• 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

What does this have to do with what I stated? Or are you just affirming what have I already said to not just Tex but also what I have said previously in this thread?

See, thats the problem with just providing a link and a quote from the link with no comment of your own...no one knows what the heck you're attempting to point out.
What are you trying to point out? haven't seen your opinion except you hate Obama, haterz gonna hate.
 
What does that have to do with anything? Did you read it?

That's only part of Reagan's EO, the last paragraph is a catcher.

That's only part of what Reagan accomplished, here's something from a con website;

According to Ronald Reagan himself, as told to his trusted long-time friend and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, the biggest mistake of his presidency was signing the l986 amnesty for what turned out to be more than half the five million illegal immigrants in the country. Reagan was uncomfortable with the amnesty but was persuaded by some of the leaders of his own party (still living) that it would only affect a small number of illegal immigrants and would assure that Congress would follow through with more vigorous enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The misnamed Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was touted by its supporters as “comprehensive immigration reform” that would grant amnesty only to a few long-settled immigrants and strengthen border security and internal immigration enforcement against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants.
Ronald Reagan

And the cons scream about Obama, sheesh, they're like a bunch of 5 year olds who can't have it their way.
 
Last edited:
That's only part of Reagan's EO, the last paragraph is a catcher.

And was there something wrong with ordering direction of his executive branches?

Last paragraph:

Sec. 3. The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the fair enforcement of our laws relating to immigration (including effective implementation of this Executive Order) and the strict observance of our international obligations concerning those who genuinely flee persecution in their homeland.
 
That's only part of Reagan's EO, the last paragraph is a catcher.

That's only part of what Reagan accomplished, here's something from a con website;


Ronald Reagan

And the cons scream about Obama, sheesh, they're like a bunch of 5 year olds who can't have it their way.

Well then he has two "biggest mistakes" because he also said his biggest mistake was tripling the nations national debt and moving the US from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation. I don't know if he acknowledged all the other biggest mistakes. Like back door arms sales to Iran, etc.
 
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:

Hey Pol. I agree. I wonder exactly how they all managed to get through Mexico? Traffic north to the US border is apparently okay. Just don't try leaving the US and heading south or you'll end up in some stanky prison being beaten, raped and murdered. It's about time Mexico was slapped around a little. They've earned it.
 
he can be impeached but you will never get him removed from office with democrats in charge of the senate.

True but they can either tie him up so that he doesn't have time to screw anything else up or they can wait to see what happens in the Senate in the next election.
 
True but they can either tie him up so that he doesn't have time to screw anything else up or they can wait to see what happens in the Senate in the next election.

He can't even be impeached. Americans don't hold presidents accountable, otherwise nearly every president would have been impeached.
 
He can't even be impeached. Americans don't hold presidents accountable, otherwise nearly every president would have been impeached.

yes he can be impeached. yes we do hold the president accountable. he is not a king or a monarch he is an elected official by the people. therefore we the people have the right to hold him accountable. the house has the right to bring impeachment charges. abuse of power and failure to implement the law would be good enough.

there isn't anything obama can legally do on immigration. there is nothing he can try and pass that would pass constitutional muster.
 
yes he can be impeached. yes we do hold the president accountable. he is not a king or a monarch he is an elected official by the people. therefore we the people have the right to hold him accountable. the house has the right to bring impeachment charges. abuse of power and failure to implement the law would be good enough.

there isn't anything obama can legally do on immigration. there is nothing he can try and pass that would pass constitutional muster.

Of course the American people have the right, hell, the obligation. Perhaps you miss my point. Americans won't do it because Obama would have too much partisan support to pull it off. Just as Bush would have had too much partisan support were the concerned at the time to have attempted to impeach him.
 


Greetings, Lord of Planar. :2wave:

Yes, I've read a portion of it, and had to stop. :mrgreen: I was surprised to see that Schumer, who lives in New York, would be the one to present anything about immigration reform in the Southwestern States, though. I read about billions of dollars being allocated to building fences, and double fences, which seems a lot like closing the barn door a little late, but that's just my perception. Maybe if I can finish reading S-744, I will come to understand more than I do now. Or maybe not.... :lol:
 
Greetings, Lord of Planar. :2wave:

Yes, I've read a portion of it, and had to stop. :mrgreen: I was surprised to see that Schumer, who lives in New York, would be the one to present anything about immigration reform in the Southwestern States, though. I read about billions of dollars being allocated to building fences, and double fences, which seems a lot like closing the barn door a little late, but that's just my perception. Maybe if I can finish reading S-744, I will come to understand more than I do now. Or maybe not.... :lol:
Evening Polgara,

Yep, pretty much. However the amount of money spent on apprehension, housing food and deportation of illegal immigrants over the past 60 years by both republican and democratic administrations would likely have built an impenetrable fence along our southern border. Neither party is motivated to stop illegal immigration. Illegal immigration provides cheap labor for big business and drives down wages on American workers. And both parties pander to big business. So there will be no comprehensive border security regardless of who's in the WH, and party finger pointing won't secure the borders either.
 
Republicons in the house are like the defendant who having just killed his parents throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
If Bohner would bring any kind of immigration bill to the floor there would be no need of Executive Orders... the president will work with him and find a compromise...you know like the system is supposed to work.
The do nothing house is interested in only one thing...obstruction.
Watch for a campaign to point this out in the upcoming mid-term elections.
 
Last edited:
Republicons in the house are like the defendant who having just killed his parents throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
If Bohner would bring any kind of immigration bill to the floor the president will work with him and find a compromise...you know like the system is supposed to work.
The do nothing house is interested in only one thing...obstruction.
Watch for a campaign to point this out in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Obama articulated that point quite well in his speech yesterday. Sadly though, any compromise bill that did pass would have very little effect on illegal immigration.
 
Obama articulated that point quite well in his speech yesterday. Sadly though, any compromise bill that did pass would have very little effect on illegal immigration.
How will we ever know that?
Bohner won't bring a bill to the floor to find out.
 
Republicons in the house are like the defendant who having just killed his parents throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
If Bohner would bring any kind of immigration bill to the floor there would be no need of Executive Orders... the president will work with him and find a compromise...you know like the system is supposed to work.
The do nothing house is interested in only one thing...obstruction.
Watch for a campaign to point this out in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Have you stopped to consider that it's very possible that the House will be cheered by a majority of Americans! I hope it does become a campaign issue - we don't need an invasion of sick and/or diseased illegals to step in front of those who are obeying the law by entering legally! What "compromise" do you expect on that?

Greetings, Buck Ewer. :2wave:
 
Have you stopped to consider that it's very possible that the House will be cheered by a majority of Americans! I hope it does become a campaign issue - we don't need an invasion of sick and/or diseased illegals to step in front of those who are obeying the law by entering legally! What "compromise" do you expect on that?

Greetings, Buck Ewer. :2wave:

So...if you think that a majority of the House would vote against immigration reform, then why doesn't Boehner allow a vote?

And if you'll recall, in the 2012 election, Democratic members of the House received about a million more votes than the Republican members did...but thanks to gerrymandering, the GOP kept its majority. The GOP is not interested in majority rule - it's interested only in GOP rule.
 
Have you stopped to consider that it's very possible that the House will be cheered by a majority of Americans! I hope it does become a campaign issue - we don't need an invasion of sick and/or diseased illegals to step in front of those who are obeying the law by entering legally! What "compromise" do you expect on that?

Greetings, Buck Ewer. :2wave:

So...if you think that a majority of the House would vote against immigration reform, then why doesn't Boehner allow a vote?

And if you'll recall, in the 2012 election, Democratic members of the House received about a million more votes than the Republican members did...but thanks to gerrymandering, the GOP kept its majority. The GOP is not interested in majority rule - it's interested only in GOP rule.
 
So...if you think that a majority of the House would vote against immigration reform, then why doesn't Boehner allow a vote?

And if you'll recall, in the 2012 election, Democratic members of the House received about a million more votes than the Republican members did...but thanks to gerrymandering, the GOP kept its majority. The GOP is not interested in majority rule - it's interested only in GOP rule.

Maybe because neither party is interested in COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform?!?!
 
Have you stopped to consider that it's very possible that the House will be cheered by a majority of Americans! I hope it does become a campaign issue - we don't need an invasion of sick and/or diseased illegals to step in front of those who are obeying the law by entering legally! What "compromise" do you expect on that?

Greetings, Buck Ewer. :2wave:


Looks like the Majority of Americans Blame BO Lady P. ;)



Majority: Yes, The Unaccompanied Child Crisis on The Border is Obama's Fault......

As the unaccompanied child crisis on the border continues to get worse with no signs of stopping, a new poll from IBD/TIPP shows the majority of Americans blame President Obama for the ongoing disaster.

The poll found that 59% of those closely following the immigration crisis agree that "current administration policies and lack of focus on securing the border" are behind the human tide of illegal crossings. Six in 10 say that the children should be ordered to leave the country.

And this is perhaps the worst news for the Obama administration: the American people are also holding the White House responsible for the IRS cover-up and the crisis in Iraq.....snip~

18.png


Majority: Yes, The Unaccompanied Child Crisis on The Border is Obama's Fault - Katie Pavlich
 
He can't even be impeached. Americans don't hold presidents accountable, otherwise nearly every president would have been impeached.

I don't think there is the political will in Congress to impeach our first black president. You're wrong that he can't be impeached however. Impeachment is a political process which starts in the house and is tried in the senate. Americans don't have anything to do with it.
 
So...if you think that a majority of the House would vote against immigration reform, then why doesn't Boehner allow a vote?

And if you'll recall, in the 2012 election, Democratic members of the House received about a million more votes than the Republican members did...but thanks to gerrymandering, the GOP kept its majority. The GOP is not interested in majority rule - it's interested only in GOP rule.

Don't ask me to explain DC! I think they're all idiots, and they continue to prove me right on a daily basis! :lol:

Greetings, Glen Contrarian. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom