Senator Toomey RESPONDS To Someone Else's Letter

So, I'm not the only one.

An astute reader emailed in some time ago describing with a Toomey response to an online letter.

Here's the complete text of the letter, dated March 8 of this year:

Thank you for contacting me about President Trump's decision to declare a national emergency concerning the southern border of the United States.

America has long benefited from immigration and the contributions of those who have come to this country willing to work hard and seek a better life. Nearly every American has some connection to our immigrant history. My own grandparents emigrated here from Ireland.

At the same time, like many Americans, I believe that our immigration system is fundamentally broken. Our borders are not secure, and large numbers of individuals regularly cross our borders illegally, including some who are violent criminals. That is why I support measures to secure our borders, including physical barriers, patrol agents, and high tech surveillance. I have also repeatedly introduced legislation, the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, which would ensure that local law enforcement officers are able to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

A bipartisan majority of Congress has repeatedly endorsed building physical barriers to secure the southern border. In October 2006, Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed into law, the bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367). This legislation, which was supported by then-Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, authorized the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct a fence, install obstacles such as vehicle barriers, and establish checkpoints along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Most recently, a bipartisan majority of Congress passed a funding bill for DHS 2019 operations that spends $1.375 billion to build 55 miles of security pedestrian fencing, i.e. a wall, at critical points on the southern border. On February 15, 2019, President Trump signed this bill into law.

This bill came short of the full $5.7 billion in funding necessary to build barriers in the places where U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says they are necessary. As a result, the President announced on February 15th that he was declaring a national emergency at the southern border in part to reallocate funds from military construction projects in order to build barriers. His declaration states that a national emergency exists because the southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics, as well as illegal immigrants.

It is clear our southern border is in need of additional security measures, including physical barriers in the places identified by CBP. President Trump is right to shine a spotlight on this issue and work to keep Americans safe. Before the President declared a national emergency, however, I made clear that I hoped he would choose to avoid unilateral action and work with Congress on a legislative solution to secure the border. I am concerned by the president's action and the precedent it may set. Accordingly, my staff and I are closely reviewing the president's declaration and its implications.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Obviously, this was before Senator Toomey voted in favor of the joint resolution to terminate Trump's national emergency declaration.

Trump has since vetoed the resolution.

In an op-ed to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Toomey basically says he agrees with Trump's immigration policy but not with the method Trump used to implement that policy - the national emergency declaration. He said that it's a separation of powers issue.

Interesting to note that, because the astute reader (who's NO Toomey fan by any measure) wrote to me that saying:

Basically, I urged him to support the resolution and questioned how, given his repeated claims of Presidential over reach on the part of the Obama administration, he could now argue that this "emergency declaration" was no problem.

Looks like, on this issue at least, Toomey paid attention to his conservative conscience when it came into conflict with the orange vulgarity who currently leads his party.