Would you prefer the president break the law?“
You think Trump is braking the law by building military bases in Syria? Or by threatening to send half million soldiers to invade Iran? Or by -through Bolton - threatening military action against Venezuela?
If that’s legal, why would he not have inherent constitutional power to protect our country against invaders by building a wall? Or can he only build walls other countries?
The September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force enables the actions in Syria. He’s following the law here. If you don’t like is, send an encouraging note to Adam Schiff, who is trying to repeal the law.
As to threatening Iran, or indirectly, Venezuela? He’s following the Constitution here. You might ask Pelosi to call for a Constitutional convention to repeal the First Amendment, and the Constitutional provisions to remove the explicit Presidential power to appoint and receive ambassadors and the implicit authority to recognize foreign governments and to conduct diplomacy with other countries generally. I’m sure Congress can do a better job, wouldn’t you agree?
At this point in time he does not have the legal authority to summarily deport anyone who requests refugee status. He is following the law. Would you prefer he breaks the law?
The best he can do, since the democrats will not change the law, is to apply the law in such a way that the donks feel enough heat to get off their jackasses and allow them to be legally (under US law) be denied entry, and returned to the first country outside the one they are fleeing, where they DO have legal standing under International Law to request asylum.