• 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!

Republicans weigh government shutdown to stop Obama on immigration

ernst barkmann said:
its time to cut foreign aid, including that sent to Mexico.
Click to expand...

Foreign aid is a tool used in International Relations (part of any country's foreign policy efforts), not just a giveaway to other countries.

It is in our country's best interest to have countries in need of assistance coming to the US for that assistance, rather than going to another country that presents a danger to the US - such as Russia or China. We want those countries in our debt, not our potential enemies. We went through this already when the Russians funded revolutions in Central and South America, and when China bought the Panama Canal because we refused to fund it anymore. If China becomes a belligerent to the US, they could close the Panama Canal, militarize it, and we would either have to go to war to gain access to it or all of our ships would have to go around the horn of South America just to go between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

I would agree that we need to have tighter strings attached to our aid, but I could never agree to cutting it off, or reducing it to the point that our potential advisories rise up to fill that void.
 
NIMBY said:
I haven't seen one pro-business group that doesn't want a fix to immigration reform.
In fact, many of them are on board with whatever the President does because IR is such a problem for them .
Click to expand...

Every business should be for immigration reform. And, IMHO, most are... not just the pro-business groups.

The problem is in the details of what defines immigration reform. A blanket amnesty will never fly with the majority of American citizens. Even if that is the simplest action to take (in arguably the most logical), that action would have harmful short term and long term impacts upon this nation.

A very recent example is what happened with kids flocking to this country by the tens of thousands right after the President issued his EO barring the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrant kids here in this country.

Now... extend what happened with kids, to every age group from every country that wants to come here for a better life. We cannot afford the cost of that potential influx of immigrants.

That is why we have Immigration Laws and quotas on the numbers admitted each year. We cannot become the sole place in the world that takes in everyone that wants to come here and then expect those of us already here to pay for the costs associated with that.

I truly feel that both the GOP and the Democrats can come to an agreement on what makes sense and that the country can afford. Blanket amnesty is not it. Even if it was just for a year or two. Our borders would be flooded with people trying to get here to get in on the free ride to amnesty. And, that's what it would end up being. Even if the President included a fine, very few would pay it, and all the people wanting to come here would hear is "no arrest, no deportation."

But... we don't have a clue yet what Obama will actually do.

So, at this point, it's futile and a huge waist of time to argue about what hasn't happened and cannot even be defined.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Every business should be for immigration reform. And, IMHO, most are... not just the pro-business groups.

The problem is in the details of what defines immigration reform. A blanket amnesty will never fly with the majority of American citizens. Even if that is the simplest action to take (in arguably the most logical), that action would have harmful short term and long term impacts upon this nation.

A very recent example is what happened with kids flocking to this country by the tens of thousands right after the President issued his EO barring the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrant kids here in this country.

Now... extend what happened with kids, to every age group from every country that wants to come here for a better life. We cannot afford the cost of that potential influx of immigrants.

That is why we have Immigration Laws and quotas on the numbers admitted each year. We cannot become the sole place in the world that takes in everyone that wants to come here and then expect those of us already here to pay for the costs associated with that.

I truly feel that both the GOP and the Democrats can come to an agreement on what makes sense and that the country can afford. Blanket amnesty is not it. Even if it was just for a year or two. Our borders would be flooded with people trying to get here to get in on the free ride to amnesty. And, that's what it would end up being. Even if the President included a fine, very few would pay it, and all the people wanting to come here would hear is "no arrest, no deportation."

But... we don't have a clue yet what Obama will actually do.

So, at this point, it's futile and a huge waist of time to argue about what hasn't happened and cannot even be defined.
Click to expand...

This is why the Republicans have the best plan. It is to secure the border first. Period. Then, we can talk about any amnesty, what it'll look like as well as other issues like beefing up and enforcing laws that forbid business from hiring illegal aliens. After that, we can talk about and decide on streamlining the LEGAL immigration rules.

That's why the Senate bill is a bunch of crap. Like Obamacare, it tries to deal with everything in one big, ****ed up bill. That's not the best way to do those kinds of things.
 
Hatuey said:
Republicans weigh government shutdown to stop Obama on immigration



In contrast, last time the GOP shut down the government:

Poll: Major damage to GOP after shutdown, and broad dissatisfaction with government - The Washington Post



Polls: Shutdown nightmare for Republicans - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
Poll shows Republicans taking blame for government shutdown - Los Angeles Times
Boomerang! Poll Reveals GOP's Government Shutdown Bolstered Obamacare's Popularity By 20% - Forbes
Poll: Government Shutdown Damages GOP - Business Insider

I'm sure that this time, a government shutdown will be positive for the GOPs image. Flight attendants, PR appointees and HS students will support this and it will give the GOP an even bigger majority in 2016. Using the shutdown option will also bring in support from Independents. They seem to be in favor of such things.
Click to expand...
We should shut the government down, and leave it down.
 
Northern Light said:
The shutdowns are not about pleasing the American people, but business partners. You'd think people would realize that already. The GOP doesn't give two ****s about its constituents.
Click to expand...

Right on the nail.

The circus just keeps going with the GOP.
 
iguanaman said:
It's the Presidents job to veto bills he feels are wrong for the country, it is in the Constitution. It is the Congress's job to pass bills that will be signed into law or have the votes to override a veto. If Congress is unable to do either they fail and they have no one to blame but themselves. That is how governing works in America in case you have also forgotten like the Republicans in Washington have.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is bull. Just like it is the president's job to sign bills he feels are good for the country and to veto bills he things are wrong for the country, it is Congress' job to pass bills that they feel *are good for the country*, and to refuse to pass bill that they think are wrong for the country. Congress is under no imperative to pass any bills at all. Refusing to pass bills is not, as you say here, failure. Refusing to pass bills is a part of governing as surely as is passing them.

-AJF
 
NIMBY said:
And will cause a veto of the bill--shutting down the gov't just in time for what looks like an economically good Christmas.
The GOP plans on screwing up the omnibus process three weeks at a time, giving no confidence to their own business people .
Click to expand...
So who says that they can't break up appropriations to their separate catagories and just defund IIR?
 
iguanaman said:
It's the Presidents job to veto bills he feels are wrong for the country, it is in the Constitution. It is the Congress's job to pass bills that will be signed into law or have the votes to override a veto. If Congress is unable to do either they fail and they have no one to blame but themselves. That is how governing works in America in case you have also forgotten like the Republicans in Washington have.
Click to expand...

I don't argue your description of the process.
I question why Obama wouldn't be held responsible for his veto of a funding bill that has passed congress.

You seem to think that it's congress' job to pass legislation that is palatable to the president. I'm not quite sure that's the case.

It's congress' job to represent the will of the people they represent, the majority of whom do not support Obama's EO amnesty plan (if we are to believe the polling results), and in passing a funding bill that doesn't fund Obama's EO amnesty action, congress would have done their duty as the representatives of the people. Would they have not?
 
We don't know for sure what the Presidents executive action will actually be.

If it in any way, shape, or form naturalizes ANY person here illegally to any degree...I've grown to be fully in favor of both impeachment and a shutdown, as the constitutional singularly sets the Congress as the entity within our governmental structure that has dominion over naturalization.

However...

Anything short of that, I'm against forcing a shut down. I am however growing to be okay with using the pandora's box that Harry Reid opened by allowing reconcilliation to be used on a bill that was not explicitely focused first and foremost as a budget or tax reform bill, and utilize reconcilliation to pass immigration laws counter acting any executive action the President takes on this matter.

Anything short of some form of naturalization means that it can be reversed and changed should a Republican President become the POTUS. However, naturalization is an absolutely "no coming back" moment and for that I'd be willing to see the Republicans use any and all means they have to stop it.

Note, I was not in favor of the last shutdown and felt it was a poor fiscal and political move.

But once you naturalize any of these illegals there's no going back. Even if the executive action is deemed unconstitutional, even if it gets overturned by a later president or by Congress if the President keeps his word (yeah right, see 2008), once those individuals have anything close to naturalization it becomes nearly impossible to actually strip it from them. EVERY ability we have to to stop that MUST be used.
 
iguanaman said:
So you think the President should disobey his Constitutional duties and sign bills he believes are wrong for the country? Shame on you for that.
Click to expand...

So do you have a similar stance on believing that those in congress shouldn't disobey their constitutional duties and vote for bills they believe are wrong for the country? Or have you criticized the Republicans in congress at any point for not "compromising"?
 
Van Basten said:
Right on the nail.

The circus just keeps going with the GOP.
Click to expand...

No, the circus is about to leave town, and Obama is hurrying to pass something NOBODY wants before they do.

He's throwing a liberal hissy fit (the worst kind), and can't get passed the massive rejection just handed him.

No means no, Obama.
 
Zyphlin said:
So do you have a similar stance on believing that those in congress shouldn't disobey their constitutional duties and vote for bills they believe are wrong for the country? Or have you criticized the Republicans in congress at any point for not "compromising"?
Click to expand...

Not only do they refuse to compromise (its a dirty word to the "new" Republicans) but the House has passed numerous "insult" bills like defunding the ACA to add to the partisanship. It is like they have forgotten how to get things done and the House is the most obstructionist in history. I don't remember the Dems doing the same to GW Bush. In fact Bush only vetoed 12 bills when the Dems had control of Congress and 4 of them were over-ridden by Congress. Now that Reid can't block these "dead in the water" bills we will see how many times Obama exercises his right as President. Without the votes to override them they are an exercise in futility.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Foreign aid is a tool used in International Relations (part of any country's foreign policy efforts), not just a giveaway to other countries.

It is in our country's best interest to have countries in need of assistance coming to the US for that assistance, rather than going to another country that presents a danger to the US - such as Russia or China. We want those countries in our debt, not our potential enemies. We went through this already when the Russians funded revolutions in Central and South America, and when China bought the Panama Canal because we refused to fund it anymore. If China becomes a belligerent to the US, they could close the Panama Canal, militarize it, and we would either have to go to war to gain access to it or all of our ships would have to go around the horn of South America just to go between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

I would agree that we need to have tighter strings attached to our aid, but I could never agree to cutting it off, or reducing it to the point that our potential advisories rise up to fill that void.
Click to expand...

since i follow constitutional law...i don't see it in the powers of congress.
 
iguanaman said:
Not only do they refuse to compromise (its a dirty word to the "new" Republicans) but the House has passed numerous "insult" bills like defunding the ACA to add to the partisanship.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait....

If they think that defunding the ACA is "what's best for the country" don't they have a "constitutional duty" to attempt to do so?

Or do you take such a high brow approach only to those on your political side?
 
Zyphlin said:
Wait wait wait....

If they think that defunding the ACA is "what's best for the country" don't they have a "constitutional duty" to attempt to do so?

Or do you take such a high brow approach only to those on your political side?
Click to expand...

54 times in 4 years? At what point is what they are doing going to be considered a waste of time and money?

I can understand a couple of times in a year maybe, but clearly when they know they aren't going to get it repealed, that is a little too much don't you think?

At what point would you consider it nothing more than a waste of time and political grandstanding? Yes, I'm well aware the Dems do this too, that doesn't make it any less a waste of time or any less wrong.

Now, given that the GOP have won these last elections I would not consider it a waste if they were to try and do it as the tables and playing field have changed. However, in the past they have more than wasted time on this.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wait wait wait....

If they think that defunding the ACA is "what's best for the country" don't they have a "constitutional duty" to attempt to do so?

Or do you take such a high brow approach only to those on your political side?
Click to expand...

No, not when they do not have the votes and they know it. Grandstanding is not governing. I believe we will see a lot more of it now that they have the Senate. Now both Houses will be wasting time 24/7. All they are talking about now is shutting down the Govt. again. That's why the President will have to take the reigns. The GOP's inability to pass legislation that becomes law has left a huge power vacuum.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
54 times in 4 years? At what point is what they are doing going to be considered a waste of time and money?

I can understand a couple of times in a year maybe, but clearly when they know they aren't going to get it repealed, that is a little too much don't you think?

At what point would you consider it nothing more than a waste of time and political grandstanding? Yes, I'm well aware the Dems do this too, that doesn't make it any less a waste of time or any less wrong.

Now, given that the GOP have won these last elections I would not consider it a waste if they were to try and do it as the tables and playing field have changed. However, in the past they have more than wasted time on this.
Click to expand...

Why not 54 times in 4 years (if those numbers are accurate)? Heck, EVERYTHING they did was a waste of time thanks to Harry...even stuff that had Democratic support in the House.
 
TheNextEra said:
54 times in 4 years? At what point is what they are doing going to be considered a waste of time and money?

I can understand a couple of times in a year maybe, but clearly when they know they aren't going to get it repealed, that is a little too much don't you think?

At what point would you consider it nothing more than a waste of time and political grandstanding? Yes, I'm well aware the Dems do this too, that doesn't make it any less a waste of time or any less wrong.

Now, given that the GOP have won these last elections I would not consider it a waste if they were to try and do it as the tables and playing field have changed. However, in the past they have more than wasted time on this.
Click to expand...

The Republicans have a mandate from the people to repeal Obamacare.
 
iguanaman said:
No, not when they do not have the votes and they know it. Grandstanding is not governing. I believe we will see a lot more of it now that they have the Senate. Now both Houses will be wasting time 24/7. All they are talking about now is shutting down the Govt. again. That's why the President will have to take the reigns. The GOP's inability to pass legislation that becomes law has left a huge power vacuum.
Click to expand...

The President doesn't have the power to, "take the reins".
 
apdst said:
The Republicans have a mandate from the people to repeal Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor and read my comments again. I commented on what you just said. More proof you are not actually reading posts and only skimming.
 
iguanaman said:
No, not when they do not have the votes and they know it. Grandstanding is not governing. I believe we will see a lot more of it now that they have the Senate. Now both Houses will be wasting time 24/7. All they are talking about now is shutting down the Govt. again. That's why the President will have to take the reigns. The GOP's inability to pass legislation that becomes law has left a huge power vacuum.
Click to expand...

will have to take the reigns.

wut?
 
Mycroft said:
Why not 54 times in 4 years (if those numbers are accurate)? Heck, EVERYTHING they did was a waste of time thanks to Harry...even stuff that had Democratic support in the House.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you are ok with wasting time and money as long as the GOP is doing it. Got it, thank you for your clarification.

As I said before, I don't think a couple of times a year is a waste, but 54 in 4 years is a waste of time and money regardless of who is in control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom