Friday, September 13, 2019

Trump administration raids military construction projects for border wall



Lindsey Graham said he was confident that money being taken from projects in his state would be restocked

Both the president and the congress can declare a national crisis at whatever point they see fit. In spite of the extreme sounding mark, no comprehensively settled upon "crisis" is really required. Donald Trump announced the crisis not long ago to verify assets for the border wall in the wake of neglecting to induce Congress to dispense cash for its development a similar wall he at first guaranteed Mexico would pay for. Just 12 Republican legislators questioned the move in a Senate floor vote in March, with the majority of the GOP meeting staying with the president.GOP authorities are accusing Democrats after the Trump organization defunded military activities in their states. Democrats have another battleground in their battle against President Donald Trump's wall along the southern border. After the Defense Department divulged a rundown of undertakings it would put on uncertain hold to give $3.6 billion to the divider, Democrats have concentrated on what the nation is surrendering. Republicans who bolstered a crisis presentation on the U.S.- Mexico border are finding the expense of remaining with President Donald Trump: million dollars in government subsidizes redirected away from planned military construction projects in their states. 

Esper established that the utilization of the military development assets was important to help American powers sent toward the southern border with Mexico under the national crisis that Trump announced in mid-February. The formal assurance permits Trump, under the government code directing the military, to tap the assets appropriated for different purposes without close down from Congress. 

I do not think taking funds from the states to be able to build the wall is right. These states have needs and their residents need to be protected. Taking funds from these states to fund the building of the wall, denies these states the ability to provide for their residents. The projects in these states will likely stall and the people in these states will be heavily affected because they will not benefit from the projects that were to be laid out. This will make these states to lag behind in terms of development because of the need to build the wall between the US and Mexico. This is an issue because when the funds are diverted, the people in these states will not get to enjoy the benefits that they expected to enjoy. Most of the projects that would have been done this year, would be pushed to next year thereby affecting the lives of the people in these states. This is not the right move.

Question- What qualifies as a “national government? Do presidents regular declare national emergencies? What can a president do with the emergency powers? Would you call this case an emergency power?

5 comments:

Shirleen Fang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I agree with your point about how the wall project between Mexico and the U.S was unnecessary and will not solve the problem of people escaping to the states. I think it would be better to use those funds/general resources to find the problem that causes people to leave their homeland and come into the states. Also, the whole concept of funding that could potentially be used for the states is beneficial, but I think the Republic audience at this time is very focused on immigration issues; therefore, I am not surprised that Republicans would be in favor of this project, even if it seems that Trump took state funds. Also, I do not think that the extent of this issue is at the emergency level in which large funds need to be allocated for the wall project. I do, however, see what others might be concerned of (immigrants taking jobs and being legalized in the states even if they came over illegally) but this issue could be handled in an alternative manner.






Anonymous said...

A wall can easily be scaled and it is not going to affect the underground tunnels that people have cleverly built to get into the US. President Trump should not have the power to take funding from states without the approval of Congress. This gives the executive branch too much power and that is against the Constitution and the system of checks and balances. A national emergency can result in people not getting paid by the government for doing their job so this not only affects certain state's funding but also the direct citizens whose paycheck never shows up during that time. The wall was a large part of Trump's campaign back in 2016 but now as the 2020 election creeps up, he realizes that there may not be another four years for him to create the legendary wall. Therefore Trump may make this a national emergency to "fix" the major issue he believed the US had. However in my opinion, I do not think that needing funds for a project many people are against should be considered a national emergency. I personally believe the standards for a national emergency should be revisited because in all honesty this sounds childish: a so-called emergency to get something he wants even if others don't. I think the funds that are going into the wall can better be used for issues like climate change or student debt or even better border security. But the wall seems unnecessary.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the others that the funding to build a wall is completely unnecessary and the money should be going elsewhere. For example, better health care for citizens, etc. Like Riddhi stated, the President should not have the power to take whatever he wants, specifically money in this case, from states to build a wall that will have no effect on immigration most likely. Starting a national emergency does not help tax pay workers like teachers and those who work at airports because if your recall from last year, there were people who were not being payed for over a month which created chaos. I also agree with others who commented before me that the interpretation regarding what a national emergency is needed to be changed.

Anonymous said...

Redirecting state assets toward an impractical wall along the southern border is simply not worthy to be a crisis. Only when the US is in danger of being attacked, has dramatic changes in economic or social aspects, or events that call for actual drastic measures should a crisis then be called for. As of right now, the southern border wall is not of importance, for funding and actual construction has been neglected and tarried for many months now. Instead of the president deciding when there's a crisis, there should be some sort of consensus in Congress that officially declares one, as well as deciding upon the conditions that fall under the category of a genuine crisis. Donald Trump is only using this title as a legal, but deceitful tactic to get his way around the government, of which is effectively a form of corruption and tyranny in my personal opinion.