One billion dollars is frozen for now: federal judge Haywood Gilliam of Oakland, California, blocked some of the funds on Friday Trump wanted to redirect for the construction of border installations. It went according to the magazine Politico for money from the Ministry of Defense anti-drug smuggling pot. The decision fell after the civil rights organization American Civil Liberties Union ACLU for the environmental organization Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC), an association of several organizations from the affected border area, had sued. Their argument is that the president should not spend any tax money that was not released by Congress. The ACLU celebrated the decision as a stage victory. For the first time, a court has determined that Trump will not get away with diverting the money past the parliament for his wall, it said.
The injunction relates to certain border sections in Texas and Arizona. It does not prevent the government from providing other money for it. Judge Gilliam stated that the government was referring to “unforeseen needs” when reallocating the funds. However, this can not logically be reconciled with the fact that at least since the spring of 2018 she has repeatedly requested money for the border installations. The fact that the government is simply trying to raise funds differently after Congress did not approve them is incompatible with the separation of powers.
Trump weakened his initial promise to build a “beautiful, great wall” for which he wanted Mexico to pay off over time. More and more people talked about fencing. The congress had not given Trump sufficient money for border security in his eyes, but even the longest government deadlock in history could not change the democrat-dominated House of Representatives. Trump eventually declared a state of emergency in February to rededicate $ 6.7 billion to build the Wall. These are funds that are destined, inter alia, for military construction projects. Congress had approved only $ 1.375 billion.
Trump responded to the decision on Saturday from Japan by posting on Twitter that of his predecessor Barack Obama appointed federal judge Gilliam defamed. This one is one “Activist Put in by Obama”the injunction was a decision “against border security, for crime, drugs and human trafficking”. The President also announced that he would appeal the injunction.
Trump’s critics accuse him of racism because his immigration policy has so far been mainly directed against foreigners and he justifies them with racist remarks. For example, he claims that Mexicans are more likely to be criminal. This is not the first time a court has set limits on Trump. He also limited his entry ban for people from certain Muslim-majority countries.
In total, there are seven lawsuits against Trump’s emergency financing of the border installations. In addition to environmental organizations, landowners and twenty states, the House of Representatives also lamented under the leadership of the Democrats. Last Thursday, federal state judge Trevor McFadden said in Washington D.C. Doubts whether the board has sufficient reasons for the action. She had to prove that she suffered a great deal of damage – the court was not there to “clarify interesting constitutional or political issues” in the conflict between political powers, according to McFadden. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives argues that Trump circumvents Congressional budget law and that it damages them. Earlier, the Department of Justice said that MPs should keep courts out of the conflict between President and Congress.
Meanwhile, the president is arguing with his opponents about whether the previously approved funds at all new border fences, let alone a part of a wall was built. According to the border authorities, there were 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) of newly constructed fence systems by April 30.