ABQCOWBOY Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 In the 80's Reagan signed an "immigration reform" law that granted amnesty to 10 million. Thirty years later Obama will sign an "immigration reform" Executive Order granting amnesty to 20 million. What is wrong with this picture? Apparently neither Party has a solution other than granting amnesty under the guise of "immigration reform". That's part of the problem. The GOP, I think, would be open to reform and might even consider amnesty but not until the boarder is secured. It's precisely because of the agreement between Regan and the Dems in the 80s. Secure boarder was part of that deal but that part of it never happened. Now, the GOP is holding out for boarder security as part of any agreement on Amnesty IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 The GOP, I think, would be open to reform and might even consider amnesty but not until the boarder is secured. You know, if you repeat that slogan often enough, people will stop noticing that what you're saying is "they will allow somebody else to try to solve the problem, after somebody else makes elephants fly" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Repeat after me - we don't have the manpower to "secure the border". The best enforcement that could happen is a massive federal preemption that explicitly prohibits states from getting benefits, mandatory e-verify (if itd not already) and ramping up the focus on criminal undocumented workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 In the 80's Reagan signed an "immigration reform" law that granted amnesty to 10 million. Thirty years later Obama will sign an "immigration reform" Executive Order granting amnesty to 20 million. What is wrong with this picture? Apparently neither Party has a solution other than granting amnesty under the guise of "immigration reform". Think about what you just wrote. Reagan signed a bill. Obama signs an Executive order Oh heck why do we even need Congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Think about what you just wrote. Reagan signed a bill. Obama signs an Executive order Oh heck why do we even need Congress? Think about something else he wrote about the 20 million being amnestied...that is a completely fabricated number that he pulled out of his ***. No executive order will be giving amnesty to 20 million people. Whatever Obama actually signs, it will only defer deportation for a few million that probably weren't going to be deported anyway unless there is a mass deportation undertaken by the US. Of course, the Republican house could always pass the bipartisan bill that has passed the Senate and this would all be moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Repeat after me - we don't have the manpower to "secure the border". The best enforcement that could happen is a massive federal preemption that explicitly prohibits states from getting benefits, mandatory e-verify (if itd not already) and ramping up the focus on criminal undocumented workers. we could secure the border ,it is just politically impractical. we could also deport most every illegal, also politically impractical hang the politicians or deal with the ****....choose one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Repeat after me - we don't have the manpower to "secure the border". The best enforcement that could happen is a massive federal preemption that explicitly prohibits states from getting benefits, mandatory e-verify (if itd not already) and ramping up the focus on criminal undocumented workers. It's similar to the war on drugs. The flow will never be stopped as long as there is a demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Obama may as well double down at this point, you have to, well, pay attention to how little he cares about overall public sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Obama may as well double down at this point, you have to, well, pay attention to how little he cares about overall public sentiment. So you want leaders to govern based on opinion polls? Noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 So you want leaders to govern based on opinion polls? Noted. So you prefer leaders to govern based on dictatorship? Noted. See how bad of a debating style that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 So you want leaders to govern based on opinion polls? Noted. No but I'd like more of a leader, Obama's not really a true leader imho (he at least hasn't shown those qualities throughtout his tenure to date). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike42 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Obama's not really a true leader imho (he at least hasn't shown those qualities throughtout his tenure to date). That's because Obama doesn't have any of those qualities. It's similar to the war on drugs. The flow will never be stopped as long as there is a demand. It's impossible because of the Obama administration. We have a drone patrolling much of the border, jailbreaking the illegals. Has made the border patrol useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 It's impossible because of the Obama administration. We have a drone patrolling much of the border, jailbreaking the illegals. Has made the border patrol useless. Yeah, you're right. We didn't have illegal immigration, before Obama. It's all, personally, his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Obama may as well double down at this point, you have to, well, pay attention to how little he cares about overall public sentiment. I was under the impression that a majority of the public approved of what he'd done, so far. Now, I'm trying to find data on it, and all I'm getting on Google is that it seems Gallup's most recent poll about how many people approve of Obama's actions on immigration is, by some measures, the worst in the history of the poll. (Although I also observe that both the people who claim he's gone too far, and the people who think he hasn't done enough, are both lumped under "disapprove".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 So you prefer leaders to govern based on dictatorship? Noted. See how bad of a debating style that is? Yes, you have a poor debating style. That's because Obama doesn't have any of those qualities. It's impossible because of the Obama administration. We have a drone patrolling much of the border, jailbreaking the illegals. Has made the border patrol useless. Seriously, how long as immigration been an issue in this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Yes, you have a poor debating style. I was just parroting your nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 No but I'd like more of a leader, Obama's not really a true leader imho (he at least hasn't shown those qualities throughtout his tenure to date). One could certainly argue that he is leading by taking steps without congress. Again, there is a bipartisan immigration bill that the House won't vote on so instead of waiting for Republicans to do nothing, he is attempting to get something done. I was just parroting your nonsense. He made the point that Obama was going against public sentiment and that was a bad thing. What conclusion do you draw from someone saying that? An elected official shouldn't go against public sentiment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 you could say he is leading by ignoring the laws where does it lead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike42 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Yes, you have a poor debating style. Seriously, how long as immigration been an issue in this country? I'm aware Illegal immigration has been around for a long time. I think this current situation snowballed from the Reagan administration as they began to ignore it. Yeah, you're right. We didn't have illegal immigration, before Obama. It's all, personally, his fault. I never mentioned anything of Obama starting this fire. But he damn sure is adding more fuel to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I never mentioned anything of Obama starting this fire. But he damn sure is adding more fuel to it. That's funny. I could have sworn that you claimed that the only reason illegal immigration hasn't been completely eradicated is the Obama administration. It's similar to the war on drugs. The flow will never be stopped as long as there is a demand. It's impossible because of the Obama administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 would you say he has encouraged or discouraged more coming? He is part of the problem....a bad place for a supposed leader to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 would you say he has encouraged or discouraged more coming? He is part of the problem....a bad place for a supposed leader to be I actually don't think any one person in America encourages or discourages people from coming. I think it's about jobs and I think a lot of these people believe America to be a better place to live than wherever they are coming from. Doesn't matter who the President is, nothing will stop immigrants from wanting to be here short of mass deportations which are never going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 He made the point that Obama was going against public sentiment and that was a bad thing. What conclusion do you draw from someone saying that? An elected official shouldn't go against public sentiment? No, but to say it so simplistic is the problem. To say any "leader" should ignore public sentiment is insane. That's not to say a "leader" should always follow public sentiment. What you said is a "leader" should do whatever they want regardless of what the public thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 would you say he has encouraged or discouraged more coming? Don't know. And neither do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Some facts on deportations (returns & removals) under Bush and Obama, in case anyone is interested ... http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.