• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to take executive action on immigration

Kal'Stang said:
Perhaps you don't know the difference between an executive order which is what Obama is wanting to use vs Reagan signing a bill passed by our Legislative Branch. I'd suggest that you go back and read up on not only our Constitutional History but also in how our Constitution works. It would prevent you from making very stupid remarks such as the one that you just posted.
Click to expand...

Republicans Introduced Reagan’s Amnesty Act for 3 Million ‘Illegals’ Six Months Before 1986 Midterm Elections Pensito Review

[In] 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

But the bill also made any immigrant who’d entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty … The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
President Obama defined his presidency when he swiftly used his congressional majority to push through his signature healthcare legislation. "We won't know what's in it until we pass it" became the Party Mantra. It was the goal of the King Makers who got him elected. The bill was written long before he was elected and was the endgame all along. There was nothing about that process that engendered cooperation. He's reaping what he so carefully sowed. You're surprised?
Click to expand...

An immigration thread where you're chomping exclusively on PPACA..There's more I'd normally say but not after I saw your new Mom thread so I'll say good-bye and good luck and try the fans I mentioned to you..Until one is a care-giver as you are one day at a time, .......
 
NIMBY said:
An immigration thread where you're chomping exclusively on PPACA..There's more I'd normally say but not after I saw your new Mom thread so I'll say good-bye and good luck and try the fans I mentioned to you..Until one is a care-giver as you are one day at a time, .......
Click to expand...

My part of the discussion with this poster began when he said that Reagan pardoned illegals. I reminded him that Congress had passed a law that allowed just that. A bit different than if President Obama issued a pardon in any form through EO today. He then pointed out that Congress worked with Reagan. Thus the reason for my post re the ACA and the way it was passed...setting a tone for Obama's entire presidency.

That's the only reason I mentioned it in this thread.

(Thanks for your advice about the fan. It makes perfect sense.)
 
The one thing lacking with this post is specifics to back up general claims bashing Obama, your MO.
And since we all don't know your slang and abbreviations, what is FP with Mexico?
POst as if you're proofing for the Trib .
MMC said:
That deflection doesn't work with knowing how wrong he gets things. Which dealing with Mexico is FP. Which doesn't count the money he just gave to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Clearly he is lacking there too.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
The one thing lacking with this post is specifics to back up general claims bashing Obama, your MO.
And since we all don't know your slang and abbreviations, what is FP with Mexico?
POst as if you're proofing for the Trib .
Click to expand...

I wasn't just talking about BO.....plenty of time for that, the guy is walking talking boob. Which is why what was said about CBS.....is all there to read. As they stuck up for him here too. Just sayin! :mrgreen:

Oh and FP......Foreign Policy. ;)
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Obama to take executive action on immigration - CNN.com

Obama finally saying enough is enough. If congress wont come with him, then he will got at it alone. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

"Finally"? He's already basically said that in general, and as it relates to immigration in various ways. Where's the "finally" here.

Unless he somehow finagles as way to declare illegal's able to vote by fiat, this'll just help assure that he'll need to continue to attempt over reaching executive action with a flippant disregard for the constitution after congress is in complete opposition party control. Immigration is a hot button issue and not one that's going to play to the Democratic advantage.
 
Obama can sign any executive order he wishes. ALL he can do is more of what he has been doing...refuse to secure the borders. He can, by executive order, declare that the INS NOT enforce existing law. He MAY NOT impose new law. He cant impose amnesty. He cant create legislation. He can by executive order alter how existing legislation is enacted. In other words...he can more intentionally continue to **** things up.
 
MMC said:
That deflection doesn't work with knowing how wrong he gets things. Which dealing with Mexico is FP. Which doesn't count the money he just gave to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Clearly he is lacking there too.
Click to expand...

This is a border problem, and internal political problem. The only way this plays into foreign policy is with the "war on drugs" and also with "free trade" policy.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This is a border problem, and internal political problem. The only way this plays into foreign policy is with the "war on drugs" and also with "free trade" policy.
Click to expand...

Its more than a Border Problem and its more than just a domestic issue. As the Map shows.

b2568_map1.ashx
 
They should be sent back. Children need to be with their parents.
 
MaggieD said:
Hope Obama doesn't say "enough is enough" about the right to vote.

Time to define the power of EOs, folks. Past time.
Click to expand...

I wish I trusted that man more.
 
MMC said:
Its more than a Border Problem and its more than just a domestic issue. As the Map shows.

b2568_map1.ashx
Click to expand...

As I said "free trade". I dont see how foreign aid is causing this problem.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
As I said "free trade". I dont see how foreign aid is causing this problem.
Click to expand...


Foreign Policy and not just aid.....NGO's and NFP's geared to help them realize that Illegal Immigration isn't tolerated with the US. Plus Diplomacy with Mexico about allowing mass migrations trapse thru their country. They do have the means to cut off the spiket so to speak.

Can't miss it.....and of course their stance that these people are not committing crimes has nothing to do with US law. So they need to be talked with so they have a very clear understanding of what the US is saying.
 
avery45 said:
They should be sent back. Children need to be with their parents.
Click to expand...

I agree, but we have to careful with that line of reasoning. Pelosi would love to bring the parents here because parents deserve to be with their children. Our continued sovereignty requires secure borders and a defined path to immigration. Not all who show up at my door gain entry.
 
MMC said:
Foreign Policy and not just aid.....NGO's and NFP's geared to help them realize that Illegal Immigration isn't tolerated with the US.
Click to expand...
NGO's are non governmental and are outside the reach of the federal government. If a NGO like that exists then by all means support them

Plus Diplomacy with Mexico about allowing mass migrations trapse thru their country. They do have the means to cut off the spiket so to speak.
Click to expand...
What should Mexico do specifically? Its kinda hard to stop the free movement of people.

Can't miss it.....and of course their stance that these people are not committing crimes has nothing to do with US law. So they need to be talked with so they have a very clear understanding of what the US is saying.
Click to expand...

My stance is this. The signing of NAFTA and the spreading of "free trade" throughout Mexico and the Americas lead to a vast amounts of subsidized crops and false promises of "more factory" jobs lead to many farmers and industrial jobs to be destroyed in Mexico and the Americas leading to an expansive drug trade and increased migration.

"One of the largely overlooked aspects of the North American Free Trade Agreement is the fact that the failed trade pact has been the catalyst for the massive increase in illegal immigration over the past two decades or so.

An influx of highly subsidized corn flooding the Mexican market has displaced millions of rural farmers, according to McClatchy Newspapers. Prior to the implementation of NAFTA, Mexican officials claimed that factory jobs would fill the void left by disappearing work on family farms.

Mexican officials had promised that NAFTA would result in the “export of goods, not people.” That, however, has turned out to be far from reality.

Since NAFTA was signed into law, illegal immigrants in the U.S. has increased to 12 million today from 3.9 million in 1993, accounting for an overall increase of over 300 percent. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 57 percent of those entering the country illegally are from Mexico."
Illegal Immigration and NAFTA | Economy In Crisis


Wave Of Illegal Immigrants Gains Speed After NAFTA : NPR


"The increases in pork and corn imports were among many economic changes brought about by NAFTA and concurrent neoliberal reforms to the Mexican economy, such as ending land reform. Companies like Smithfield benefited from these changes, but poverty increased also, especially in the countryside.

In a 2005 study for the Mexican government, the World Bank found that the extreme rural poverty rate of 35 percent in 1992–94, before NAFTA, jumped to 55 percent in 1996–98, after NAFTA took effect—the years when Ortega and Ceja left Mexico. This could be explained, the report said, “mainly by the 1995 economic crisis, the sluggish performance of agriculture, stagnant rural wages, and falling real agricultural prices.”

By 2010, according to the Monterrey Institute of Technology, 53 million Mexicans were living in poverty—half the country’s population. About 20 percent live in extreme poverty, almost all in rural areas.

The growth of poverty, in turn, fueled migration. In 1990, 4.5 million Mexican-born people lived in the United States. A decade later, that population had more than doubled to 9.75 million, and in 2008 it peaked at 12.67 million. About 5.7 million were able to get some kind of visa; another 7 million couldn’t but came nevertheless." How US Policies Fueled Mexico's Great Migration | The Nation


"Aside from these issues, how does NAFTA apply to undocumented immigration? When first proposed, NAFTA was supposed to be the quick fix for Mexicans illegally crossing the border and heading for the United States. The predicted growth of the Mexican economy was supposed to be enough to create more competitive jobs in Mexico, and thus reduce the incentive for migration, but this has not been the case. The rise of undocumented immigration since NAFTA was established can be attributed to a few factors:

Along with the reduction of tariffs, NAFTA also allowed for the United States to grant large subsidies to American farmers. In doing so, American farmers were then able to export agricultural goods at a much lower price, undermining the Mexican farmers who had previously been reliant on exports to the United States. This pushed many Mexican farmers off the land, and encouraged them to flee to the United States illegally. (33)

Secondly, NAFTA’s tariff reductions allowed for certain big American firms, such as Wal-Mart, to enter the Mexican market, and their lower prices also drove many Mexicans out of work, to the tune of 28,000 small businesses eliminated. (34)" The Immigration Debate: NAFTA


"The combination of free trade and heavy U.S. subsidies has crippled the Mexican agricultural sector, causing impoverished former subsistence farmers to immigrate to the U.S. by any means necessary." Free Trade and Immigration: Cause and Effect

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/120457/2/jaae453.pdf
 
avery45 said:
They should be sent back. Children need to be with their parents.
Click to expand...

That's true. We can look at the problems of our own (USA) children for proof of that.
 
humbolt said:
I agree, but we have to careful with that line of reasoning. Pelosi would love to bring the parents here because parents deserve to be with their children. Our continued sovereignty requires secure borders and a defined path to immigration. Not all who show up at my door gain entry.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that parents deserve to be with their children - so why did they ever allow them to leave the "security and warmth of loving hearth and home" in the first place? Some of those kids are young, and using them as pawns to gain something for themselves tells me a lot about how they think! Is life really that cheap that it's okay to take a gamble that some children might not survive a 1200 mile trip? This comes close to being called trafficking, and that, too, is illegal! Do I want people like that living near me? Hell No!

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:
 
AJiveMan said:
I told you in the post you're responding to you can look stuff up for yourself, and you can. Should I believe your CON links? There's nothing worse than a closed mind. You can be subjective or objective, but won't even believe politifact (source of the 1/2 truth).
Click to expand...

Now this is ironic. Saying that I have a closed mind and yet you state in a sarcastic questioning way about "believeing in my CON links". Don't know if you know it but the Center for immigration studies is actually bi-partisan and have lots of articles for and against immigration and illegal immigration. At least I addressed your link and graph...no comments on the content of my links?
 
Interesting:

1986 Amnesty - CNN.com

Current (2007 article) senators who voted AGAINST amnesty in 1986

Daniel Akaka*
Barbara Boxer*
Thad Cochran
Larry Craig*
Pete Domenici
Judd Gregg*
Orrin Hatch
Daniel Inouye
Edward Kennedy
John McCain*
Harry Reid*
Pat Roberts*
Richard Shelby*

Current Senators who voted FOR amnesty in 1986

Max Baucus
Joseph Biden
Jeff Bingaman
Robert Byrd
Thomas Carper*
Christopher Dodd
Byron Dorgan*
Richard Durbin*
Charles Grassley
Tom Harkin
John Kerry
Frank Lautenberg
Carl Levin
Trent Lott*
Richard Lugar
Mitch McConnell
Barbara Mikulski*
Bill Nelson*
John Rockefeller
Charles Schumer*
Olympia Snowe*
Arlen Specter
Ted Stevens
John Warner
Ron Wyden*

* = as a U.S. Congressional Representative
 
MaggieD said:
President Obama defined his presidency when he swiftly used his congressional majority to push through his signature healthcare legislation. "We won't know what's in it until we pass it" became the Party Mantra. It was the goal of the King Makers who got him elected. The bill was written long before he was elected and was the endgame all along. There was nothing about that process that engendered cooperation. He's reaping what he so carefully sowed. You're surprised?
Click to expand...

Presidents can resort to all kinds of things to push through their agendas. In 2001, the two men that had concerns about the Patriot Act, the same two men that could have blocked the Patriot Act, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, both received anthrax letters in their offices, conveniently! The crimes were never solved. Partisan republicans would NEVER give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt that such was just a coincidence. Such is the partisan way.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Now this is ironic. Saying that I have a closed mind and yet you state in a sarcastic questioning way about "believeing in my CON links". Don't know if you know it but the Center for immigration studies is actually bi-partisan and have lots of articles for and against immigration and illegal immigration. At least I addressed your link and graph...no comments on the content of my links?
Click to expand...
Excuse me but I never said you had a closed mind.

But, you know, you're not alone in despising Obama, Latino's are just as pissed off at him as you are, possibly even more, even minority voters are pissed at Obama because they thought he was going to do things for them in a biased fashion.

Con link; national review.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You know, that article is rather innacurate, right?

S 1200 was introduced in May 1985 by republicans, but it was not the same after HR 3810 was incorporated into it. HR 3810 was introduced by democrat Rep Rodino, Peter W., Jr, in November 1985. The bill was passed by congress in late October 86 and Reagan signed it a week later.
Click to expand...

Executive Order 12324
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom