Image 01 Image 03

Trump Expected to Sign Executive Orders on Border Wall, Sanctuary Cities

Trump Expected to Sign Executive Orders on Border Wall, Sanctuary Cities

Executive orders today concentrate on national security.

President Donald Trump will sign a bunch of executive orders today over national security issues, including a wall along the border of America and Mexico and policy against sanctuary cities. Trump will visit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) where he will sign all the orders.

Trump made immigration the cornerstone of his campaign, often talking about a wall along the border and stopping Syrian refugees from entering the country. According to the Associated Press, one person in the administration said the proposals “included a ban on entry to the U.S. for at least 30 days from countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, though the person cautioned the details could still change.”

The wall, one of the more controversial points of his campaign, may come along due to a 2006 law signed by President George W. Bush. The Secure Fence Act led to building of a fence along Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The project finished in 2009. But Trump may face complications from a 1970 treaty with Mexico, which states “that structures cannot disrupt the flow of the rivers, which define the U.S.-Mexican border along Texas and 24 miles in Arizona, according to The International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint U.S.-Mexican agency that administers the treaty.”

No one knows yet if the immigration policy will include any action on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program started in 2012, which gives those who came to America as children “temporary protection from deportation.” The Washington Post reported:

Several people familiar with the discussions emphasized that the week’s actions are intended to start fulfilling Trump’s campaign promises on immigration and bring Republicans behind Trump on the issue, one day before he speaks at Thursday’s congressional GOP retreat in Philadelphia. These people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the executive orders were still being finalized.

White House aides said Trump planned to meet Wednesday with several parents of children who were killed by immigrants who are in the country illegally. These activists, who refer to themselves as “angel moms,” were frequently featured during Trump’s campaign rallies and during the Republican National Convention.

The ban could give the administration time to figure out how to properly vet those coming from nations with high Islamic terrorism. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Trump’s pick for attorney general, and DHS Secretary John Kelly both said they do not want an outright ban on Muslims. Sessions, though, agreed people from those nations need more vetting. Kelly told his Senate committee that he will “promote ‘tolerance’ and said he didn’t think it was appropriate to target any group of people solely based on religion or ethnic background, including through the development of a registry.”

Kelly also explained to the committee that a “wall might not ‘be built anytime soon.'” He stressed that “security of the border starts 1,500 miles south of the Rio Grande in the jungles of Latin America.”

On the campaign trail, Trump claimed that Mexico would pay for the wall, but Mexican officials said no way. The Government Accountability Office put the price tag at “$6.5 million per mile to build a single-layer fence.” The office then stated that the government will need “an additional $4.2 million per mile for roads and more fencing.”

Another executive order could declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group. Trump will also consider keeping the CIA’s black sites open. President Barack Obama ordered to close all the sites in 2009. The Washington Post obtained a copy of the order:

The draft, labeled “Detention and Interrogation of Enemy Combatants” notes that the United States has “refrained from exercising certain authorities critical to its defense” in the war on terrorism, including “a halt to all classified interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

The document stops short of instructing the CIA to rebuild prisons or resume interrogating terrorism suspects, a prospect that is likely to face opposition from an agency that faced criminal investigations and searing criticism after the interrogation program was exposed.

The order calls for a recommendation to the president on whether he should “reinstate a program of high-value alien terrorists to be operated outside the United States and whether such a program should include the use of detention facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


4th armored div | January 25, 2017 at 12:05 pm

If we want to be able to control who we permit as residents and citizens we must make changes to the ‘Birthright citizenship’ laws.
this was intended post civil war to ensure that slaves were indeed citizens of the USA.

children born to US Citizens, no matter where in the world, are citizens.
children born to legal residents, become legal residents.
when/if these legal residents become citizens, their kids, under the age of 18, also become citizens.

otherwise, NO, these kids are NOT citizens!

    This is in the constitution, so the only way to change it is for 2/3 of each house, and 38 state legislatures, to pass an amendment. Lotsa luck with that.

      4th armored div in reply to Milhouse. | January 25, 2017 at 2:11 pm

      amend, amend,amend – this was NOT intended for pregnant invaders to produce newly minted citizens, who then normalize all their kinfolk.

      We need a SCOTUS to make a clarification and limitation of this law.

      If we can’t accomplish this, then we need to halt all immigration until we figure out, perhaps by a national referendum to decide this issue.

        The constitution means exactly what it says, and it explicitly says that anyone who is born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically a citien. No court has the right to change that. If SCOTUS rules to ignore that language it will be ultra vires and the decision will be of no effect, because it does not have the authority to amend the constitution. I don’t give a sh*t whether you like it or not.

        Nor does any referendum have the authority to amend the constitution. If a majority of americans vote the way you like, tough sh*t, they do not have the right to get their way. The only way the constitution can be amended is by 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of state legislatures, and you will never get that for such a proposal.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | January 26, 2017 at 12:27 am

          “and subject to its jurisdiction”

          I would assume you are aware this is the key wording, how it is interpreted by a SCOTUS ruling might very well change the birthright baby rules.

          My opinion, illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, not ours. Here, they are simply illegal, nothing more.

          Send them home with children. Let the SC sort it out.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 26, 2017 at 12:51 am

          My opinion, illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, not ours.

          If you really believed that then you’d be condemning every cop who ever arrested one of them, every prosecutor who ever brought charges against them, every judge who didn’t instantly dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, and every prison where they are illegally held. We’d be a nation of criminals for imposing our laws on so many thousands of people who are not subject to them. Since you don’t act as if you believed it, I can only conclude that you don’t, and are lying when you claim you do.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | January 26, 2017 at 9:48 am

          Poor, stupid Butt-hurt Berri…

          The law needs to be changed. It needs to be changed the way we change a mistake in the Constitution; via amendment.

          We don’t want activist, packed courts (per Bier Hall Britt) to screw with social engineering by edict.

          Not one way or the other. If you even understand the idea of Constitutional governance, that’s abhorrent.

      Maybe and maybe not. The constitution is not clear on whether the child of an illegal or member of an invading army has to be treated as a citizen. Certainly the constitution doesn’t require children of an invading arm to be citizens. Millions pouring into our country is a massive unlawful invasion. An invading army of sorts. Then there is the question of whether the illegal is subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country exception to birth right citizenship.

      The definitive answer won’t be known until congress passes an appropriate statute and a Trump packed supreme court decides. Elections have consequences.

        Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | January 25, 2017 at 5:41 pm

        Ah, the return of Bier Hall Gary (the Liar) Britt.

        The rule of law does not matter. It’s all about power.

        The exact same “reasoning” dominated during the FDR years, and gave us a laundry list of “laws” that are abhorrent to the Constitution.

        He’ll very gleefully add to those.

          You and your left wing buddies might find them abhorent. The rest of the country not so much.

          We’ll just have to discuss it over a drink now that I’m moving to spring cypress in North Houston.

          We can even take a trip one of these days to go see the Trump wall.

          Do closed over 20000 today. Trump already Making America Great Again

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 26, 2017 at 9:03 am

          I don’t have any left-wing buddies, and Conservatives DO find Wickard (for instance) abhorrent.

          I also don’t want any left-wing “buddies”, or even to drink with any. So you and I will never ‘have a drink’.

          You claim not to be aligned with the left wing progressives yet you make posts opposing a supreme court filled with great conservative justices. Hmmmm…

          No drnkers darn and I was so counting on that. Does this mean the trip to go see the Trump wall is off ?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 26, 2017 at 11:03 am

          No, Herr Goebbals, I support the appointment of Constitutional CONSERVATIVES, as you know very well, but will cheerfully lie about.

          To the extent Der Donald DOES appoint CONSERVATIVES, you will HATE the results!

          Remember: “This election isn’t about conservative principles”, Bier Britt.

          I am against your totalitarian wet dream of dicta coming out of a packed court circumventing the Constitution, just like your hero FDR.

          BTW, I LOVE that you LOVE that the Dow bubble keeps on inflating, as if it hasn’t under Barracula!


        Milhouse in reply to garybritt. | January 25, 2017 at 8:43 pm

        On the contrary, the constitution is very clear. The pnly children born in the US who are not automatically citizens are those not subject to US jurisdiction. Will you seriously claim that illegal immigrants are not subject to our jurisdiction, and thus exempt from all laws, federal, state, and local? Will you claim that all illegal immigrants currently held in prisons throughout the nation should immediately be released, because we have no jurisdiction over them? Of course not.

        Invading soldiers, of course, are not subject to our laws. They are combatants, and subject to the laws of war and the Geneva conventions. But the claim that people crossing the border in search of a better life, or those arriving perfectly legally and overstaying their visas, are “invading soldiers” is deliberately dishonest, and nobody who makes it actually believes it.

It is Hard to fence the Rio Grande. But, the Texas DPS has some armored bass boats that sport twin 50 Cals.

Dogs, helicopters, NVGs and enough men and support to get the job done is what the Border Patrol wants.

    Ragspierre in reply to MattMusson. | January 25, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    Matt, darlin’, those boats are on Lake Amistad, and they are there to counter narco traffickers, not unarmed mojados.

    No DPS officer is going to use machine guns on the Rio Grande to interdict somebody wading across that pitiful stream.

Emigration reform.

It will need to address “natural born” citizenship of invading armies that forego Planning.

    Milhouse in reply to n.n. | January 25, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Why would you want to reform emigration? Why do you care who leaves the country?

    Invading armies are not subject to US jurisdiction. They can be fought, killed, taken prisoner, but they cannot be tried for breaking US law because they have no obligation to keep it. Therefore any children they have while here are not citiens. Illegal immigrants are not enemy soldiers, they are subject to US jurisdiction (unless you really want to give them complete immunity from all federal, state, and local laws, which I don’t think you do), and therefore their children born here are citixens.

2nd Ammendment Mother | January 25, 2017 at 6:26 pm

It’s going to make this week’s trip to our part of the border (that has a border fences on it) much more interesting. I’m definitely going to be watching for improvements in the Border Patrol and Checkpoints