
Trump to sign border bill, declare emergency: McConnell - kevinguay
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown/trump-to-sign-border-bill-declare-emergency-mcconnell-idUSKCN1Q30KU
======
DigiMortal
Trump is going to win reelection in 2020 isn't he?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Depends on if the Democrats can find someone less horrible than Hillary to run
against him. He's not (I trust) going to win by declaring an emergency _and
using that to rig or abolish the election_. He _might_ win by declaring the
emergency in order to do what he wants to with the border, _if_ enough people
agree with what he does with the border.

~~~
rasz
There already will be ongoing state of emergency, too dangerous for open
elections etc.

~~~
dragonwriter
> There already will be ongoing state of emergency,

There have been several overlapping states of emergency for the last several
elections; in fact, the US has been in a State of Emergency with regard to
Iran since 1979; there are, I believe, in the neighborhood of 30 active states
of emergency.

~~~
belorn
Thank you. I didn't know this and looked it up on wikipedia, which lists them
here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States)

Apparently trump has already issued three such State of Emergencies. Is this
just sloppy journalism that describe this as a unique event, or is this new
one different in some legal sense?

~~~
dragonwriter
It is, I believe, unprecedented to use a state of emergency to achieve a
policy end which Congress has been asked to support and declined to do so.

It may likewise be unprecedented to use a state of emergency to address a
long-ongoing condition for which there is no relevant emergent change
triggering the declaration.

So, yes, a declaration here would be new and different.

------
towaway1138
What's the best alternative way to minimize the number of people in the
country illegally?

It's fine enough to say this option sucks, but you have to bring a better one.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Or you have to deny that people in this country illegally is a problem. (I
don't agree with that position, but it is a logically valid one.)

~~~
towaway1138
It's a valid position I guess. But having illegal status opens you up to all
kinds of exploitation, violence, etc. It'd be hard to argue that this is a
good alternative.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
So I meant that people could deny that there was any need to control the
number of people who entered the country. That is, that there was no need to
control the border. But as you point out, that position would _probably_
require you to abolish "illegal" as a status. That is, if you're here, you're
just like a citizen.

~~~
dllthomas
Or at least "just like a legal permanent resident."

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Yeah, that's better.

------
LinuxBender
Is he going to use eminent domain to acquire several hundred miles of
bordering properties? [1]

[1] - [https://www.revealnews.org/article/this-land-is-our-land-
man...](https://www.revealnews.org/article/this-land-is-our-land-many-
property-owners-wont-sell-for-trumps-wall/)

------
AnimalMuppet
On one hand, this is progress. I'd rather they (both sides) nothold the entire
government hostage for this one issue.

On the other hand, this is kind of scary. I don't like the President
accumulating more and more power at the expense of Congress (though Congress
has earned it, by becoming progressively more worthless for the past 2 or 3
decades). I therefore don't like the President governing by executive orders;
I like even less him governing by declaring emergencies.

~~~
deadmetheny
Expansion of executive power has been going on for decades now. The Democrats
had plenty of opportunities to roll this back under Obama, after seeing what
sort of powers Bush had used it for. Instead, they decided to allow executive
order to become even more powerful without considering what may happen next.

