Wee baby Shamus Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Seeing how I haven't said Obama, Reagan, or Bush Sr. broke the law.... That isn't an answer to the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungGriff89 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 You do realize this makes no sense, right? They are still illegal, Obama's just not going to enforce the law and deport them. He's willingly neglecting to do the job he swore to do. Not only that but by giving them work permits, he is creating law. He's not authorized to do so. This will be shut down. Pretty embarrassing if your a leftist really And where does this make no sense? Once you get a green card and a visa you're legal immigrant. There's a better chance of tracking you than if nobody knows you're here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Either way it (Reagan's immigration reform) was a massive failure and ultimately resulted in a much bigger amnesty than Obama could ever dream of passing, plus it decriminalized hiring illegals over legal immigrants and US citizens. Reagan is a conservative hero but it escapes me why exactly. Bingo! Now you know why Republicans are against these bait and switch tactics when it comes to immigration. They learned their lesson in '86. I posted this somewhere a few days ago, but after '86 amnesty was signed, illegal immigration increased 40% from '86-'89! The same promises Obama made of tougher border security were made by congress then. How exactly has that worked out for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 And where does this make no sense? Once you get a green card and a visa you're legal immigrant. There's a better chance of tracking you than if nobody knows you're here. Obama can't legalize them. It can't be done by the president. He's choosing not to deport them. There is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungGriff89 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Obama can't legalize them. It can't be done by the president. He's choosing not to deport them. There is a difference. Well let's just let congress do it lol. That has totally worked so far :P And the Republicans have been filibustering the legislation to beef up border security, which I really don't see as a good solution anyway. What are we supposed to do? Persona non grata? Throw out the constitution to go into private houses and round up all the illegals? And it's really kind of debatable as to whether or not the president could do the things he laid out in his speech. There's an aspect of national security here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Either way it (Reagan's immigration reform) was a massive failure and ultimately resulted in a much bigger amnesty than Obama could ever dream of passing, plus it decriminalized hiring illegals over legal immigrants and US citizens. Reagan is a conservative hero but it escapes me why exactly. I don't know either, because if he were alive today, Ronald Reagan couldn't get elected to any office unless he ran as a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Well let's just let congress do it lol. That has totally worked so far :P And the Republicans have been filibustering the legislation to beef up border security, which I really don't see as a good solution anyway. What are we supposed to do? Persona non grata? Throw out the constitution to go into private houses and round up all the illegals? Well technically the constitution doesn't apply to illegal immigrants.That's really what I don't understand. Why not wait for the new representatives to get to Washington? At least then you put the pressure on them to address the issue. Oh well, this will work out in our favor I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee baby Shamus Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I don't know either, because if he were alive today, Ronald Reagan couldn't get elected to any office unless he ran as a Democrat. Sorry bro but you are wrong on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungGriff89 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Well technically the constitution doesn't apply to illegal immigrants.That's really what I don't understand. Why not wait for the new representatives to get to Washington? At least then you put the pressure on them to address the issue. Oh well, this will work out in our favor I believe. Not really. The Republican priorities include repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes on the super rich, deregulating big business/ wall street, increasing corporate welfare programs, approving Keystone XL, and defunding every social safety net program we have. Realistically immigration is a topic that sounds good and it keeps chatter going but as long as it's a problem that can get them votes they'll never do anything about it. And the constitution applies to everybody on American soil, please see for reference: Civil War of 1861-1865. And I'm not trying to be a douche or anything, the constitution itself does in fact apply to everybody who's on American soil. Due process however, is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Minsc,The President has the full authority to determine how to enact/enforce a law. Thus he holds the ability to tell agents not to focus on deportation.Woah, hold on there Tex. It's not that simple. Are you suggesting the President has no obligation to faithfully execute the Laws duly passed by Congress? I'm not saying backing off on deportations is a bad idea, however, that's a tremendous amount of power held by the Executive if the President can simply refuse to enforce laws the President disagrees with. Heck, in that scenario the Presidential Veto would be moot. The President could simply refuse to enforce anything passed that the President didn't like.Consider, if the next President is a Republican who dislikes the ACA. Could that President simple refuse to enforce any of the provisions of the ACA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Well technically the constitution doesn't apply to illegal immigrants.The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment might just disagree with you there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Jaxom,The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment might just disagree with you there...What do the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment have to do with whether or not Reagan would have to run as a Democrat to offer the same platform now that he offered in 80 and 84? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Jaxom,What do the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment have to do with whether or not Reagen would have to run as a Democrat to offer the same platform now that he offered in 80 and 84?Scot, I've gone and redone the quote I meant to comment on. I didn't mean to jump the Reagan conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Minsc,Woah, hold on there Tex. It's not that simple. Are you suggesting the President has no obligation to faithfully execute the Laws duly passed by Congress? I'm not saying backing off on deportations is a bad idea, however, that's a tremendous amount of power held by the Executive if the President can simply refuse to enforce laws the President disagrees with. Heck, in that scenario the Presidential Veto would be moot. The President could simply refuse to enforce anything passed that the President didn't like.Consider, if the next President is a Republican who dislikes the ACA. Could that President simple refuse to enforce any of the provisions of the ACA?Exactly right. There is a difference between enforcing a law and ignoring a law. Scot, would you say this a violation of his presidential oath? Not baiting, I'm actually curious as to what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Either way it (Reagan's immigration reform) was a massive failure and ultimately resulted in a much bigger amnesty than Obama could ever dream of passing, plus it decriminalized hiring illegals over legal immigrants and US citizens. Reagan is a conservative hero but it escapes me why exactly. He's the last GOP president to leave the Oval Office not in shame. Also apparently Murdoch loved the guy. So alot of people on the right have been hard at work creating a mythology around the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Jaxom,That makes more sense. :) . Yes, the BoR and the 14th Amendment apply to US Residents not just US Citizens.TPTWP,Not until there is a ruling by the Supremes that say this is outside his discretion. Now, that's the $1,000,000 question what is scope and limitation of Presidental discrestion in enforceing laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Minsc,Woah, hold on there Tex. It's not that simple. Are you suggesting the President has no obligation to faithfully execute the Laws duly passed by Congress? I'm not saying backing off on deportations is a bad idea, however, that's a tremendous amount of power held by the Executive if the President can simply refuse to enforce laws the President disagrees with. Heck, in that scenario the Presidential Veto would be moot. The President could simply refuse to enforce anything passed that the President didn't like.Consider, if the next President is a Republican who dislikes the ACA. Could that President simple refuse to enforce any of the provisions of the ACA? The next president could tell the IRS to not focus on enforcing the Individual Mandate, but instead they are to prioritize the enforcement of other legislation. And I am gathering Obama will likely tell immigration agents to focus on certain individuals that pose a risk rather then relatively innocent families. Andrew Jackson does have a supposedly famous quote dealing with the issue of enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 He's the last GOP president to leave the Oval Office not in shame. Also apparently Murdoch loved the guy. So alot of people on the right have been hard at work creating a mythology around the guy.When's the last time a democrat left office with his head held high? That's not a Clinton pun, but it would have been a good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 The next president could tell the IRS to not focus on enforcing the Individual Mandate, but instead they are to prioritize the enforcement of other legislation. And I am gathering Obama will likely tell immigration agents to focus on certain individuals that pose a risk rather then relatively innocent families. Andrew Jackson does have a supposedly famous quote dealing with the issue of enforcement.Thomas Jefferson has an interesting quote about our borders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee baby Shamus Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 When's the last time a democrat left office with his head held high? That's not a Clinton pun, but it would have been a good one! One could say Kennedy but that would be in really bad taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.