jeffj, internet troll, thinks it is unconstitutional.
Place your bets people.
#68 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-08 02:08 PM

My bet is you are confused.

#70 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 02:13 PM | Reply

Holy Bolds

#71 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 02:14 PM | Reply

I lost. I'm confused. And bolded out.

#72 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 02:14 PM | Reply

isn't
is

My bet is you're a moron.

#73 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:15 PM | Reply

The problem with DACA was it's unconstitutional.

#56 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why?

Be Specific.

Avigore is easily confused.

#74 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-08 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Obama, constitutional lawyer, thinks it isn't unconstitutional.

If he is really a "constitutional lawyer" why isn't he in the courtroom rather giving big-money speeches to Wall Street and hanging out on luxury yachts? He's no Jimmy Carter, that's for sure.

#75 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-08 02:20 PM | Reply

He's no Jimmy Carter?

Is that supposed to be an insult, because prior to 2009, you yahoos said Carter was the worst President in history.

What a difference a black man makes!

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 02:26 PM | Reply

I repeat:

The problem with DACA was it's unconstitutional. It conferred positive benefits unto a large group of people who don't qualify for said benefits based upon their immigration status.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:34 PM | Reply

"It conferred positive benefits unto a large group of people who don't qualify for said benefits based upon their immigration status." - #77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:34 PM

Can you cite the part of the Constitution that states that positive benefits conferred on people who don't qualify (for whatever reason) is unconstitutional?

#78 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 02:37 PM | Reply

--you yahoos said Carter was the worst President in history.

I never said that, junior. His post-presidency has been very honorable, building houses for Habitat for Humanity. You'll never see Obama do that. He'd rather hang out with Hollywood celebrities on yachts.

#79 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-08 02:37 PM | Reply

Then why don't the courts agree with you?

Does the POTUS have enforcement discretion?

#80 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:38 PM | Reply

Can you cite the part of the Constitution that states that positive benefits conferred on people who don't qualify (for whatever reason) is unconstitutional?

#78 | POSTED BY HANS

Article I. Only congress can make laws.

Statutes were on the books that said those who are residing here illegally aren't eligible for work permits. DACA was the Executive doling out work permits to people who are here illegally in clear contradiction to written law.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:41 PM | Reply

#75;

Why are you so prideful of your easily proven ignorance?

www.google.com

#82 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-08 02:42 PM | Reply

Not deporting those who met the DACA criteria is prosecutorial discretion. Barely. Conferring positive benefits in clear violation of statute is the Executive making its own law. Unconstitutional.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:43 PM | Reply

Article I. Only congress can make laws.
Statutes were on the books that said those who are residing here illegally aren't eligible for work permits. DACA was the Executive doling out work permits to people who are here illegally in clear contradiction to written law.
#81 | Posted by JeffJ

and
Article II, Section 3 obligates him to take Care to execute said laws. Does the President have discretion in his execution of that duty?

#84 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:45 PM | Reply

"His post-presidency has been very honorable, building houses for Habitat for Humanity. You'll never see Obama do that. He'd rather hang out with Hollywood celebrities on yachts."

I'll never see Obama do something he already did in 2006, and again in 2009?

www.chicagotribune.com

Serial liars like Nulli should be banned from this site.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Not deporting those who met the DACA criteria is prosecutorial discretion. Barely. Conferring positive benefits in clear violation of statute is the Executive making its own law. Unconstitutional.
#83 | Posted by JeffJ a

DACA is deferring action, an executive privilege. Sorry constitutional

#86 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:47 PM | Reply

So, I clicked Dr. Jones' google link and immediately found this:

Okay, let's give President Obama the benefit of a doubt regarding whether he could legitimately claimed to have ever been a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School, given that he never served as more than a part-time "senior lecturer". As Hillary Clinton's 2007 campaign spokesman Phil Singer responded at that time: "Senator Obama has often referred to himself as ‘a constitutional law professor' out on the campaign trail. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you'll find that there is ... you'll get quite an emotional response." So yeah, some of us who have earned that official title may tend to get a bit persnickety about such representations.

www.forbes.com

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:48 PM | Reply

--Serial liars like Nulli should be banned from this site.

#85 | Posted by snoofy

Typical SJW, always wanting to censor contrary points of view.

#88 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-08 02:48 PM | Reply

"Conferring positive benefits in clear violation of statute"

Is "positive benifits" a legal term of art, or is it right-wing propaganda?

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 02:49 PM | Reply

The DOJ operates under the Executive Branch. the DOJ has enforcement discretion, CLEARLY.

jeffie you are simply WRONG.

#90 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:50 PM | Reply

DACA is deferring action, an executive privilege. Sorry constitutional

#86 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

That's not all that it does. See my comment regarding conferring positive benefits in clear violation of written law. That is directly against "take care to faithfully execute the law." That would be along the same lines as Trump instructing the IRS not to assess capital gains taxes. He can't do that.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:50 PM | Reply

Positive benefits is what it is.

Can you refute what I'm saying, Snoofy?

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:50 PM | Reply

Typical SJW, always wanting to censor contrary points of view.
#88 | Posted by nullifidian

I suppose lying is a contrary point of view.

#93 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Typical SJW, always wanting to censor contrary points of view."

So that's what Nulli calls his lies now, "Contrary points of view."

What happened to "alternate facts," has the shine worn off that Trump turd, despite all your polishing?

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Troofy,

You are essentially saying that laws are what POTUS says they are. If POTUS doesn't like a statute, he can simply ignore it. It doesn't work that way.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:52 PM | Reply

That's not all that it does. See my comment regarding conferring positive benefits in clear violation of written law. That is directly against "take care to faithfully execute the law." That would be along the same lines as Trump instructing the IRS not to assess capital gains taxes. He can't do that.
#91 | Posted by JeffJ

So when a prosecutor decides to defer prosecution they are conferring a positive benefit to the alleged criminal. That is unconstitutional?

#96 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:53 PM | Reply

Troofy,
You are essentially saying that laws are what POTUS says they are. If POTUS doesn't like a statute, he can simply ignore it. It doesn't work that way.
#95 | Posted by JeffJ

Until the court says otherwise, yes, the has that authority.

#97 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:54 PM | Reply

"Positive benefits is what it is.
Can you refute what I'm saying, Snoofy?"

^
I can't refute that bevause it isn't saying anything.

You're a fat liar. It is what it is.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 02:54 PM | Reply

Look at it another way. Should the president be forced to enforce a law that was clearly unconstitutional?

#99 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 02:54 PM | Reply

"you yahoos said Carter was the worst President in history."

who are you talking about, specifically?

#100 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-08 02:55 PM | Reply

BTW, sorry to interrupt you constitutional scholars........carry on.

#101 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-08 02:57 PM | Reply

Don't believe me?

Here's what Obama had to say about it:

resident Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal authority to implement.

How do we know? Because even Obama admitted it – repeatedly.

Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works."


Snoofy,

Go troll someone else. The adults are talking.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:57 PM | Reply

Look at it another way. Should the president be forced to enforce a law that was clearly unconstitutional?
#99 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

No. See: Obama's non-enforcement of DOMA.

Are you suggesting that a law that stipulates that people who are here illegally can't obtain work permits is an unconstitutional law?

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 02:59 PM | Reply

Also, see Obama circumventing a law that he signed that required him to wait 30 days for congressional approval for a POW exchange. He was right to circumvent that unconstitutional law just as he was right to ignore the unconstitutional DOMA.

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 03:00 PM | Reply

Not suspend, defer.

#105 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 03:02 PM | Reply

SOOOOO the President has the authority to use discretion for enforcement of laws. Until the courts say otherwise it is constitutional, You know checks and balances and all.

#106 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 03:03 PM | Reply

Are you suggesting that a law that stipulates that people who are here illegally can't obtain work permits is an unconstitutional law?
#103 | Posted by JeffJ

I'm suggesting that the President has the authority to decide on how enforcing the law is done, i.e. where priority of efforts should go and if necessary to defer enforcement for a time.

#107 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 03:04 PM | Reply

They came here at a very young age. They speak fluent English. They were educated in American schools. They are indistinguishable from any other American. What is the problem so many right wingers have with DACA? Is it really just hatred for the sake of hatred?

#108 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-01-08 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's worse than that, many serve in our armed forces. That is completely screwed up, these people put their lives on the line to defend us but are subjected to being kicked out of our country.

#109 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 03:09 PM | Reply

"Snoofy,
Go troll someone else. The adults are talking.
#102 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Antifa lit a house on fire.
Go put it out.
"Adult."

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-08 03:09 PM | Reply

I didn't claim Antifa lit a house on fire and I acknowledged that my lame deflection was...a lame deflection.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 03:12 PM | Reply

I don't have a problem with temporarily suspending deportations for those who fall under DACA. My problem was with conferring positive benefits in direct violation of law.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-08 03:13 PM | Reply

I don't have a problem with temporarily suspending deportations for those who fall under DACA. My problem was with conferring positive benefits in direct violation of law.
#112 | Posted by JeffJ

LOL

#113 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-08 03:14 PM | Reply

We need a really, really high wall. That will prevent all those horrible DACA kids from being able to leave this country.

Wait... um,... hmmm.

#114 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-01-08 03:27 PM | Reply

I'm suggesting that the President has the authority to decide on how enforcing the law is done, i.e. where priority of efforts should go and if necessary to defer enforcement for a time.
#107 | Posted by truthhurts

I don't have a problem with temporarily suspending deportations for those who fall under DACA. My problem was with conferring positive benefits in direct violation of law.
#112 | Posted by JeffJ

In sum, much of the commentary on both sides fails to get the argument entirely right. The President does not have independent executive power to change the legal status of DACA beneficiaries. Trying to locate such an authority in the power of prosecutorial discretion is misconceived, even if one has a broad view of prosecutorial discretion. But the President might have a delegated authority to change the legal status of DACA beneficiaries, depending on how one reads the immigration statutes (and as a constitutional law scholar, I do not have an opinion on that question).
blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

#115 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-08 03:55 PM | Reply

"Why don't you quote where you imagine I call for the abuse of such people, Hans." - #58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 01:37 PM

"...or enforcing our laws and removing them from the country?" - #51 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 12:55 PM

You're welcome.

#62 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 01:47 PM
You neglected to include the part where I called for that action. Or are you claiming that it is abusive to ask whether it is moral for our laws to be enforced? You know...the claim that you made? I suppose I'll just chalk it up to you misrepresenting the truth. That's a nicer way of putting it, right?

#116 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 04:07 PM | Reply

Avigdore: The USS Elmer Montgomery is a garbage scow! ☺

#117 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-01-08 04:11 PM | Reply

What is the problem so many right wingers have with DACA? Is it really just hatred for the sake of hatred?

#108 | POSTED BY MODER8

For some. For others, it is sheer ignorance. They genuinely believe these children are stealing their jobs and keeping their wages down.

#118 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-08 04:16 PM | Reply

It conferred positive benefits unto a large group of people who don't qualify for said benefits based upon their immigration status.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ

So?

Though federal law ordinarily provides that "an alien who is not a qualified alien ... is not eligible for any Federal public benefit," the same law allows Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid "to an alien who is lawfully present in the United States as determined by the Attorney General" (a power that, again, was later transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security).

www.law.cornell.edu

#119 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-08 05:29 PM | Reply

"You neglected to include the part where I called for that action." - #116 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 04:07 PM

Typical, concern-troll defense. The comment # was included for anyone to see.

"I lost. I'm confused. And bolded out." - #72 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 02:14 PM
A definite keeper comment.

#120 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 05:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Avigdore: The USS Elmer Montgomery is a garbage scow! ☺ - #117 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-01-08 04:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand your reference, madscientist.

Typical, concern-troll defense. The comment # was included for anyone to see.- #120 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 05:31 PM
The comment # also doesn't include me being abusive. Thanks for reiterating that you are misrepresenting the truth.

"I lost. I'm confused. And bolded out." - #72 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 02:14 PM
A definite keeper comment. - #120 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 05:31 PM

Boo-hoo...a liar caught me admitting I made a mistake.

#121 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 05:43 PM | Reply

Or are you claiming that it is abusive to ask whether it is moral for our laws to be enforced?

#116 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Yes, some laws would be immoral to enforce. Why is that so hard to imagine?

#122 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-08 05:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why is that so hard to imagine?

#122 | Posted by Sycophant

People without a REAL sense of morality (not the fake plastic Christian morality of the old testament) have difficulty imagining why people with a REAL sense of humanity do the things they do, like standing up for and helping the poor the elderly and the disadvantaged even though they may be of a different sexual orientation, race, national origin.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

#123 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-08 06:07 PM | Reply

"The comment # also doesn't include me being abusive." - #121 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 05:43 PM

Sure it does.

"...a liar..."

So says the concern troll.

"...admitting I made a mistake."

One of an endless supply.

#124 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 06:21 PM | Reply

Yes, some laws would be immoral to enforce. Why is that so hard to imagine? - #122 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-08 05:48 PM
I'm the one who stated that it was immoral in 51. Why is it so hard to read before you jump into a conversation? The question was if I was advocating abuse by questioning which of enforcing the laws or using the DACA people as a bargaining chip was more immoral.

#125 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 06:22 PM | Reply

One of an endless supply.

#124 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 06:21 PM |
I make mistakes and admit when I do. You're a liar. I guess we're done here.

#126 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 06:25 PM | Reply

"I'm the one who stated that it was immoral in 51." - #125 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 06:22 PM

No you didn't.

"Which do you consider to be more immoral, bargaining with the fate of 800k people, or enforcing our laws and removing them from the country?" - #51 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 12:55 PM
Liar.

#127 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 06:25 PM | Reply

"I make mistakes and admit when I do." - #126 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-08 06:25 PM

Yes, you make mistakes.

No, you don't admit them.

You're a liar.

#128 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-08 06:27 PM | Reply

There was a hircine odor you'd come to expect
'Specially when the Captain yelled, "All hands on deck!"
Everyone's in a row, dress right dress
Get ready to dine, the cabrito is best.

--Capra aegagrus hircus

#129 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-01-08 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

mb DOTUS can go ---- put $18b worth of cement...his one specialty.

#130 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-08 09:26 PM | Reply

what happened to Goat anyway, banned...roasted?

#131 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-08 09:28 PM | Reply

what happened to Goat anyway, banned...roasted?

Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-08 09:28 PM | Reply

BANNED Permanently.

#132 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-08 09:30 PM | Reply

"what happened to Goat anyway, banned...roasted?"

What made you think of him?

#133 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-08 09:58 PM | Reply

The biggest cement company down south is Cemex.
Guess what mex stands for.

And goatman was given more chances than most

#134 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-01-08 10:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Mexico isn't paying for it.

The American tax payer isn't paying for it.

But I'll tell you what Trump.

You pay for your own damn wall and we might let you build it.

#135 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-08 10:01 PM | Reply

can you spell boondoggle?
if not, see:drug war.

hey repubs, you want YOUR money back...there you go.

#136 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-09 04:01 AM | Reply

#133 post #129.

#137 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-09 04:02 AM | Reply

18 billion over 10 years is a bargain to get a deal that helps the dreamers, they'll pay into our treasury many times more money than that in taxes plus we'll be doing the right thing for them. The wall is a joke, most of us know that but if it only costs us 18 billion over the next 10 years, give him what he wants and don't destroy the lives of millions of dreamers.

#138 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 08:45 AM | Reply

DANNI

Trump doesn't want the wall. Actually I think he'd prefer tariffs to equal what he thinks is a trade deficit.

If you read a transcript of Trumps conversations with Mexico's President Pena Nieta

www.spokesman.com ~ TRUMP PUNKED HIS SUPPORTERS

you'll see the takeaway is that the "Wall" was just vote-baiting and red meat to rile up his supporters who didn't know how impractical it was.

The $18 Billion isn't even a bargaining chip. It's more like a sledge hammer to reach his ultimate goal to discontinue DACA.

Incidentally, this is the real blood sport in America ~ worse than football.

#139 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-09 10:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, some laws would be immoral to enforce. Why is that so hard to imagine? - #122 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-08 05:48 PM
I'm the one who stated that it was immoral in 51. Why is it so hard to read before you jump into a conversation? The question was if I was advocating abuse by questioning which of enforcing the laws or using the DACA people as a bargaining chip was more immoral.
#125 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

As usual you miss the point. You call it moral to enforce the law. (I assume that's why you didn't include the post #122 refers to).

But frankly, your position in #51 is ridiculous. Both bargaining the lives of 800K people for the wall and enforcing the current laws against the Dreamers is immoral. Why is that so difficult to understand?

#140 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-09 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Trump doesn't want the wall. Actually I think he'd prefer tariffs to equal what he thinks is a trade deficit."

Change it to a VAT and I'll happily agree with him.

Compare his demand for 18 billion for the wall to the amount we waste on our bloated military, and yesterday I listened to NPR saying that both sides support more money for the military, which I seriously doubt is actually true. Sad when even NPR lies to us.

#141 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 11:21 AM | Reply

"Actually I think he'd prefer tariffs to equal what he thinks is a trade deficit."

Just for the record, you don't think the trade deficit is real or that it is sustainable? We do have a huge trade deficit, we do need to deal with it. Why? Because American billionaires invested heavily into the Chinese economy and they want to profit from our trade deficit and now, thanks the the GOP, do so without even owing the same level of taxes they would on profits they earned here. This nation is being ruled by oligarchs who buy politicians and create an environment more difficult to earn a profit here because they are so busy undermining domestic enterprises.

#142 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not only DACA but I'm hearing rumblings about getting rid of OSHA because (their reasoning) people are still getting killed in the workplace.

I suppose by that reasoning we should get rid of police departments because crimes are still being committed.

Or get rid of the IRS because tax fraud is still going on.

Or get rid of health insurance because people are still getting sick.

Or get rid of red lights because accidents are still happening.

The Trump has turned his flunkies into a band of lunatics.

#143 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-09 12:09 PM | Reply

Of course, if you look at things in reverse, Trump is doing exactly what his chief financial backer and anti-establishment billionaire (Rebekah Mercer) is expecting him to do. Her public admission that she wants to destroy the GOP and will spare no expense is right in line with everything we see Trump doing to the party.

I know that sounds insane but if you've been following the Bannon/Trump affair, you'll understand that Rebekah Mercer is very real and isn't playing games.

She's far more dangerous to America than Russia ever was.

#144 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-09 12:26 PM | Reply

She's far more dangerous to America than Russia ever was.

And, according to Wolff, ------- crazy.

#145 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-09 02:15 PM | Reply

REDIAL

She's rich enough to be anything she wants. She and her father been involved in this anti-establishment for years. They're both the primary supporters of Breitbart and she sits on the Board. She donated $36 Million to various PACs in 2016 to get Trump elected. She is the one who brought Bannon and Conway into the Trump administration to "assist" in her anti-establishment agenda. She wants it all destroyed. I know it sounds crazy but she makes public statements to back it up.

Bannon was annoyed that Trump was listening to his kids and son-in-law more than he was to him and that escalated into a lot of angry exchanges resulting in Bannon's ouster from the administration.

Bannon tried to weasel his way back into the administration but yesterday the White House issued a statement that they do not accept Bannon's apology.

Now it's just come across the wires that Bannon is stepping down from Breitbart ~ which is code for "You're Fired." Nobody is surprised.

He stepped over the line with that book which I'm told didn't have very nice things to say about Rebekah Mercer.

Bannon's goose is cooked. He' done.

I don't know if Rebekah Mercer is crazy or not. I don't even know why she wants to destroy the Republican Party which she calls "the establishment." It sounds insane to me but I don't know the whole story behind her motives. I'm going to try to find out. I just know she one powerful bitchy lady and more dangerous than Russia for what Trump is doing to the departments and agencies that hold our government together.

#146 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-09 04:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort