Talk:National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Full speech?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone post the full Trump speech in the announcement section? ExclusiveWillows (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ExclusiveWillows, that is something for Wikisource. I'll add it there for you if it hasn't been already, though. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe so. ExclusiveWillows (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

diversion of military construction funds -- clarification tag

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Post 9/11, Geo. Bush issued "Proclamation 7463" which diverted certain military construction funds to other uses or projects. Thus at least one of the earlier 58 emergencies involved the reallocation of funds 'irregardless' of what the source says. – S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC) In the current case the Prez is diverting funds from other purposes after he failed to get the money from Congress. So, while one of the earlier proclamations involved previously allocated funds, the 9-11 diversion did not involve a failed request to Congress for a particular pot of money.21:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

the 9-11 diversion did not involve a failed request to Congress for a particular pot of money. And this one does. So in other words, this case IS different from the 9/11 proclamation and the current request IS unprecedented? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Title capitalization

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should the C in "concerning" be capitalized in the title of this article? Stapmoshun (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

per capitalization used In whitehouse.gov (posted In The el section), Yes. – S. Rich (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Democracy backsliding"

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I challenged this entire section, which was a subsection of "Background", as inappropriate and POV, and I have removed it. For reference, here is the section I am talking about: [1] This was general commentary about the state of "democracy" (small d) in America, and the sources are not mainstream or neutral; they all have a POV of their own. In adding this to the article we are basically saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Trump is responsible for undercutting democracy in this country and that the Emergency Declaration should be seen as part of that. IMO we could include such commentary, but in the Reactions section rather than Background; it should be attributed to the source, and only to sources that specifically refer to this declaration in their analysis. Open for discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, maybe this should not be mentioned in background. But it is precisely the point (in sources) and that D. Trump undermines the US democracy by bypassing and defying the Congress. Perhaps to rephrase and include elsewhere? My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Like I said: IMO we could include such commentary, but in the Reactions section rather than Background; it should be attributed to the source, and only to sources that specifically refer to this declaration in their analysis. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What happened to the rename I did for "Accusations of Democratic Backsliding" ? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Somebody changed the title to "Democracy backsliding".[2] Shortly after that, the entire section was removed, title and all. Feel free to join in the discussion here about whether, and where, to include that kind of material. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I think that it was fine as long as it was content neutral. Mvbw, why did you change the section heading? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought that would be a better title (no objections to restore). I think this text should be restored exactly as it was, I do not see it as anything problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the beginning of the presidency of Donald Trump, ratings of U.S. democracy had already sharply plunged in the United States.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] According to the 2018 V-Dem Annual Democracy Report for the United States, there has been "a significant democratic backsliding in the United States [since the Inauguration of Donald Trump] ... attributable to weakening constraints on the executive."^[1] Independent assessments by Freedom House and Bright Line Watch found a similar decline on checks on executive power, along with a significant decline in overall democratic functioning.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ ^a ^b Staff (May 28, 2018). "Democracy for All? V-Dem Annual Democracy Report 2018" (PDF). Varieties of Democracy. pp. 5–6, 16, 19–22, 27–32, 36, 46, 48, 54, and 56. Retrieved February 15, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ ^a ^b Staff (November 15, 2018). "Bright Line Watch: Wave VII". Bright Line Watch. Retrieved February 15, 2019. The trajectories sketched by V-Dem and by the Bright Line Watch experts are remarkably consistent over time, though the Bright Line Watch assessments are a bit more tempered (slightly higher than V-Dem from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th, slightly lower since). Notably, both indices drop sharply in the last few years of the series. V-Dem's data end in 2017 but Bright Line Watch experts perceive further decline in 2018 (from 76 in 2015 to 69 in 2017 to 64 now). We interpret this decline as a response to the events of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Trump presidency. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ ^a ^b Staff. "Freedom in the World 2017 | United States". Freedom House. Retrieved February 15, 2019. The United States is arguably the world's oldest democracy. Its people benefit from a vibrant electoral system, a strong rule-of-law tradition, robust freedoms of expression and religious belief, and a wide array of other civil liberties. The United States remains a major destination point for immigrants and has largely been successful in integrating newcomers from all backgrounds. However, in recent years the country's democratic institutions have suffered some erosion, as reflected in legislative gridlock, dysfunction in the criminal justice system, and growing disparities in wealth and economic opportunity. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ ^a ^b Staff. "Freedom in the World 2018 | United States". Freedom House. Retrieved February 15, 2019. Newly elected president Donald Trump, who took office in January, defied ethical standards observed by his recent predecessors, for instance by retaining and promoting his private business empire while in office, naming his daughter and son-in-law as presidential advisers, and refusing to divulge his tax records. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ ^a ^b Staff. "Freedom in the World 2019 | United States". Freedom House. Retrieved February 15, 2019. Since 2017, the Trump administration has presented a number of new challenges to existing norms of government ethics and probity. Anti-corruption watchdogs criticized President Trump for shifting management of his real-estate development empire to his children rather than divesting ownership or establishing a stronger structural barrier between himself and his businesses. This lack of separation raised concerns that the president was using his office for personal enrichment, or that his official decisions were influenced by his private business interests; lawsuits that were ongoing in 2018 focused on a constitutional rule that forbids officeholders from receiving compensation, or "emoluments," from foreign governments, which Trump was accused of doing through his businesses. The president, his staff, and special interest groups of foreign and domestic origin all frequently visited and held events at Trump-branded properties in the United States during his first two years in office, generating publicity and income. Trump's decision to appoint his daughter and son-in-law as presidential advisers prompted similar concerns about their own business interests, as well as accusations of nepotism. The Trump administration also notably undercut conflict-of-interest restrictions for White House and executive branch appointees. Although the president issued an executive order in 2017 that limited appointees' ability to shift to lobbying work after leaving government, the same order eased restrictions on lobbyists moving into government, and the administration initially resisted efforts to disclose waivers allowing appointees to skirt the rules that remained. In practice, many Trump nominees received such waivers. Journalistic and congressional investigations have routinely found conflicts of interest and other ethical violations among nominees and appointees, and key officials including the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the secretary of the interior stepped down amid ethics scandals during 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

MVBW, the problem is that to include this section under “Background” is non-neutral and Original Research. This material would be fine for an article about Trump’s effect on American democratic institutions, if such an article were written. But the subject of this article is the declaration of national emergency. None of these references say anything about the use of national emergency; they couldn’t, since they were written before it happened. To include this as background for this article is to say, in Wikipedia’s voice, that this national emergency declaration is an example of Trump undermining democracy.

There will undoubtedly be - probably already are - people saying something like that in commentary. Fine; include their comments, attributed to them, in the reactions section. But to start out the article by saying “It is an established fact that Trump undermines democracy, and we are pointing it out in this article because this action is clearly (obvious to us, anyhow) another example of it” - that is the worst kind of Synthesis and Original Research. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What Melanie said, plus the WP:SOAPBOX look. In addition, please note that Freedom House actually assessed that democracy in the United States has been declining for many years (from index 94 in 2009 to 86 in 2018), so that attributing this slide solely to Trump is a misrepresentation of their findings. — JFG ^talk 02:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that degrading democracy in the US generally belongs to other pages, however this particular declaration is an important part of the process. How exactly this needs to be phrased and sourced is another matter. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Some analysts"

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a reason that "some" see the declaration as expanding executive power? Shouldn't the word "some" be removed here? ExclusiveWillows (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The word "some" is there because other analysts disagree, see [3]. wumbolo ^^^ 15:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks! ExclusiveWillows (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

[:1-1] Staff (May 28, 2018). "Democracy for All? V-Dem Annual Democracy Report 2018" (PDF). Varieties of Democracy. pp. 5–6, 16, 19–22, 27–32, 36, 46, 48, 54, and 56. Retrieved February 15, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[:5-2] Staff (November 15, 2018). "Bright Line Watch: Wave VII". Bright Line Watch. Retrieved February 15, 2019. The trajectories sketched by V-Dem and by the Bright Line Watch experts are remarkably consistent over time, though the Bright Line Watch assessments are a bit more tempered (slightly higher than V-Dem from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th, slightly lower since). Notably, both indices drop sharply in the last few years of the series. V-Dem's data end in 2017 but Bright Line Watch experts perceive further decline in 2018 (from 76 in 2015 to 69 in 2017 to 64 now). We interpret this decline as a response to the events of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Trump presidency. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[:2-3] Staff. "Freedom in the World 2017 | United States". Freedom House. Retrieved February 15, 2019. The United States is arguably the world's oldest democracy. Its people benefit from a vibrant electoral system, a strong rule-of-law tradition, robust freedoms of expression and religious belief, and a wide array of other civil liberties. The United States remains a major destination point for immigrants and has largely been successful in integrating newcomers from all backgrounds. However, in recent years the country's democratic institutions have suffered some erosion, as reflected in legislative gridlock, dysfunction in the criminal justice system, and growing disparities in wealth and economic opportunity. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[:3-4] Staff. "Freedom in the World 2018 | United States". Freedom House. Retrieved February 15, 2019. Newly elected president Donald Trump, who took office in January, defied ethical standards observed by his recent predecessors, for instance by retaining and promoting his private business empire while in office, naming his daughter and son-in-law as presidential advisers, and refusing to divulge his tax records. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[:4-5] Staff. "Freedom in the World 2019 | United States". Freedom House. Retrieved February 15, 2019. Since 2017, the Trump administration has presented a number of new challenges to existing norms of government ethics and probity. Anti-corruption watchdogs criticized President Trump for shifting management of his real-estate development empire to his children rather than divesting ownership or establishing a stronger structural barrier between himself and his businesses. This lack of separation raised concerns that the president was using his office for personal enrichment, or that his official decisions were influenced by his private business interests; lawsuits that were ongoing in 2018 focused on a constitutional rule that forbids officeholders from receiving compensation, or "emoluments," from foreign governments, which Trump was accused of doing through his businesses. The president, his staff, and special interest groups of foreign and domestic origin all frequently visited and held events at Trump-branded properties in the United States during his first two years in office, generating publicity and income. Trump's decision to appoint his daughter and son-in-law as presidential advisers prompted similar concerns about their own business interests, as well as accusations of nepotism. The Trump administration also notably undercut conflict-of-interest restrictions for White House and executive branch appointees. Although the president issued an executive order in 2017 that limited appointees' ability to shift to lobbying work after leaving government, the same order eased restrictions on lobbyists moving into government, and the administration initially resisted efforts to disclose waivers allowing appointees to skirt the rules that remained. In practice, many Trump nominees received such waivers. Journalistic and congressional investigations have routinely found conflicts of interest and other ethical violations among nominees and appointees, and key officials including the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the secretary of the interior stepped down amid ethics scandals during 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]