State of Emergency?

[Kung Wu]

1,000 deaths caused in a single year, and that's only the ones that we can directly attribute to the problem. In the same year, another 20,000 hospitalizations can be directly attributed. Many millions of American citizens and immigrants both legal and illegal have been directly _negatively_ affected (and there is documentation to prove it).

If our government does nothing, it is guaranteed that the problem will become worse and worse and the death tolls, hospitalizations and financial risk will continue to mushroom.

Based on these facts alone (and for the sake of this poll you can assume that they are correct), should the President declare a state of emergency?

[jdshock]

I have a hard time believing that the assumptions you put forth would not be enough to declare a state of emergency under the terms of the National Emergencies Act. The act has basically no definition of what an emergency is and it seems to give the president full power to determine if there is one. Honestly, I think it's probably okay under the terms of the act for the president to declare an emergency because the krispy kreme donuts ran out.

I am not sure that the president "should" declare a state of emergency even under the assumptions you put forth. There isn't anything particularly pressing about the issue and seems fully within the purview of what we have entrusted to Congress throughout the history of our country.

More importantly, I am confident a president should not declare a state of emergency for the intended purpose of usurping bipartisan decisions reached by Congress. THAT is particularly alarming.

Didn't answer in the poll because I dunno what answer that is.

[jdshock]

Kung Wu - I appreciate the clarification. I will respectfully refrain from voting because I honestly am not sure what I think if you remove the previous congressional action information. I truly am not sure.

Assuming this occurs in a vacuum (i.e., I'm not fighting your assumptions and we don't have the previous congressional action element), I'm just not sure at what stage a "national emergency" should occur. If 1,000 people have been dying every year, growth has been relatively steady, etc., I'm not sure when you would say it's a national emergency. If there's a ten-fold increase, that definitely seems more in line with what would justify special powers under an emergency situation. If it's been 1,000 people per year since the dawn of time, is that an "emergency?" Just by way of example, if you look at this chart on drug deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/data...db329_fig4.gif), it seems to me that maybe we have an emergency with "synthetic opioids other than methadone" but maybe we don't under methadone. Even if 3,000 people are dying every year, it seems hard to justify as an "emergency" if that's been the same level (or decreasing) since 2006.

It seems easy to believe that there should be special presidential powers in states of emergency. I'm not sure I personally have a great proposal for a bright line between when something is and is not an emergency.

[shockfan89_]

jdshock - Curious as to your take on two things and whether that changes your opinion of whether POTUS should declare a national emergency in this instance.

1. Does Congress' failure to act on securing the border in the past 20 years (or more) sway your decision at all? What about past Congressional acts that seem to claim this is a matter of National Security? Sec. 3409 below prohibits aliens from being admitted until they have been checked for NATIONAL SECURITY concerns. Past calls for involving FEMA (FEDERAL EMERGENCY Management Agency)?

Border Security Act of 2013:

Directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to enhance law enforcement and operational readiness along the U.S. borders through Operation Stonegarden. Provides funding for such activities.

FYI - One of the stated goals of Operations Stonegarden is to enhance National Security capabilities.

(Sec. 3409) Prohibits an alien from being admitted as a refugee or asylee until such person's identity has been checked against all appropriate databases to determine any national security, law enforcement, or other grounds under which the alien may be inadmissible or ineligible to apply for refugee or asylee status.

2. What about comparing past POTUS calls for National Emergencies? It would appear that securing the southern border is more of a national emergency than most of the national emergencies currently in place. I don't recall any court challenges to any of those.

I tend to agree this power has been over used, but I also find it disingenuous that so many Democrats are opposing the wall just because Trump campaigned on it. Especially when you consider that many of these same Democrats have voted for barriers/fences/walls in the past and are even on video calling for better border security.

I take the exact opposite approach. I feel this absolutely meets the standard of an emergency since this has been going on for 30 years, causing this many annual deaths, costing the country so much money, and nothing has been done to stop it. The time for Congress to act has past, it is time to declare an emergency and finally get this under control.

[jdshock]

shockfan89_ -

1. Congressional failure to act over two decades is a huge part of the reason that I think it's overstepping to call this a national emergency. If it hasn't been fixed for 20 years, and we're obviously doing fine (even if not perfect), it cannot be an "emergency" without evidence that we are looking at some huge increase or something like that. If this were outside of the purview of Congressional action, that's one thing. But Congress has purposely chosen not to act under Republican control under Democratic control and in bipartisan ways (like our most recent funding bills). It usurps democracy to have a president that can just unilaterally say "well, they chose not to act, but I want to!"

2. My quick reading of prior emergencies suggests that they primarily relate to trade, exports, etc. These are areas where quick decisions are of the upmost importance. But look, I don't need to defend prior emergencies. That's not my aim. I absolutely think it is within Trump's rights to call this a national emergency. This question is whether he "should." The court challenges will primarily be about his rights once it is an emergency. Though, there could be some interesting challenges simply because he said the stuff about not needing to do this or whatever. In my opinion, I think he is well within his authority to call it an emergency.

[jdshock]

All the people voting yes:

What is it specifically that justifies calling it a national emergency? To be clear, this hypothetical has nothing to do with the underlying powers of what is a national emergency, it is just whether a president should declare a national emergency. Should a president declare a national emergency for 10,000 gun homicides or 20,000 gun suicides? What about 10,000 drunk driving fatalities? Or thousands of texting and driving fatalities? What about 600,000 people dying of heart disease every year?

If those shouldn't be national emergencies, why is 1,000 (obviously, we're assuming this is accurate) particularly justifiable when talking about the border?

[ShockingButTrue]

1,000 is a specious, at best, guesstimate, in line with rainbows, unicorns, AOC, and cnn. Not worthy of debate. Kung cited 21,000 occurrences.

That number doesn't include a weary "middle class," in the millions, as he also did state, who had to foot the bill with their jobs in 2009, because of the "easy credit" bubble implosion, directly attributed to a "liberal" easing of credit restrictions (but that's a different issue, kinda'), in the millions, being lectured to that universal health care is morally right, up to, and including, ILLEGAL immigration. Then, moreover, that she-beast pelosi has the gall to say that any whom disagree will be a -ahem- "casualty" of -double ahem- progressive legislation. That, to a lot of us, is a serious crisis, because almost all of us vote with our pocketbook, and not identity typecasting, as hard as that is to grasp by most, if not all, progressives. FOR ONCE, WE BELIEVE HER!

[ShockingButTrue]

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/...ongress-108918
https://www.investors.com/news/econo...fromcampaign=1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../immigration-is-now-president-obamas-worst-issue

I believe these were all documented (with poll results) in 2014, before President Trump even announced his intentions to seek the nomination. It's not a brand-new dilemma. As Kung stated if the Govt. does nothing it will get worse. It's all been galvanized under President Trump's leadership. #RESIST, and everything...

[C0|dB|00ded]

Call it whatever the GD hell you wanna call it, just get the illegal immigration from our southern border stopped. I don't care if it has gone from 1 million a year to 250,000 a year. It needs to be less than 500 a year. At the same time you tackle the people overstaying their visas with the threat of 1 year in prison THEN deportation if caught with a 10-year ban on ever being allowed to reenter.

Seriously... I love Latinos and all... but enough is enough. We have 20 million+ undocumented immigrants living in this country. I visited Towne East Square a while back and was AMAZED at the number of Latinos in the mall. It was the majority by far. And all I heard around me was Spanish. It really is shocking the transformation that has occurred in my lifetime. I love visiting NYC and feel right at home being surrounded by every ethnicity and nationality on the planet, but Wichita is starting to feel like southwest Texas.

P.S. Our emergency rooms are overrun by illegal aliens. They have to staff half a dozen interpreters just to handle the traffic. Who pays for this...?


T


...:cool:

[WstateU]

Look in the mirror. :(

[wufan]

I think we should increase border security. The failure to do so since 2017 I lay at the feet of Donald Trump. He had a republican house and senate and didn’t put it forward. I do not believe that POTUS should claim emergency in this case. What he should do is push to decrease the ability to declare an emergency.

[ShockTalk]

Yeah, I'm pissed because this is all something he could have gotten done prior to 2019. It's like he wanted to have a fight. That's why I haven't voted on this poll, because I'm on the fence about it. (Sorry, couldn't help myself)

[Kung Wu]

Man you guys are WAAAY off topic! This poll is about SWINE FLU (H1N1)!

In 2009, Obama declared a state emergency, because there had been 1,000 deaths that year due to H1N1. 20,000 people were hospitalized with H1N1. And many millions got the flu, but weren't sick enough to need hospitalization.

The overarching purpose of the state of emergency was to get more vaccinations out and relax administrative laws for hospitals.

[jdshock]

Lol... well done.

Well, I stand by what I've said in this thread. I think it comes down to if the problem is time sensitive and poses a unique challenge that congress is not well equipped to address.

And more importantly, I think the folks who wrote the act did a really poor job outlining the underlying emergency powers.

[wufan]

Impressive! If only Obama would have put up a border wall, all that swine flu could have been avoided.

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-doubles-down-on-plan-to-ship-migrants-to-sanctuary-cities-says-radical-left-should-be-happy

President Trump responded to reports Friday that his administration proposed releasing immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities by not only confirming the plan but saying it remains under “strong” consideration.

Further, the president tweeted that relocating illegal immigrants to these districts should make the "Radical Left" happy.

Good common sense approach I think. Pelosi doesn't agree and thinks it's despicable. What's despicable Nancy, is the human feces piling up on the sidewalks in your Socialistic district.


T


...:cool: