AZ Indian Tribe That Controls 75 Miles of Border Won’t Allow TRUMP WALL on their Land

USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm not sure how accurate this is or how wide spread the belief is; because I've talked to tribal members and from what I've heard, is they're tired of the trash that's left, homes that have been broken into, and the constant worry about their children being any distance from home.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the injuns hate illegals as much as everyone hates them. This is just a ploy to get whitey to give them more welfare.
 
Yeah, because the president totally had the right to unilaterally suspend welfare benefits to people from a certain tribe until they allow certain construction projects on their land. I remember that law being passed yesterday.
 
Comrade Watermark said:
Yeah, because the president totally had the right to unilaterally suspend welfare benefits to people from a certain tribe until they allow certain construction projects on their land. I remember that law being passed yesterday.
Click to expand...

nobody is suggesting suspending welfare benefits or building a wall on their land......I believe the suggestion, and its a good one, is to simply add a couple corners and build the wall around their land......
 
Quote Originally Posted by tsuke View Post
because you can still build the wall. THe indian tribe would just be on the mexican side.

"liberals have trouble figuring out difficult things like that...... " #23
Click to expand...
In geometry, both posters quoted here have a valid point.

But:
ARTICLE 1. SECTION 8.
15 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
Click to expand...
If any part of the executive action, plus legislative follow-through constitutes "civil authority *" then the suggestion in #23 would appear to violate Art.1.
For (if #23 is correct) "THe indian tribe would just be on the mexican side."

This aspect of Constitutional law is further confirmed by Art.2 Sects1 & 3.

ref:
* insurrection (în´se-rèk´shen) noun
The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government. See synonyms at rebellion.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin ìnsurrêctio, ìnsurrêction-, from Latin ìnsurrêctus, past participle of ìnsurgere, to rise up. See insurgent.]
- in´surrec´tional adjective
- in´surrec´tionar´y (-she-nèr´ê) adjective & noun
- in´surrec´tionism noun
- in´surrec´tionist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
 
"Traditionalists have always preferred power in Congress, and feared an imperial presidency. It's populists and leftists who fashioned a powerful executive." T #28
Click to expand...
What an excellent expression of partisan perspective.

But here's a reality check.
- Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. - frequently attributed to Lord Acton
But the quotation is:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,"
*writes John Emerich Edward Dalbert-Acton, 53, April 5 to Cambridge University professor Mandell Creighton. Lord Acton is a liberal Roman Catholic and a leader of the opposition to the papal dogma of infallibility
Source:
The People's Chronology is licensed from Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright © 1995, 1996 by James Trager. All rights reserved. (aka Bookshelf '98)
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. David Brin
Click to expand...
Therefore:
Was it a conspiratorial partisan effort?
Or was it the power hungry that expanded authority by their own precedent?
" It's populists and leftists who fashioned a powerful executive. "
"When the President [of the United States of America] does it, that means it is not illegal." President Richard M. Nixon (R), the only U.S. president in all our centuries of history to resign in disgrace due to his own illegal conduct
Click to expand...
 
sear said:
In geometry, both posters quoted here have a valid point.

But:

If any part of the executive action, plus legislative follow-through constitutes "civil authority *" then the suggestion in #23 would appear to violate Art.1.
For (if #23 is correct) "THe indian tribe would just be on the mexican side."

This aspect of Constitutional law is further confirmed by Art.2 Sects1 & 3.

ref:
* insurrection (în´se-rèk´shen) noun
The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government. See synonyms at rebellion.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin ìnsurrêctio, ìnsurrêction-, from Latin ìnsurrêctus, past participle of ìnsurgere, to rise up. See insurgent.]
- in´surrec´tional adjective
- in´surrec´tionar´y (-she-nèr´ê) adjective & noun
- in´surrec´tionism noun
- in´surrec´tionist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...

sorry if this is difficult for you as well.....building a wall on your own land or with the permission of the owner is not insurrection......neither is complying with the owner's will and NOT building a wall on their land.......

going around an obstacle is not insurrection either....

unfortunately, that leaves you without a point to your argument.....
 
"sorry if this is difficult for you as well..." #33
Click to expand...
To the contrary son, it's an absolute breeze. I do it for recreation.

The wall candidate Trump, and now president elect Trump has specified is a border wall. The idea is to keep illegal aliens from gaining illegal access TO THE NATION.
If we placed the reservation at issue South of the wall, it would also be South of the border, BY DEFINITION; because the wall defines the border.
Otherwise why wouldn't Trump build it in New York?
"..building a wall on your own land or with the permission of the owner is not insurrection...."
Click to expand...
Indeed. Not by the most strict conventional definition.

HOWEVER:
The U.S. "Civil War" was about self-selected Southern States separating from the Union.

So what's the practical difference?
- They would have done so with muzzle-loading long guns and cannons.
- The reservation at issue would do so with bulldozers, track-hoes, and brick-layers.
"going around an obstacle is not insurrection either...."
Click to expand...
Unless the movement is made by a renegade;
- the first in U.S. history to seize the office with neither political nor military experience
- upon execution of his EXTRAORDINARY scheme, the U.S. ends up with less territory than before.
"unfortunately, that leaves you without a point to your argument..... "
Click to expand...
Or you without a fundamental understanding of law, and law court rulings.
It is for example at how we end up with decisions like:
- corporations are people,
- $money is speech

etc.

You think of insurrection as conduct.
You ignore that it can also be result.

"unfortunately, that leaves you without a" valid "point to your argument..... "
 
Comrade Watermark said:
Yeah, because the president totally had the right to unilaterally suspend welfare benefits to people from a certain tribe until they allow certain construction projects on their land. I remember that law being passed yesterday.
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't need laws. He just writes laws and calls them executive orders. Or the Supreme Court writes a law and calls it an interpretation. Where have you been?
 
"free schooling" #37
Click to expand...
Yes.
That might address that problem.

BUT !!

It might create a substantially worse problem.

What benefit would it be to the U.S. to have an illegal population of illiterates?

We are a nation of immigrants.
Treating them like 2nd class citizens is not only a bad idea for them. It's a bad idea for U.S.
 
sear said:
Whatever the legalities, this tribe may have given Trump precisely the excuse he needs to abandon this key campaign promise.

Candidate Trump lead us to believe he'd build a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, and that it would be a wall impenetrable enough to stop illegal immigration across that border. AND, Mexico's gunna pay for it.

Now President Trump can say: no point. Why build most of the wall if it's going to have a great big hole in it?
Click to expand...

The real truth is, a solid wall like Trump described in all his campaign rhetoric and dreamed about by millions of xenophobic righties simply CANNOT be built along the border.

There are THOUSANDS of private property owners all along the border who MUST have access to the river, and barricading them off from it simply will not work.

A "fence/wall" has already been built along several hundred miles of border, and it is riddled with openings to allow private land owners along the Rio Grande to have access to the water they need to survive.

Good luck getting those land owners to agree to having their access to life giving water cut off for the benefit of some fat cat a thousand miles away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top