• 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 says politics to blame for immigration delay

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I don't think even that will solve the problem all by itself. People would just live under the radar, working for people who don't check ID, being paid cash, using public transportation, homeschooling, and living somewhere that doesn't check ID either (many of which illegals already do).

The best way to fix illegal immigration is to get rid of the welfare/warfare state and not many politicians from the one party with two names will dismantle it.
 
He's absolutely right too. 'Securing the border' (whatever that means) will never solve our immigration problems on its own. To really make a difference, we need exactly what he said, a comprehensive approach that attacks the problem from several directions at once, and one of those absolutely has to be cracking down on businesses that hire illegals.

Absolutely incorrect. First, you're using selective hearing which brings your entire argument to a screetching hault. It is not "Secure the Border", Its "Secure the Border FIRST". There is nothing in any stance of the Republican Party that says "The only solution to the Immigration is Border Security". Additionally, you are also indulging in the fallacy of the President in the notion that "Comprehensive" means it must happen all at the same time.

We do need comprehenisive immigration reform, however it needs to be staggered.

The first and biggest issue is beginning to secure our border. The second biggest issue is enforcing our current laws on the books against illegals and against the business that hire them.

Make it more difficult to come in, and make it less attractive to come in, thus by default slowing the influx of people into the country. Then, and only then, should we move onto the notion of what we should do in regards to the millions already here. Once we have that determined we can then look into revamping our immigration policy in such a way that it discourages illegal immigration while also fulfilling our economic needs.

If you do it "comprehenisvely" as the President and Democrats wish, which is doing it all in a single bill, then what you will likely have is a repeat of history. In the 1980's we tried comprehensive reform. We passed amnesty along side greater enforcement of the law.

Guess which of those two happened?

Guess which of those two didn't?

I'm not going to be blind and deaf to history, and neither should anyone else. Democrats have screwed us once, they don't get a free second try. You want your comprehensive reform? Alright. You get it in stages. The first stage is secure, the second stage is enforce, the third stage can be the path, and the fourth will be reform.
 
And your your lord and savior Bush (A Republican) didn't do anything about it.

You must have missed the portion in time when polls were showing large amount of conservative disagreement and anger towards George W. Bush for pushing Comprehensive Immigration Reform rather than Secure the Border first and then address the rest.

For all the ways people like to throw around how fanatical republicans were to George Bush, its incredibly dishonest to suggest that the vast majority of Republicans and Conservatives were extremely upset and against him with regards to Immigration.
 
What the?.... too Big? What a loser this President is.


j-mac

No, he's not 100% wrong on this. In fact, this is how the government works. They aren't moving towards a solution because if they solve the problem, then they can't bitch about it anymore. The goal is to preserve the problems for as long as possible to keep it a divisive talking point. The Republicans have gone the partisan route, though both sides do and we shouldn't be shocked.
 
Let me ask you this... why did the Republicans not do anything when they had absolute power.... you had 6 years.

Because unlike Obama and the Democratic Congress...or more precisely like Obama and the Democratic Congress in regards to a true Public Option....The republicans in congress and the President in power had differing views in regards to what needed to be done so essentially created a situation where there was no absolute power.
 
"Yes we can" secure the border.... Oh wait...

We can absolutely enforce border security and make it much harder to enter illegally. We can crack down on businesses who hire illegals and enforce the laws we already have. Obama just wants amnesty, he doesn't want to enforce immigration laws and this is evident in how he is treating AZ and their new law. Politics are to blame for immigration delay, but it's due to Democrats wanting amnesty and "immigration reform" and not enforcing are laws and securing our border.
 
You must have missed the portion in time when polls were showing large amount of conservative disagreement and anger towards George W. Bush for pushing Comprehensive Immigration Reform rather than Secure the Border first and then address the rest.

For all the ways people like to throw around how fanatical republicans were to George Bush, its incredibly dishonest to suggest that the vast majority of Republicans and Conservatives were extremely upset and against him with regards to Immigration.

Yep, soo much anger that they voted for him again in 2004. Yep, that's a lot of anger :doh
 
Thanks Obama for this great "Change from Politics of Usual".

- Accuse the other side of stalling when you have a super majority = Check.
- Accuse the other side of playing partisan politics when you're doing just that = Check.
- Acucse the othe side of using election year politics when you've put the issue off up until its time for elections = Check.

Hope and Change Baby, Hope and Change
 
Yep, soo much anger that they voted for him again in 2004. Yep, that's a lot of anger :doh

I know, what assholes, everyone knows Republicans have the mental powers to see into the future and would've known in 2007 Bush would try and shove comprehensive immigration reform down their throats with the help of John McCain and Ted Kennedy and thus voted against him in 2004....
 
Because unlike Obama and the Democratic Congress...or more precisely like Obama and the Democratic Congress in regards to a true Public Option....The republicans in congress and the President in power had differing views in regards to what needed to be done so essentially created a situation where there was no absolute power.

LOL now that is the best joke of the month... in denial much? You got it the wrong way around....

The Republican party under Bush looked more and more like a European political party that votes together regardless, than individual representatives that should in theory have their own opinions on things.
 
LOL now that is the best joke of the month... in denial much? You got it the wrong way around....

The Republican party under Bush looked more and more like a European political party that votes together regardless, than individual representatives that should in theory have their own opinions on things.

You think its the best joke of the month. No wonder no one else finds it funny.

Notice WHEN immigration did come up under Bush? In 2007, when DEMOCRATS had gained control.

Notice WHAT kind of immigration Bush upshed for? Comprehensive reform, which DEMOCRATS wanted.

Notice WHO opposed Bush the strongest during that 2007 push for immigration reform? Republicans, including many in the CONGRESS.

And thankfully with enough pressure from the American People it was killed all together by a bipartisan effort on both sides.

So I have actual facts...god I know you hate those pesky things...showing Bush viewed immigration in a way opposite to how those in congress wanted it, opposite to how his constituents wanted it, and more in line with what the other side wanted. And yet somehow, someway, you're telling me I'm wrong in suggesting that the reason it didn't get passed prior to that was because there was not agreement within the party because....um......you think the party would do anything and everything Bush wanted despite them not doing that, specifically on the issue at hand?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure its not MY post that's the joke of the month.
 
Talk about an arrogant response lol, and lame excuse. What on EARTH does a countries size have to do with anything?

Why would it make sense for a tiny country like yours to issue state IDs instead of one national ID?


China has a national ID card that is required to get jobs, bank accounts, and tons of other things..

China is more of an example of an oppressive government instead of a beacon of freedom. Besides that we have state IDs and we have social security numbers in which you need to get a legal job, bank account and many other things.

Not really, it is just you that dont understand what a real national ID is and what it can do.

PeteEU

Why would someone who already knowingly breaks the law by hiring illegals and not adequately checking documents care if an illegal doesn't have a national ID? It is nothing more than a scam by the federal government to further intrude. I do not want the government having my fingerprints and biometric data on file it is none of their business. Its nothing more than step towards the federal government chipping everyone.
 
I know, what assholes, everyone knows Republicans have the mental powers to see into the future and would've known in 2007 Bush would try and shove comprehensive immigration reform down their throats with the help of John McCain and Ted Kennedy and thus voted against him in 2004....

Yeah Bush only had 4 years to do something about it before idiots voted him in again in 2004, unlike Obama who hasn't had that long. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about bashing Obama on immigration issues.
 
Yeah Bush only had 4 years to do something about it before idiots voted him in again in 2004, unlike Obama who hasn't had that long. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about bashing Obama on immigration issues.

So because Bush didn't do enough that means Obama gets a pass when he does nothing?

Sorry, doesn't excuse his inaction.
 
So because Bush didn't do enough that means Obama gets a pass when he does nothing?

Sorry, doesn't excuse his inaction.

Nope it doesn't excuse his actions, but it is funny watching conservatives and Republicans who voted for Bush again in 2004 (Giving him a free pass) whine and cry about Obama doing the same thing.

Your feigned outrage is noted.
 
Yeah Bush only had 4 years to do something about it before idiots voted him in again in 2004, unlike Obama who hasn't had that long. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about bashing Obama on immigration issues.

When your option is "Someone that is ****ty about Immigration" with regards to Bush and "Someone that is ****ty about Immigration" in regards to Kerry, then guess what TNE...

I know this is going to BLOW your mind....

You don't vote basd on their immigration records becuase they're BOTH ****ty and thus you move onto issues where they're different.

Strikingly amazing I know.

Get off your idiotic high horse about "feeling beter about Bashing Obama on immigratnoi issues".

I bashed Bush, repeatedly, on Immigration as well. This has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with ****ty Policy
 
Republicans don't want reform, not now anyway. That is clear.
washingtonpost.com

Based on what?

Barack Obama saying they won't do HIS STYLE of Reform and therefore that equals "not wanting reform".

Absolutely bull****. Gotta love the man ushering in the "post partisan era".

Saying "Do it my way or you're showing you don't want to do it at all" for one, isn't bipartisan, and for two, is a fallacy.

Not wanting to do it how Obama wants to do it, which is passing it all at one comprehensively (something history has shown doesn't necessarily mean its going to be enforced comprehensively), is not the same as not wanting reform.
 
This has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with ****ty Policy

Funny, because the bashing has been all about Obama like this immigration thing is completely his fault and no other presidents in the past.
 
Funny, because the bashing has been all about Obama like this immigration thing is completely his fault and no other presidents in the past.

Really? Please highlight the posts of mine in particular that shows the bashing to be all about Obama like this immigration thing is completely his fault?

Or are you completely and erroniously making a suggestion, born on ignorance of the existance of multiple discussions over years upon years, that someone making a single post in a single thread about a specific topic specifically about Obama who does not say something about every other previous president must be implying that its all the subject of the threads fault.

Are you suggesting TNE that if you've posted in any thread anywhere ever concerning our displeasure with an individual that if you did not list every single solitary person that you are also have felt displeasure with at any given time that you are dishonestly suggesting that the person you were initially talking about is the ONLY person to have done the thing that displeased you?

Please, that's ridiculous, and idiotic.

I, and others, spoke about Obama in this thread because...wait for it......waiiiiit for it.....

THIS THREADS TOPIC IS OBAMA

I know, shocking, people wanting to actually stay on topic. An awe struck notion.

More to the point, this thread is on the topic of OBAMA suggesting "politics are to blame for immigration delay".

Funny, not "Bush" suggesting. Not "Clinton Suggesting". Not "Reagan Suggesting". But "Obama suggesting".

Yes, how dare we stay on topic and speak about the person the threads actually about.

Right now, in the present, on this day, George Bush has no power over immigration...and thank god at that. Guess who does? Barack Obama. Guess who actually is speaking about Immigration? Barack Obama. Guess who then the focus is on. Barack Obama.

Guess what, 3 years ago when Bush was pushing Immigration guess what president was talked about? I'll give you a clue. It wasn't Bill Clinton, it wasn't Bush I, it wasn't Jimmy Carter, and it was barely Reagan and only in regards to his errors. It was Bush.

Woah! What's this? You mean when Bush was President and Bush was doing things with immigration people talked about George Bush? Parish the thought, what unbelievable notion is this?!

But see, Bush is history, he's gone, he's irrelevant when it comes to immigration now. However a view similar to his mistaken view point, which was ridiculed, insulted, and protested against by Conservatives and Republicans, is being pushed by Barack Obama. And since it is Obama pushing it currently, its relevant to talk about Obama now.

Hmm, let us go find a thread complaining about Michael Steele saying something absolutely stupid. Lets make sure we don't post in that thread unless we comment on every single politician that has ever said anything stupid ever anytime anywhere, or else TNE may suggest that the bashing is "all about steele" as if only michael steele who ever said anything stupid and not any other politician in the past.

:roll:

Obama is pushing a failed political plan. Bush didn't even other to try to push it when he had his party in power because they wouldn't go for it. He tried to push it when Democrats were in power and were fought by republicans, some democrats, and the American people. Now Obama is trying to push it and like Bush is being stopped. Due to being stopped he is playing partisan politics by attempting to suggest that republicans are singularly to blame for the delay which ignores the notion that he could pass this with minimal if any Republican backing and that he himself is just as responsible for the delay as the republicans as he refuses to move off of "all at once" comprehensive reform. Thus, despite his misrepresentation, it is his stubbornness along with the republicans that is to blame for immigration delay and it is impossible for him to suggest that it is just one sides fault without playing the partisan politic games he's hypocritically accusing Republicans of.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform failed once before, and there's no reason we should be the definition of insanity, attempting something again and expecting a different result.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely incorrect. First, you're using selective hearing which brings your entire argument to a screetching hault. It is not "Secure the Border", Its "Secure the Border FIRST". There is nothing in any stance of the Republican Party that says "The only solution to the Immigration is Border Security".

You're right on this part, I misread the OP. There are plenty of people though that seem to think all we have to do is build a border fence and station some armed guards and that'll solve the problem.

Additionally, you are also indulging in the fallacy of the President in the notion that "Comprehensive" means it must happen all at the same time.

We do need comprehenisive immigration reform, however it needs to be staggered.

The first and biggest issue is beginning to secure our border. The second biggest issue is enforcing our current laws on the books against illegals and against the business that hire them.

Make it more difficult to come in, and make it less attractive to come in, thus by default slowing the influx of people into the country. Then, and only then, should we move onto the notion of what we should do in regards to the millions already here. Once we have that determined we can then look into revamping our immigration policy in such a way that it discourages illegal immigration while also fulfilling our economic needs.

If you do it "comprehenisvely" as the President and Democrats wish, which is doing it all in a single bill, then what you will likely have is a repeat of history. In the 1980's we tried comprehensive reform. We passed amnesty along side greater enforcement of the law.

Guess which of those two happened?

Guess which of those two didn't?

I'm not going to be blind and deaf to history, and neither should anyone else. Democrats have screwed us once, they don't get a free second try. You want your comprehensive reform? Alright. You get it in stages. The first stage is secure, the second stage is enforce, the third stage can be the path, and the fourth will be reform.

I won't say you're wrong, but it's arguable. I'm not sure that passing the law piecemeal will actually get better results than passing everything at once.

Even if it is passed piecemeal, I think it's better to start with enforcement than securing the border. I think it's a more effective way to combat the problem. Securing the border would only cut down on the numbers of illegals getting in to the country. It would do nothing to the ones already here. Greater enforcement (especially against businesses that hire illegals) would both reduce the number of illegals in the country AND cut down the number of illegals coming to the US. If you make it unattractive for them to come here (i.e. hard to find a job, hard to find housing, a good chance of getting caught and serving jail time), they won't.
 
You're right on this part, I misread the OP. There are plenty of people though that seem to think all we have to do is build a border fence and station some armed guards and that'll solve the problem.

I won't say you're wrong, but it's arguable. I'm not sure that passing the law piecemeal will actually get better results than passing everything at once.

Even if it is passed piecemeal, I think it's better to start with enforcement than securing the border. I think it's a more effective way to combat the problem. Securing the border would only cut down on the numbers of illegals getting in to the country. It would do nothing to the ones already here. Greater enforcement (especially against businesses that hire illegals) would both reduce the number of illegals in the country AND cut down the number of illegals coming to the US. If you make it unattractive for them to come here (i.e. hard to find a job, hard to find housing, a good chance of getting caught and serving jail time), they won't.

Honestly I wouldn't care if it was:

1. Enforce 2. Secure 3. Those here 4. Reform

instead of

1. secure 2. Enforce 3. Those here 4. Reform

as long as 1 and 2 are some combination of protect and enforce.

If you don't cut off the flow, and that's what securing and enforcing does, then you can NOT begin to deal with those in the country or reform our immigration policy because by the time you get to the point of enforcing and securing you're going to have a similar problem as there's suddenly lots more illegals in the country.

But I would absolutely no issue if we started enforcing the laws and then securing the borders. The only reason I think securing should come first is because I believe it will be a longer process then enforcing the laws to get it to a reasonable point so I'd like to see it get started first, with enforcement literally right on its heels. But the other way is fine too.

However I would never be able to get behind ANY legislation that gives a path to citizenship, amnesty, etc to any illegals in this country without seeing enforcement and security actually passed and actually happening in practice first. That whole once bitten twice shy thing.
 
Nope it doesn't excuse his actions,

inaction

but it is funny watching conservatives and Republicans who voted for Bush again in 2004 (Giving him a free pass) whine and cry about Obama doing the same thing.

Your feigned outrage is noted.

Right because Kerry would have been such a border warrior. Spare us your fantasy choice.

And the subject is Obama, not Bush. Nice try at a dodge.
 
Last edited:
However I would never be able to get behind ANY legislation that gives a path to citizenship, amnesty, etc to any illegals in this country without seeing enforcement and security actually passed and actually happening in practice first. That whole once bitten twice shy thing.

I agree with you 100% on this part.
 
Back
Top Bottom