Martial Law coming to a city near you - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

samcol · 02-17-2005, 03:55 PM

Someone please tell me this is a joke.
H.R. 418

Sec. 102) Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary), in the Secretary's sole discretion, to waive all laws as necessary to ensure expeditious construction of certain barriers and roads at the U.S. border. Prohibits courts, administrative agencies, and other entities from reviewing the Secretary's decision or from ordering relief for damages alleged to have resulted from such decision.

I know it just says certain barriers and roads, but if he decides to invoke this there can be no judicial review if he decides to take a very liberal interpretation of it.

I have little doubt that the Senate will pass this and Bush never vetos.

Michael Chertoff must be tickled pink at all the power he gets.

America is dieing... please discuss.

djtestudo · 02-17-2005, 04:11 PM

I think this is better in the eminent domain thread already open, because that is all it is.

It says nothing about martial law, or anything of the sort. Simply says he can use eminent domain to build roads or barriers at the US borders if needed, and no one can stop him. Still an interesting topic to discuss, but not anything near what you are saying.

I would suggest a title edit.

NCB · 02-17-2005, 04:16 PM

What the libs hate about this bill is that it states the courts have no say in the matter. Just how can the libs get their agenda through without the courts!?!?!

genuinegirly · 02-17-2005, 04:26 PM

So they can disregard laws revolving around the boarder... and neither the courts nor any other entity is capable of review???!?! No offence djtestudo, but how can anyone see this as not dangerous or along the same lines as martial law?

pan6467 · 02-17-2005, 04:32 PM

GOP..... for a political party who constantly accuses the Dems of a Big Brother government, the GOP sure does like to take away rights and add to the police and authoritarian type laws, while destroying any education, environmental, and healthcare.

NCB · 02-17-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

GOP..... for a political party who constantly accuses the Dems of a Big Brother government, the GOP sure does like to take away rights and add to the police and authoritarian type laws, while destroying any education, environmental, and healthcare.

You forgot the part about killing old people and "discrminating" against homosexuals

samcol · 02-17-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

I think this is better in the eminent domain thread already open, because that is all it is.

It says nothing about martial law, or anything of the sort. Simply says he can use eminent domain to build roads or barriers at the US borders if needed, and no one can stop him. Still an interesting topic to discuss, but not anything near what you are saying.

I would suggest a title edit.

I did change the title. However, how do you think it will be enforced if chertoff decides he needs to use your home, or community for security reasons? My best guess is Waco type scenarios.

tecoyah · 02-17-2005, 05:14 PM

unlikely at best...but let us all hope it does not come to that

KMA-628 · 02-17-2005, 05:17 PM

NCB -

That cracked me up.

samcol -

To your last statement.......what???? I am trying to see how you got from the article posted to Waco..... Whether this idea trumps law or not, it won't trump the Constitution (3rd Amendment).

samcol · 02-17-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

NCB -

That cracked me up.

samcol -

To your last statement.......what???? I am trying to see how you got from the article posted to Waco..... Whether this idea trumps law or not, it won't trump the Constitution (3rd Amendment).

About the Waco statement. If the Homeland Security Secretary decides he needs property in regards to borders, he has it. If the people decide they don't agree with it, excessive police or military force will be used to "persuade" the people to leave. Which is martial law under my book which is what I was trying to explain to the previous poster.

As far as the 3rd Amendment goes, this bill waves all judicial review. I don't know how much more I can break that down. Yes, it might be in violation of the 3rd, but if courts can't review it then it might as well not exist.

flstf · 02-17-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Someone please tell me this is a joke.
H.R. 418

Sec. 102) Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary), in the Secretary's sole discretion, to waive all laws as necessary to ensure expeditious construction of certain barriers and roads at the U.S. border. Prohibits courts, administrative agencies, and other entities from reviewing the Secretary's decision or from ordering relief for damages alleged to have resulted from such decision.

I don't know all the environmental impacts caused by these fences, but I believe they want to bypass some of the environmental restrictions especially around San Diego.

Quote:

Policy Issues
The completion of the border fence is likely to be an issue faced by the 109th Congress. At issue, is the balance between the preservation of the environment in border regions and the requirements of domestic security. On the one hand are environmental interests who believe that the environmental damage caused by the border fencing is not justified because the fencing merely shifts unauthorized migration and therefore does not contribute significantly to national security.

Others are concerned with the potential precedent that could be set with giving the Secretary very broad waiver authority. On the other hand are those who believe that the border fences have been an effective tool in discouraging aliens from crossing the border in those areas where they have been constructed, and that the environmental damage caused by their construction is an unfortunate but necessary reality of securing the border.

If the 109th Congress should take legislative action on the border fence, possible policy alternatives may include

!allowing DHS to waive some or all applicable laws in order to expedite the construction of all fences along our international borders;

!allowing DHS to waive some or all applicable laws only to finish the construction of the 14-mile triple-fence in San Diego;

!establishing a panel of experts to review all proposed border fence construction projects; and

!requiring DHS to propose alternative construction plans that would mitigate the environmental impact of the fence’s construction.

CRS Report for Congress

pan6467 · 02-17-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

You forgot the part about killing old people and "discrminating" against homosexuals

No look at the budgets. Just as the GOP (and rightfully so) can say the Dems cut defense and intelligence, the Dems. can point to (and rightfully so) that the GOP cuts domestic spending and bolsters military spending. That's fact.

The Dems. pass anti-discrimination laws and are harsh on big business. The GOP tend to pass more laws that take away liberties and ease up on big business. I tend to side with the DEMS.

I appologize for not getting further in to detail earlier. Both sides have their faults and both have good points. I earlier commented and focussed only on the negative of the GOP and how I felt.

djtestudo · 02-17-2005, 06:18 PM

One other thing.

The law says the courts can't overrule the use of the law. However, just like any other law, they can declare it unconstitutional if it turns into the government stealing property for no reason.

KMA-628 · 02-17-2005, 06:23 PM

I think we need a spending thread.

pan -

On a vague level, some of your claims may (key word: may) be accurate, but most are not. You should start a thread with the claims you made above and I will respond with accurate data to refute it.

My boy spends way, way too much...on everything...not just the military. I have seen the numbers and the percent increases and it floored me. He makes Clinton look like a social tightwad.

Non-defense spending by Bush is over four times higher than Clinton Part I and two-and-a-half times higher than Clinton Part II--that's non-defense....

Anyway, back to the thread.

NCB -

The chances of your claims coming true are really slim to none. There are a lot of worst-case scenarios that could happen, but this one is so far out that there that it borderlines paranoia to worry about it.

I just think that there are many more topics that could be discussed that have a much higher chance of happening, why stress over something that will most likely never happen.

Seaver · 02-17-2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

I did change the title. However, how do you think it will be enforced if chertoff decides he needs to use your home, or community for security reasons? My best guess is Waco type scenarios.

Ok so please explain how this is different than emminent domain laws of the past?

If the Gov. decides (local, state, or federal) that they require your land for public works they CAN force you off. They pay the going rate for the property.

Explain how this is martial law? Your statements have nothing in common with what the law states. It's no different than the government stating they want a military base is say, San Antonio to help defend the southern border. This is just they are using it to make roadblocks and increased fencing.

samcol · 02-17-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Ok so please explain how this is different than emminent domain laws of the past?

If the Gov. decides (local, state, or federal) that they require your land for public works they CAN force you off. They pay the going rate for the property.

Explain how this is martial law? Your statements have nothing in common with what the law states. It's no different than the government stating they want a military base is say, San Antonio to help defend the southern border. This is just they are using it to make roadblocks and increased fencing.

The law specifically says the government doesn't have to compensate you for the property.

"Prohibits courts, administrative agencies, and other entities from reviewing the Secretary's decision or from ordering relief for damages alleged to have resulted from such decision."

This is tyranny plain and simple. He will have absolute power when it comes to national security and immigration when this passes.

tecoyah · 02-17-2005, 07:25 PM

again.....not likely....I am almost tempted to move this to paranoia....but we shall see

samcol · 02-17-2005, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

again.....not likely....I am almost tempted to move this to paranoia....but we shall see

I must be paranoid to think this is way to much power for one un-elected person to have.

It doesn't matter what is or isn't likely. It's what the official bill says. Yes, I am giving the worst case scenario with the martial law statements. However, even if you think Chertoff is an angel, if we ever get a real tyrant in there this could easily be abused.

I can't believe an official bill that's headed to the senate is now considered paranoia. Some of the things in here are quite shocking if you actually read it. Nothing goes into a bill by accident.

tecoyah · 02-17-2005, 08:05 PM

I have read the bill....and I agree it is disheartening....perhaps a discussion of the information contained within the document...rather than an extrapolation of worst case scenario effects?

Seaver · 02-17-2005, 08:06 PM

Damages is different than paying for the taking of the land. Damages would be loss of nearby property value because of a building of a checkpoint.

flstf · 02-17-2005, 10:21 PM

If I understand these bills correctly it appears to me that the new bill is restricting the authority to just the barriers, roads and fences specified in the old 1996 bill. While this may be somewhat oppressive it does not seem to be nearly as bad as some have speculated here. As I understand it there is no private property involved but mostly some environmental restrictions.

The section of bill from 1996 that is to be amended is as follows:

Quote:

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility SEC. 102. <<NOTE: 8 USC 1103 note.>> IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDER.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall take such actions
as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads
(including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in
the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in
areas of high illegal entry into the United States.

(b) Construction of Fencing and Road Improvements in the Border Area
Near San Diego, California.--

(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Attorney General shall provide for the construction along the 14
miles of the international land border of the United States,
starting at the Pacific Ocean and extending eastward, of second
and third fences, in addition to the existing reinforced fence,
and for roads between the fences.

(2) Prompt acquisition of necessary easements.--The Attorney
General, acting under the authority conferred in section 103(b)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as inserted by
subsection (d)), shall promptly acquire such easements as may be
necessary to carry out this subsection and shall commence
construction of fences immediately following such acquisition
(or conclusion of portions thereof).

The wording of the new bill will add section c to the above is as follows:

Quote:

H.R.418 H.R.418
REAL ID Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

Reading through this legal mumbo jumbo and trying to figure out what the hell they are talking about is worse than getting a root canal.

Yakk · 02-18-2005, 07:49 AM

I wonder how this interacts with the NAFTA provisions on property confiscations, or anything that amounts to the same thing.

dksuddeth · 02-18-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

again.....not likely....I am almost tempted to move this to paranoia....but we shall see

alot of things have happened throughout history that probably could have been stopped had people not thought the very same thing you've stated right here.

02-17-2005, 03:55 PM	#1 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	REAL ID act of 2005 Someone please tell me this is a joke. H.R. 418 Sec. 102) Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary), in the Secretary's sole discretion, to waive all laws as necessary to ensure expeditious construction of certain barriers and roads at the U.S. border. Prohibits courts, administrative agencies, and other entities from reviewing the Secretary's decision or from ordering relief for damages alleged to have resulted from such decision. I know it just says certain barriers and roads, but if he decides to invoke this there can be no judicial review if he decides to take a very liberal interpretation of it. I have little doubt that the Senate will pass this and Bush never vetos. Michael Chertoff must be tickled pink at all the power he gets. America is dieing... please discuss. Last edited by samcol; 02-17-2005 at 04:19 PM..

02-17-2005, 04:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I think this is better in the eminent domain thread already open, because that is all it is. It says nothing about martial law, or anything of the sort. Simply says he can use eminent domain to build roads or barriers at the US borders if needed, and no one can stop him. Still an interesting topic to discuss, but not anything near what you are saying. I would suggest a title edit. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

02-17-2005, 04:26 PM	#4 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	So they can disregard laws revolving around the boarder... and neither the courts nor any other entity is capable of review???!?! No offence djtestudo, but how can anyone see this as not dangerous or along the same lines as martial law? __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

02-17-2005, 04:32 PM	#5 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	GOP..... for a political party who constantly accuses the Dems of a Big Brother government, the GOP sure does like to take away rights and add to the police and authoritarian type laws, while destroying any education, environmental, and healthcare. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-17-2005, 05:14 PM	#8 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	unlikely at best...but let us all hope it does not come to that __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-17-2005, 05:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	NCB - That cracked me up. samcol - To your last statement.......what???? I am trying to see how you got from the article posted to Waco..... Whether this idea trumps law or not, it won't trump the Constitution (3rd Amendment).

02-17-2005, 06:18 PM	#13 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	One other thing. The law says the courts can't overrule the use of the law. However, just like any other law, they can declare it unconstitutional if it turns into the government stealing property for no reason. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

02-17-2005, 06:23 PM	#14 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	I think we need a spending thread. pan - On a vague level, some of your claims may (key word: may) be accurate, but most are not. You should start a thread with the claims you made above and I will respond with accurate data to refute it. My boy spends way, way too much...on everything...not just the military. I have seen the numbers and the percent increases and it floored me. He makes Clinton look like a social tightwad. Non-defense spending by Bush is over four times higher than Clinton Part I and two-and-a-half times higher than Clinton Part II--that's non-defense.... Anyway, back to the thread. NCB - The chances of your claims coming true are really slim to none. There are a lot of worst-case scenarios that could happen, but this one is so far out that there that it borderlines paranoia to worry about it. I just think that there are many more topics that could be discussed that have a much higher chance of happening, why stress over something that will most likely never happen. Last edited by KMA-628; 02-17-2005 at 06:25 PM..

02-17-2005, 07:25 PM	#17 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	again.....not likely....I am almost tempted to move this to paranoia....but we shall see __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-17-2005, 08:05 PM	#19 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I have read the bill....and I agree it is disheartening....perhaps a discussion of the information contained within the document...rather than an extrapolation of worst case scenario effects? __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-17-2005, 08:06 PM	#20 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Damages is different than paying for the taking of the land. Damages would be loss of nearby property value because of a building of a checkpoint.

02-18-2005, 07:49 AM	#22 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	I wonder how this interacts with the NAFTA provisions on property confiscations, or anything that amounts to the same thing. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.