Jim Acosta of CNN embarrassed himself while at the southern border in McAllen, Texas as President Trump met with local and state officials and Border Security personnel to discuss illegal crossings in their region. Acosta, while standing next to an exact example of the type of border wall the President has agreed would be part of his border wall if funded, said the following:
“No immigrants storming the border and no imminent danger.” Acosta’s explanation of there being NO need for beefing up border security, especially including a border wall.
The irony of Mr. Acosta’s report is the obvious explanation for “why” there are no immigrants climbing across the wall: The Wall Works. When a Border Patrol official was asked about it, the explanation was simple: first, (and the most obvious) is the difficulty illegals experience to get through or over a wall like this, and secondly, during the middle of the day, illegals do not attempt illegal entry at that site because of the difficulty of getting across creates excessive amounts of time for them in trying. They would be exposed more easily there being in plain sight for agents to see than elsewhere along the border in more desolate border sections where different types of border barriers exist.
Acosta is not alone in attacking the notion of there being a border crisis currently. The Washington Post can’t seem to make up its mind on whether there is a crisis at the southern border, initially declaring the situation a “bona fide emergency” before backpedaling once President Trump emphasized that very point in his Oval Office address.
The Post published a story on January 5th, “After years of Trump’s dire warnings, a ‘crisis’ has hit the border but generates little urgency.” Two reporters gave the story — Nick Miroff and David Nakamura — in which they stated there is a real emergency at the border that is happening for one reason and one reason only: border agents cannot handle the volume of illegals there as “record numbers of migrant families are streaming into the United States.”
In that report, Miroff and Nakamura said, “There has been little bipartisan urgency to examine the relatively narrow set of legal and administrative changes that could potentially make a difference in slowing illegal migration or improving conditions for families who arrive at the border.”
They also termed it a “humanitarian crisis.” If there was NO crisis at the southern border, why would President Obama’s Homeland Security posted this sign at Arizona’s southern border?
It probably will come as no surprise to you that The Post changed its tune after the President’s Oval Office address on the issue. Their political correspondent Dan Balz wrote HIS explanation of the issue that was titled, “Trump used the Oval Office to try to create a border crisis.” He said the President in his address was simply creating a narrative in which he could justify fulfilling a campaign promise by building a border wall.
Make what you will about the media flip-flops regarding there being or not being a crisis down South. Believe or don’t believe the numbers provided — and always questioned by Mainstream Media — of the atrocities committed all across the U.S. by illegals. Remember this TNT.com mantra: “Just because you believe something’s right doesn’t mean it’s right.” We DO know there is a plethora of illegals crossing the border every day. We DO know there is also a plethora of illegals committing crimes across the nation. No, all of those here illegally are not committing felonious acts against American citizens. But some do.
National Emergencies Act (NEA)
In the wake of all this, President Trump has floated a trial balloon regarding his enacting the National Emergencies Act (NEA), which was passed by Congress to address U.S. national emergencies and how the United States can and should respond, and the ability of a U.S. President to initiate these responses without Congressional approval.
The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this “Congressional termination” provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution.
According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.
And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.
Here’s a list of the presidents who declared still ongoing national emergencies:
President Jimmy Carter
Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.
President Bill Clinton
- Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.
- Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.
- March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.
- October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.
- March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba
- November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.
President George W. Bush
- June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia
- Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.
- Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
- Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
- March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.
- May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
- May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.
- June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.
- Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.
- Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.
- June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018, citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”
President Barack Obama
- April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.
- February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
- July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).
- May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.
- March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.
- April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
- May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.
- March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.
- April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.
- Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.
President Donald Trump
- Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.
- Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
- Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
Here’s the deal: it is doubtful that Democrats in Congress are going to in any way cooperate with funding for the building of a wall along with other types of meaningful technology efforts to stop illegals from entering the U.S. It is certain their reasoning has nothing to do with what’s best for the American people. So what’s an alternative — the BEST alternative?
At this point, the ONLY alternative I can see is for the President to declare a National Emergency action necessary for national security reasons. Before my liberal friends and other partners here blast me for saying this, stating the President has NO authority to do so, consider this:
- The NEA (shown above) clearly states the basis for any president to do so;
- 58 times since the law was enacted presidents have done so;
- 31 of those declarations were never terminated AND ARE STILL IN FORCE (see those still active above);
Here’s the most amazing thing to me about the previous NEA’s implemented: NONE have anything to do with addressing a direct threat to the continental United States perpetrated or facilitated by its border neighbors!
What’s Going to Happen?
President Trump is going to get his wall
It will NOT be just a wall; it will NOT be a solid concrete wall; additional elements for security WILL be put in place.
How is that going to happen without Congress authorizing funds to take such actions? There’s only one other way, and that’s what we’ve mentioned above: President Trump, without approval from Congress for necessary funding, will invoke the National Emergency Act, find funding from somewhere else in the government, and initiate the wall and additional border security measures. Further, I feel the President will eventually do this. Why do I believe it will take the enactment of the National Emergencies Act (NEA)? Because Democrats in Congress flatly refuse to fund the border security detailed by the President in a report for one reason: the extreme left of the Democrat Party promised to vote for Pelosi as House Speaker because she promised she would NOT fund what President Trump wanted. And Schumer? Schumer simply cannot stand his fellow New Yorker who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. “Symbolism over Substance.” And who pays the price? Both 800,000 federal employees AND all those Americans who suffer wrongs at the hands of illegal criminals who infiltrate America. Oh, one more group will pay and IS paying: American taxpayers to the tune of $60-$100 billion a year.
Even if the President caved, approves the Democrat funding bill that does NOT fund new border security measures by Homeland Security, and get the government back to work, that would change nothing substantive at our southern border.
Let’s face it: political talking points aside, I doubt very seriously any on the left sincerely feel the lives of those murdered at the hands of illegals or “just” brutalized are not tragic. But what concerns me is that when weighing the tragedies of those against the importance of the left winning political battles against the President and other conservatives, they choose the political battles as their importance. In doing so they diminish the value of the lives of those killed and the rights of those brutalized by putting illegals first.
We can sum it up this way: “if” the left hold genuine concern for the health and well-being of American citizens above all others, and if their concerns center primarily on what’s best for the nation, they will back away from their open borders ideology and let President Trump do the right thing.
Unfortunately I think what matters most to Democrats and other leftists who are paying the debt they owe to their open borders constituents. It’s sad that would take the place of the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and the common decency to recognize and acknowledge the needs of Americans must come first. After all, we allow 1 million immigrants into the U.S. each year who pay the price to become U.S. citizens through the legal process.
Isn’t it ironic that any members of Congress would put breaking the law and those lawbreakers above those who live their lives legally?
But they are…