• 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!

House passes $694 million border bill

Unitedwestand13 said:
deportion is not off the table, what is off the table is deportation without due process.
Click to expand...

Which is also a flawed argument. What We're Doing compared to What Needs To Be Done is world's apart, man. Let me put it this way: spending on or for American citizens is in unsafe waters right now but we supposedly have the funds to shelter illegal aliens "until their day in court." Honestly, that's an insane way to do things with immigration. We've been invaded for years by non-citizens. Yeah, it's dumb not to put an end to that ****ing ricky tick, man.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You know what they do to "illegal" US citizens in Mexico? They throw their asses in jail, and they really don't feed you in Mexican jails.... Here we say "welcome" here is a foodstamp card, here is free housing and an Obama phone - just vote democrat often.
Click to expand...

Which is bull**** and needs to stop.
 
Dittohead not! said:
But the bill hasn't gone to the president and never will. It's simply another bit of political gamesmanship.
Click to expand...

You know why that is?

Because the senate will reject it because crazy greedy obamafool wants 2.1 billion and the psychos in the Senate will settle for nothing less tan what their master and dear leader wants, and even if the bill made it past the Senate Obama would never sign it.
 
Jango said:
Which is a flawed argument, man. Why is "send them back" off the table? Why isn't legal immigration the only kind of immigration we tolerate?
Click to expand...

I'm not for amnesty myself. I posted that for sangha's stance on the polls. The polls he quoted didn't specifically ask about amnesty.
 
Jango said:
Which is also a flawed argument. What We're Doing compared to What Needs To Be Done is world's apart, man. Let me put it this way: spending on or for American citizens is in unsafe waters right now but we supposedly have the funds to shelter illegal aliens "until their day in court." Honestly, that's an insane way to do things with immigration. We've been invaded for years by non-citizens. Yeah, it's dumb not to put an end to that ****ing ricky tick, man.
Click to expand...

Militarizing the border is not a solution.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Militarizing the border is not a solution.
Click to expand...

Bull****. It's the only realistic solution. Why? Protection of the homeland matters more than non-citizens. If you disagree with that, then you need to re-examine your loyalties, man. Because militarizing the border needs to be done and can be done. The Soviets had their Iron Curtain. To protect our homeland, we need an Iron Curtain when it comes to immigration. The way Israel does it. We can't just keep ****ing up willy nilly and then be surprised when something horrific happens.
 
Jango said:
Bull****. It's the only realistic solution. Why? Protection of the homeland matters more than non-citizens. If you disagree with that, then you need to re-examine your loyalties, man. Because militarizing the border needs to be done and can be done. The Soviets had their Iron Curtain. To protect our homeland, we need an Iron Curtain when it comes to immigration. The way Israel does it. We can't just keep ****ing up willy nilly and then be surprised when something horrific happens.
Click to expand...

Taking cues from the Soviet Union? How about no.

Do you want the national gaurd to stop people crossing the border by pointing their guns and threatening to shoot?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Taking cues from the Soviet Union? How about no.

Do you want the national gaurd to stop people crossing the border by pointing their guns and threatening to shoot?
Click to expand...

Don't be stuck up. Just because it came from the Soviet Union does not immediately mean that something is wrong. Needless to say, the leadership there did horrific things to anyone they wanted, but their border security was top notch - done the way border security needs to be done. Not playing patty cake, but actually PROTECTING THE ****ING BORDER! If it mean putting holes in people, then DO IT. Why? Because OUR security is more valuable than theirs. Seriously, wake up bro.
 
clownboy said:
No, you posted polls with loaded questions designed to gain a particular answer, that doesn't support your claim. And no, they are not immigrants, nor are they refugees, they are illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

There was nothing loaded about the questions which explains why you haven't identified anything loaded about the questions
 
azgreg said:
I'm not for amnesty myself. I posted that for sangha's stance on the polls. The polls he quoted didn't specifically ask about amnesty.
Click to expand...

And you didn't specifically state the difference between what those polls asked about and what amnesty is
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Militarizing the border is not a solution.
Click to expand...

It has been extremely successful in the past. Both in most countries and also in America.

Back during WW ll when Mexican illegal aliens were illegally crossing the border to participate in the Bracero Program, soldiers from San Diego area, Marines from MCAS El Centro and soldiers from Fort Bliss and numerous of other military post and camps were sent to the border to stop illegal aliens from crossing the border. It became standard guard duty.
 
sangha said:
And you didn't specifically state the difference between what those polls asked about and what amnesty is
Click to expand...

If I was asked in a poll if I supported amnesty (which is to say that illegal immigrants already here and granted the ability to stay here with no strings attached) I would respond with a big fat no.

If I was asked in a poll if I supported finding a way for them to gain legal citizenship if they met certain requirement (pass a background check, have jobs, etc. (things in the dream act for example)) I would respond sure thing.
 
azgreg said:
If I was asked in a poll if I supported amnesty (which is to say that illegal immigrants already here and granted the ability to stay here with no strings attached) I would respond with a big fat no.

If I was asked in a poll if I supported finding a way for them to gain legal citizenship if they met certain requirement (pass a background check, have jobs, etc. (things in the dream act for example)) I would respond sure thing.
Click to expand...

Amnesty is "finding a way for them to gain legal citizenship if they met certain requirement (pass a background check, have jobs, etc."

Instead of describing what the differences are, all you did was tell me how susceptible your opinion is to changes in wording that don't change the meaning.

Maybe someday, you'll explain what the differences actually are instead of merely insisting that they're different.
 
sangha said:
Amnesty is "finding a way for them to gain legal citizenship if they met certain requirement (pass a background check, have jobs, etc."

Instead of describing what the differences are, all you did was tell me how susceptible your opinion is to changes in wording that don't change the meaning.

Maybe someday, you'll explain what the differences actually are instead of merely insisting that they're different.
Click to expand...


Amnesty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Full Definition of AMNESTY


: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals
Click to expand...

Notice there is no mention of meeting certain requirements.
 
azgreg said:
Amnesty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



Notice there is no mention of meeting certain requirements.
Click to expand...

Every single proposal to grant amnesty to undocumented resident has requirements.

And the questions they asked in the poll specified that they would have to meet certain requirements
Which statement comes closest to your view about how the immigration system should deal with immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. illegally? The immigration system should allow them a way to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements, allow them to become permanent legal residents but not citizens, identify and deport them.
Click to expand...

"Here are some questions about how the U.S. government should treat illegal immigrants who have been in this country for a number of years, hold a job, speak English and are willing to pay any back taxes that they owe.

"Would you favor or oppose a bill that allowed those immigrants to stay in this country rather than being deported and eventually allow them to apply for U.S. citizenship?"
Click to expand...

Which comes closer to your view about how to handle undocumented immigrants who are now living in the U.S.? They should not be allowed to stay in this country legally. OR, There should be a way for them to stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
There truly is a systemic border problem that has never been adequately addressed by either party. We will NOT see our borders secure, that's not in the interests of big business which BOTH parties pander to. Globalization is all about the free flow of goods and labor and borders are an impediment. People try to make this a finger pointing game but both parties are guilty, trying to insist that its one more so than the other wont fix anything. Hillary is a big advocate for open borders, and a global village. I was thinking you said you would vote for her if the GOP fielded the wrong candidate, or am I mistaken about that?
Click to expand...

As I said, both parties are at fault for the lack of border security. I don't remember Hillary stating that she was for open borders, or doing anything that would identify her as such. If she is, that would make me rethink my earlier statement. Do you have a link to proof of her either saying so, or acting in such a way to prove that she is?
 
sangha said:
C'mon P! There were no whips, no threats and no bribes

But I see you're back to the "the majority didn't want that was forced upon the American people by a political party and their political agenda" while ignoring that the same can be said of the House's immigration bill, passed in the middle of the night




There are no whips, threats or bribes. Please stop with the partisan political rhetoric. It is unbecoming coming from an independent like you.

And as far as kicking a Senator out if they don't listen to their constituents wishes, I wonder why you don't take the same position when it came to ACA? Last time I checked, the Senate is still majority dem.




And yet, here you are defending a bill that does not represent the wishes of the american people, was passed in the middle of the night, and is being pushed only to promote one political party

And mind you, I'm not blaming you for wishing things would work that way. I'm blaming you for being inconsistent and using that line with ACA and then completely ignoring it when it comes to the House's immigration bill.



I'm finding it hard coming from you because you are not being consistent about it. Despite your complaints about partisan bills, you are now defending a partisan bill because you (and not the majority of americans) like the bill.



Gee, isn't that how ACA was passed?

Yet you oppose it.



YOu keep insisting that there is something wrong with tabling a bill, but you don't seem able to explain what the problem is

The constitution gave each half of Congress the power to set its' own rules. Both Houses of Congress allow tabling. Both houses have tabled bills, and both parties have.

I understand that you don't like it, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.



The fact that they are not doing what you want them to do is not a problem, except maybe a problem for you.
Click to expand...

One, I am not an independent, I am a Reform Party Member. There is a big difference. There were bribes, Landrieu changed for vote for the Louisiana Purchase and Ben nelson for the Nebraska corn husker kickback. Numerous Senators and Representative were threaten by DNCC that they would either with hold campaign funds if they didn't vote the party line and these are just a couple.

I will stand by the fact a bill that originates in the house should be debated and voted on in the senate. A bill that originates in the senate should be debated and voted on in the house. Only those very partisan would see nothing wrong with tabling. Boehner has done basically the same thing in the House on a couple of senate bills, he applies what is known a Hastert rule. It is just a despicable. But Boehner has done perhaps 10-15 times, not over 200. Each chamber number should be zero.
 
I don't know why amnesty is even being discussed. Amnesty is what was passed under Reagan. So here we are in 2014 faced with the same problem that amnesty didn't solve. Why do people think that trying the same thing again would work this time?

This is why bi-partisanship isn't always the best solution to problems. All ideas aren't equal and stupid ones should be rejected. Compromise for the sake of compromise results in bad policy. I'd rather congress do nothing and sit on their asses than pass more bad laws.
 
Militarizing the border is part of the long term solution.

However, the current crisis is not due to an unsecured border. The people we have now aren't trying to sneak in, they're presenting themselves to border security. Because of the 2008 law, we're required to process OTM children to determine if they're eligible for refugee status. We even give them a lawyer.


APACHERAT said:
It has been extremely successful in the past. Both in most countries and also in America.

Back during WW ll when Mexican illegal aliens were illegally crossing the border to participate in the Bracero Program, soldiers from San Diego area, Marines from MCAS El Centro and soldiers from Fort Bliss and numerous of other military post and camps were sent to the border to stop illegal aliens from crossing the border. It became standard guard duty.
Click to expand...
 
Beaudreaux said:
As I said, both parties are at fault for the lack of border security. I don't remember Hillary stating that she was for open borders, or doing anything that would identify her as such. If she is, that would make me rethink my earlier statement. Do you have a link to proof of her either saying so, or acting in such a way to prove that she is?
Click to expand...

Clinton supported Eliot Spitzer's plan to grant drivers liscences to illegals as senator in New York, until he withdrew the plan on the basis of it being so unpopular.

Speaking to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Albuquerque in 2001, George W. Bush declared that, as Mexico was a friend and neighbor, “It’s so important for us to tear down our barriers and walls that might separate Mexico from the United States.”
Bush succeeded. And during his tenure, millions from Mexico exploited his magnanimity to violate our laws, trample upon our sovereignty, walk into our country and remain here.
In 2007, supported by John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and Barack Obama, Bush backed amnesty for the 12 million people who had entered America illegally.


http://conservative50plus.com/blog/america-no-longer-1-nation-1-people/
 
A $694 million dollar Bill?

That's like Canada passing a $694.00 Bill.
 
"The draw is the welfare state and the mistaken belief that this remains a land of opportunity. Do you want open borders? If so then completely eliminate the welfare state."
Helix said:
you completely ignored the fact that the draw is employment in private industry, and that entire sectors of the economy rely on cheap, underground labor.

no, i don't want completely open borders. i want an immigration system that works. the current system does not, and i think we should work to fix that.
Click to expand...
Imagine that. In the very same sentence I mentioned the two draws. Welfare and opportunity.

I want the same thing you do. I want an immigration policy that benefits the citizens of the US. We need to essentially stop all immigration until we decide what we really want. This is my country. It is not their country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom