Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[GMDino]

So, just today, DJT said the wall is being built already and they are signing more contracts to build the wall.  

Ignoring his delusions there's this lovely story.

https://apnews.com/ba6c2bc1fa024393801131bfbaa9cd89?fbclid=IwAR1psXU8KkT-tuOQGwGOuBuBEDp88dYqep_PpYHf6zsPh83aDgDZayfhjqU

Quote: The Pentagon is planning to tap $1 billion in leftover funds from military pay and pension accounts to help President Donald Trump pay for his long-sought border wall, a top Senate Democrat said Thursday.


Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told The Associated Press, “It’s coming out of military pay and pensions. $1 billion. That’s the plan.”


Durbin said the funds are available because Army recruitment is down and a voluntary early military retirement program is being underutilized.


The development comes as Pentagon officials are seeking to minimize the amount of wall money that would come from military construction projects that are so cherished by lawmakers.

Durbin said, “Imagine the Democrats making that proposal — that for whatever our project is, we’re going to cut military pay and pensions.”


Durbin, the top Democrat on the Appropriations panel for the Pentagon, was among a bipartisan group of lawmakers who met with Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan on Thursday morning.


The Pentagon is planning to transfer money from various accounts into a fund dedicated to drug interdiction, with the money then slated to be redirected for border barriers and other purposes.


More attention has been paid to Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to tap up to $3.6 billion from military construction projects to pay for the wall. The Democratic-controlled House voted last month to reject Trump’s move, and the GOP-held Senate is likely to follow suit next week despite a White House lobbying push.


Senate Republicans met again Wednesday to sort through their options in hopes of making next week’s voting more politically palatable. They are struggling to come up with an alternative to simply voting up or down on the House measure as required under a never-used Senate procedure to reject a presidential emergency declaration. Lawmakers in both parties believe Trump is inappropriately infringing on Congress’ power of the purse.


Senators are increasingly uneasy ahead of voting next week because they don’t know exactly where the money to build the wall will come from and if it will postpone military projects in their home states.


Vice President Mike Pence told senators during their meeting a week ago that he would get back to them with an update. But senators said they don’t yet have a response from the administration.


“It’s a concern,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. He said a number of senators have been talking to the White House about other ways the administration could shuffle the money without relying on the authority under the emergency declaration, which
is likely to become tied up in litigation.


The pitch is, “Why have this additional controversy when it could be done in a less controversial way?” he said. “Apparently, the White House is not persuaded.”


The Army missed its recruiting goal this year, falling short by about 6,500 soldiers, despite pouring an extra $200 million into bonuses and approving some additional waivers for bad conduct or health issues.


Congress also appropriated money to give members of the military incentive to take early retirement, but enrollment in the program is coming in well under expectations.



“This is pay that would have gone to Army recruits that we can’t recruit,” Durbin said. “So there’s a ‘savings’ because we can’t recruit. The other part was they offered a voluntary change in military pensions, and they overestimated how many people would sign up for it.”

Yes, I know it is coming from a program that doesn't "need" it anymore.  No, I do not know why they can't put it toward some other programs to help vets/the military instead of the campaign promise wall.

[GMDino]

Nothing wrong or illegal with trying to fool your supporters.  Just another example of DJT at his best.  

https://apnews.com/7b36e0e0d46145b4b30e71091b3c432a

Quote:President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign is urging supporters to contribute to a “Wall Defense Fund” as it seeks to cash in on opposition to the president’s signature campaign promise.



But there is no separate fund or account to advocate for wall construction. Instead, the money goes right into the campaign’s general coffers.


A look at what’s afoot:


WHAT’S THE PITCH?


In recent fundraising texts and emails, the president’s Republican campaign has said it is “launching” its “Official Wall Defense Fund to give us the resources we need to fight back against liberals who want to tear down our borders.”

“Stand with President Trump,” read one appeal, “and let’s FINISH THE WALL.”
___
WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?


The campaign’s chief operating officer, Michael Glassner, said the appeals are “a method of raising funds to support the re-election of President Trump. Supporters and donors know that completing the wall is a primary goal for the president, and that the only way to get it done is for him to be re-elected. Democrat candidates oppose the wall, and many even support tearing down existing portions.”


Trump last week issued the first veto of his presidency, rejecting an effort by Democrats and Republicans to stop him from using emergency powers to circumvent Congress for wall construction money. Trump and his aides believe his hard-line immigration stance was key to his 2016 victory and intend to continue hammering the issue during his re-election campaign.
___
IS THAT LEGAL?


Experts said the plea was a common fundraising method.


“Political committees have a lot of freedom to raise money how they want,” said Erin Chlopak, director of campaign finance strategy at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. “There’s no honesty requirement, per se.”


Andrew Herman, an attorney at Miller & Chevalier who specializes in federal campaign and election law, said that “obviously” the emails’ main appeals are “completely misleading,” but that the campaign does make clear in fine print how the money will be spent using standard disclaimer language.


But he said the pitch makes clear what message the campaign thinks will resonate with supporters.


“It’s not that we need your money for our re-election campaign. Clearly they think the wall is a lure for their donors,” he said.



The campaign did not provide numbers, but Glassner said the campaign has “been very successful because people know the wall is important to American public safety.”

And I know the friends I have that truly believe they are helping pay to "defend the wall".  

[*bfine32*]

Figured this could go here:
https://news.yahoo.com/scotus-rules-feds-detain-alien-192838679.html;_ylt=A0geK9qjhJFcKacAHDBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycWNsbGxlBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjY4OThfMQRzZWMDc2M-

Quote:The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a win Tuesday, ruling that the federal government can detain immigrants with years-old criminal records indefinitely without a bond hearing.

The case concerned the government’s power to detain noncitizens who have been convicted of crimes that make them deportable, served their sentences, and been released. The plaintiffs, noncitizens who joined class-action suits against the government filed in California and Washington, argued that the law required the government to immediately detain such convicts upon their release at the end of their sentences, at which point they would be held while an immigration court decided their cases. But the Court disagreed.

Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Figured this could go here:
https://news.yahoo.com/scotus-rules-feds-detain-alien-192838679.html;_ylt=A0geK9qjhJFcKacAHDBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycWNsbGxlBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjY4OThfMQRzZWMDc2M-


Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?

No.

The Constitution says it.

Not ALL rights...but many.

However I actually agree with this decision.  If someone is released and their records show up a day or week or whatever later they should be re-detained.  Lack of speed in getting the records should not be the determining factor.

However I also agree with what Alito and Bryer said:

Quote:Alito sought to make clear that the ruling was not aimed at "extreme" examples of people picked up years after they have finished serving time, when they are leading law-abiding lives and have blended into their communities. Such immigrants can file individual challenges on constitutional grounds, he said.


But it would be unreasonable, Alito said, for homeland security agents to "turn into pumpkins" at midnight on the day noncitizens are released from criminal custody, forever unable to detain them without offering a bond hearing. Various deadlines suggested by immigration rights advocates, he said, "are taken out of thin air."

Breyer delivered his dissent from the bench, which is rarely done, to warn that the decision gives too much power to the federal government.


"It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before," he said. "And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail."

So long as individuals have the chance to challenge and to at least have the opportunity to get bail I'm good with it.

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2019, 09:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: No.

The Constitution says it.

Not ALL rights...but many.

However I actually agree with this decision.  If someone is released and their records show up a day or week or whatever later they should be re-detained.  Lack of speed in getting the records should not be the determining factor.

However I also agree with what Alito and Bryer said:



So long as individuals have the chance to challenge and to at least have the opportunity to get bail I'm good with it.

That seems to say Cristina Rodriguez says it.

I do agree folks should be allowed to challenge charges regardless of citizenship

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That seems to say Cristina Rodriguez says it.

I do agree folks should be allowed to challenge charges regardless of citizenship

Well she knows about more than me and (possibly/maybe) you.

Maybe there are other experts that say otherwise?

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2019, 09:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well she knows about more than me and (possibly/maybe) you.

Maybe there are other experts that say otherwise?

Hell 5 of them just did

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 09:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell 5 of them just did

Did what? Say non-citizens do not have the same constitutional rights as citizens?  Not exactly...

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2019, 10:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Did what? Say non-citizens do not have the same constitutional rights as citizens?  Not exactly...

K. I guess citizens can be deported after they serve their sentence. 

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 10:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: K. I guess citizens can be deported after they serve their sentence. 

Not "ALL" rights.  Pretty simple.

Also you are ignoring what Alito said.

Quote:Alito sought to make clear that the ruling was not aimed at "extreme" examples of people picked up years after they have finished serving time, when they are leading law-abiding lives and have blended into their communities. Such immigrants can file individual challenges on constitutional grounds, he said.

I'll assume on purpose.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2019, 10:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not "ALL" rights.  Pretty simple.

Also you are ignoring what Alito said.




I'll assume on purpose.  

Of course I'm not ignoring I'm just disagreeing as did the majority of SCOTUS. 

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I'm not ignoring I'm just disagreeing as did the majority of SCOTUS. 

Yeah he was in that majority.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/19/supreme-court-illegal-immigrants-criminal-records-deport-trump/2505543002/

Quote:Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion and was joined by four conservatives...

So you're disagreeing with the justice that wrote the opinion for the majority because you think the majority didn't say that.

Got it.

I'm out.

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2019, 10:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah he was in that majority.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/19/supreme-court-illegal-immigrants-criminal-records-deport-trump/2505543002/



So you're disagreeing with the justice that wrote the opinion for the majority because you think the majority didn't say that.

Got it.

I'm out.

 Get it and be out all you want, but the Majority doesn't agree the Constitution protects the non-citizen in this case; regardless what snippet you chose to parse. 

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2019, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?

Yes.  That has already happened many times.

Is the right wing echo chamber telling you something different?

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2019, 10:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Get it and be out all you want, but the Majority doesn't agree the Constitution protects the non-citizen in this case; regardless what snippet you chose to parse. 

Snippet?  That is pretty funny considering you have not even read the decision. This decision was based on an analysis of statutory construction.  They did not remove any Constitutional protections non-citizens already have.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2019, 12:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  That has already happened many times.

Is the right wing echo chamber telling you something different?

Yes, they are telling me those here illegally and in some cases legally can be deported. Not sure we can deport a citizen. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2019, 12:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Snippet?  That is pretty funny considering you have not even read the decision. This decision was based on an analysis of statutory construction.  They did not remove any Constitutional protections non-citizens already have.

They sure didn't. 

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2019, 06:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, they are telling me those here illegally and in some cases legally can be deported. Not sure we can deport a citizen. 

You are also not sure if a non-citizen can contest his deportation based on constitutional grounds because you have no clue what you are talking about.

Instead you just repeat whatever the echo chamber tells you.

[BmorePat87]

(03-19-2019, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are the Libs trying to claim that The rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution should apply to noncitizens and those here illegally?

The concept that immigrants have constitutional rights and protections has been around since the founding of the country and was specifically protected by the 14th amendment nearly 150 years ago. 

The Courts have upheld this for well over a century. Alito even made reference to immigrants being able to make claim that their constitutional rights were violated in the recent indefinite detention case (Nielsen v Preap).

[*bfine32*]

Those providing pro Bobo Government 101 classes, go back and read exactly what I wrote and answer this question:

Do non-citizens have the same rights/protections under the Constitution as citizens?