• 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!

Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

Obama continues to refuse to uphold the oath of POTUS and continues to aid and abet illegal aliens at our cost.

If I were to get caught in illegal dumping I would be arrested. Obama is openly dumping poverty, gang bangers, disease and undocumented Democrats in America.

It's wasn't 50,000 but almost 300,000 illegal aliens.

Excerpts:

>" The vast majority of 50,000 unaccompanied youths and children who have illegally crossed the Texas border during the last few months have been successfully delivered by federal agencies to their relatives living in the United States, according to a New York Times article.

A second New York Times article report revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States...


Experts say that President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to close the loopholes and is unlikely to deport more than a small percentage of the illegals, despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.

The president’s policy has caused protests by frightened citizens in towns such as Murrieta. But Obama’s allies — such as La Raza, an ethnic lobby for Latinos — are eager to escalate the conflict and to paint the protestors as racists. Those protests may escalate before the November elections...



Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States...




Few of the illegal immigrants are high-school graduates, or have skills that would allow them to earn more than they cost to federal, state and local taxpayers...


All of it -> Border Meltdown; Obama Delivers 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes | The Daily Caller
 
Your in favor of separating families?
 
I favor rounding up every member of the family and sending all of them back where they belong and they don't belong in America.

You do realize how hard that will be, expensive, and inhumane?
 
Your in favor of separating families?

Why is the U.S. responsible for that? Are the parents legal? Why did the families choose to leave children behind ? ...

There's something rotten in D.C

Thom Paine
 
We used a swat team to do it to a small Cuban boy once and I seem to recall the left was in complete favor of it. The cost? We should sue the child's nation and recover the cost. They can take it out on the criminals who sent their children away for abounding them.

You do realize how hard that will be, expensive, and inhumane?

And BTW if one of those children bears a communicable disease leading to a single death in America it should be a high crime for the dictator to be deposed.
 
Why is the U.S. responsible for that? Are the parents legal? Why did the families choose to leave children behind ? ...

There's something rotten in D.C

Thom Paine
Of course. People are in this country and our policies withhold families from being united based on border lines.
 
We used a swat team to do it to a small Cuban boy once and I seem to recall the left was in complete favor of it. The cost? We should sue the child's nation and recover the cost. They can take it out on the criminals who sent their children away for abounding them.
So we should sue a nation because of people left that country? Since when was a country responsible for the free movement of their citizens?


And BTW if one of those children bears a communicable disease leading to a single death in America it should be a high crime for the dictator to be deposed.
:roll: Oh yes all immigrants are now diseased ridden peoples. So since you are worried about the health of people should we lax our immigration policies because it will allow us to make sure vaccinations are taking place?
 
You do realize how hard that will be, expensive, and inhumane?

It will cost less than the $100 billion dollars that illegal aliens are already using in public services every year.That's after taking in consideration of what little taxes illegal aliens pay into the tax coffers.

Our number one import into America in the past few decades has been poverty. How many more can we keep absorbing ?

The main purpose of any nation's immigration policies and laws is to protect the demographics, language, culture and customs of the nation.

From the early 1900 until 1965 it was America's progressives who wrote our immigration laws. What the **** happened ? That's why I question anyone who identifies as being a progressive, are they really a progressive or something else hiding behind the progressive label.
Old Obsessions, Modern Concerns: Re-Evaluating the Dillingham Commission at 100
 
So we should sue a nation because of people left that country? Since when was a country responsible for the free movement of their citizens?



:roll: Oh yes all immigrants are now diseased ridden peoples. So since you are worried about the health of people should we lax our immigration policies because it will allow us to make sure vaccinations are taking place?


Why wouldn't Mexico be held responsible for allowing mass migration of people to trapse thru their country? With no food and some with barely any clothing. Now kids with no parents or adults. Then with how many dying and speading whatever virus' or diseases they do. Stealing and affecting any communities already struggling inside Mexico? Why wouldn't this be a problem again?

Do you think by giving them a clearer path to the US prevents what they have to deal with? Especially knowing what US law is concerning Immigrants coming into its country.
 
So we should sue a nation because of people left that country? Since when was a country responsible for the free movement of their citizens?



:roll: Oh yes all immigrants are now diseased ridden peoples. So since you are worried about the health of people should we lax our immigration policies because it will allow us to make sure vaccinations are taking place?

These are not "immigrants" they are illegal aliens.

To be an immigrant one must have been given permission to migrate by being issued an immigration visa by the State Department and be in possession of a green card issued by the Justice Department.
 
Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

Obama continues to refuse to uphold the oath of POTUS and continues to aid and abet illegal aliens at our cost.

If I were to get caught in illegal dumping I would be arrested. Obama is openly dumping poverty, gang bangers, disease and undocumented Democrats in America.

It's wasn't 50,000 but almost 300,000 illegal aliens.

Excerpts:

>" The vast majority of 50,000 unaccompanied youths and children who have illegally crossed the Texas border during the last few months have been successfully delivered by federal agencies to their relatives living in the United States, according to a New York Times article.

A second New York Times article report revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States...


Experts say that President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to close the loopholes and is unlikely to deport more than a small percentage of the illegals, despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.

The president’s policy has caused protests by frightened citizens in towns such as Murrieta. But Obama’s allies — such as La Raza, an ethnic lobby for Latinos — are eager to escalate the conflict and to paint the protestors as racists. Those protests may escalate before the November elections...



Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States...




Few of the illegal immigrants are high-school graduates, or have skills that would allow them to earn more than they cost to federal, state and local taxpayers...


All of it -> Border Meltdown; Obama Delivers 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes | The Daily Caller

This isn't an Obama failure. This is a failure of all three branches of government, in my opinion. We are being invaded.
 
It will cost less than the $100 billion dollars that illegal aliens are already using in public services every year.That's after taking in consideration of what little taxes illegal aliens pay into the tax coffers.

Our number one import into America in the past few decades has been poverty. How many more can we keep absorbing ?

The main purpose of any nation's immigration policies and laws is to protect the demographics, language, culture and customs of the nation.

From the early 1900 until 1965 it was America's progressives who wrote our immigration laws. What the **** happened ? That's why I question anyone who identifies as being a progressive, are they really a progressive or something else hiding behind the progressive label.
Old Obsessions, Modern Concerns: Re-Evaluating the Dillingham Commission at 100

Wait only progressives wrote the laws? Who again gave amnesty in 1986?
 
Why wouldn't Mexico be held responsible for allowing mass migration of people to trapse thru their country?
Why? Because they are doing it not at their expense. They are doing it not through the legal system.
 
We used a swat team to do it to a small Cuban boy once and I seem to recall the left was in complete favor of it. The cost? We should sue the child's nation and recover the cost. They can take it out on the criminals who sent their children away for abounding them. And BTW if one of those children bears a communicable disease leading to a single death in America it should be a high crime for the dictator to be deposed.

Actually 'we' used a SWAT team to enforce a court order to RETURN the child to his FATHER in Cuba- not deport him. 'We' also declare any 'dry feet' Cubans making it to the USofA a CITIZEN with little more than a cursory backround check and damn sure without all that pathway crap and demands we send 'em back where they came from. :doh

While I love the overheated rhetoric the CONs throw about but if the Current President is in fact a dictator AND you believe you own a firearm to 'protect' us from tyrants....

ummm what are YOU waiting for? :confused:
 
'We' also declare any 'dry feet' Cubans making it to the USofA a CITIZEN with little more than a cursory backround check and damn sure without all that pathway crap and demands we send 'em back where they came from. :doh

That doesn't count. Most of these Cubans are conservatives. :roll:
 
Wait only progressives wrote the laws? Who again gave amnesty in 1986?

Go back an reread my post, I said until 1965.

As for the Simpson-Mossili Act aka IRA of 1986 aka amnesty, it was the Democrats who amended the bill to include amnesty. But they did promise the American people that this amnesty would be a one time amnesty and never repeated again. ****ing liars, all of them.

It was just another liberal lie, the Democrats in Congress also passed six other amnesties during the Clinton administration.

With each amnesty, illegal immigration increased.

Just the talk of Comprehension Immigration Reform which is just a code word for amnesty we see a huge influx of illegal immigration, 2006 was a perfect example.
 
Go back an reread my post, I said until 1965.

As for the Simpson-Mossili Act aka IRA of 1986 aka amnesty, it was the Democrats who amended the bill to include amnesty. But they did promise the American people that this amnesty would be a one time amnesty and never repeated again. ****ing liars, all of them.

It was just another liberal lie, the Democrats in Congress also passed six other amnesties during the Clinton administration.

With each amnesty, illegal immigration increased.

Just the talk of Comprehension Immigration Reform which is just a code word for amnesty we see a huge influx of illegal immigration, 2006 was a perfect example.

Hmm fair enought but what about Executive Order 12324?
 
Hmm fair enought but what about Executive Order 12324?

What about Excuative Order 12324 ?

Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including Sections 212(f) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1)), in view of the continuing problem of migrants coming to the United States, by sea, without necessary entry documents, and in order to carry out the suspension and interdiction of such entry which have concurrently been proclaimed, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. The Secretary of State shall undertake to enter into, on behalf of the United States, cooperative arrangements with appropriate foreign governments for the purpose of preventing illegal migration to the United States by sea.

Sec. 2. (a) The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue appropriate instructions to the Coast Guard in order to enforce the suspension of the entry of undocumented aliens and the interdiction of any defined vessel carrying such aliens.

(b) Those instructions shall apply to any of the following defined vessels:

(1) Vessels of the United States, meaning any vessel documented under the laws of the United States, or numbered as provided by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), or owned in whole or in part by the United States, a citizen of the United States, or a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States or any State, Territory, District, Commonwealth, or possession thereof, unless the vessel has been granted nationality by a foreign nation in accord with Article 5 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).

(2) Vessels without nationality or vessels assimilated to vessels without nationality in accordance with paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).

(3) Vessels of foreign nations with whom we have arrangements authorizing the United States to stop and board such vessels.

(c) Those instructions to the Coast Guard shall include appropriate directives providing for the Coast Guard:

(1) To stop and board defined vessels, when there is reason to believe that such vessels are engaged in the irregular transportation of persons or violations of United States law or the law of a country with which the United States has an arrangement authorizing such action.

(2) To make inquiries of those on board, examine documents and take such actions as are necessary to establish the registry, condition and destination of the vessel and the status of those on board the vessel.

(3) To return the vessel and its passengers to the country from which it came, when there is reason to believe that an offense is being committed against the United States immigration laws, or appropriate laws of a foreign country with which we have an arrangement to assist; provided, however, that no person who is a refugee will be returned without his consent.

(d) These actions, pursuant to this Section, are authorized to be undertaken only outside the territorial waters of the United States.

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.

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
September 29, 1981.

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:38 a.m., September 30, 1981]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation: Ronald Reagan: "Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens," September 29, 1981

Ronald Reagan: Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens
 
What about Excuative Order 12324 ?

Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including Sections 212(f) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1)), in view of the continuing problem of migrants coming to the United States, by sea, without necessary entry documents, and in order to carry out the suspension and interdiction of such entry which have concurrently been proclaimed, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. The Secretary of State shall undertake to enter into, on behalf of the United States, cooperative arrangements with appropriate foreign governments for the purpose of preventing illegal migration to the United States by sea.

Sec. 2. (a) The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue appropriate instructions to the Coast Guard in order to enforce the suspension of the entry of undocumented aliens and the interdiction of any defined vessel carrying such aliens.

(b) Those instructions shall apply to any of the following defined vessels:

(1) Vessels of the United States, meaning any vessel documented under the laws of the United States, or numbered as provided by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), or owned in whole or in part by the United States, a citizen of the United States, or a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States or any State, Territory, District, Commonwealth, or possession thereof, unless the vessel has been granted nationality by a foreign nation in accord with Article 5 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).

(2) Vessels without nationality or vessels assimilated to vessels without nationality in accordance with paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).

(3) Vessels of foreign nations with whom we have arrangements authorizing the United States to stop and board such vessels.

(c) Those instructions to the Coast Guard shall include appropriate directives providing for the Coast Guard:

(1) To stop and board defined vessels, when there is reason to believe that such vessels are engaged in the irregular transportation of persons or violations of United States law or the law of a country with which the United States has an arrangement authorizing such action.

(2) To make inquiries of those on board, examine documents and take such actions as are necessary to establish the registry, condition and destination of the vessel and the status of those on board the vessel.

(3) To return the vessel and its passengers to the country from which it came, when there is reason to believe that an offense is being committed against the United States immigration laws, or appropriate laws of a foreign country with which we have an arrangement to assist; provided, however, that no person who is a refugee will be returned without his consent.

(d) These actions, pursuant to this Section, are authorized to be undertaken only outside the territorial waters of the United States.

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.

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
September 29, 1981.

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:38 a.m., September 30, 1981]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation: Ronald Reagan: "Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens," September 29, 1981

Ronald Reagan: Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens


Excuse me :3oops: i meant Reagan Executive Order 12582
 
There is no charge for their movements out. It's for returning them to where they belong. They do not belong here.

As for disease. Ask the doctors.
EBOLA, DRUG-RESISTANT TB, DENGUE FEVER ARE NOW IN THE U.S. |




So we should sue a nation because of people left that country? Since when was a country responsible for the free movement of their citizens?



:roll: Oh yes all immigrants are now diseased ridden peoples. So since you are worried about the health of people should we lax our immigration policies because it will allow us to make sure vaccinations are taking place?
 
Excuse me :3oops: i meant Reagan Executive Order 12582


You didn't like Reagan's Execuative Order 12324 did you ?

Re: Regan's Executive Order 12582--Naturalization requirements exceptions for aliens and non-citizen nationals of the United States who served in the Grenada campaign

Executive Orders

Execuative Order 12582 deals with legal aliens not illegal aliens.
It a criminal offense for an illegal alien to serve in the U.S. military.

You are aware that -> Revocation of Executive Order No. 12582

Title 3--
The President
Executive Order 12913 of May 2, 1994


Revocation of Executive Order No. 12582

By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America,
including section 1440 of title 8, United States Code,
and in consideration of Matter of Reyes, 910 F.2d 611
(9th Cir. 1990), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Executive Order No. 12582 is revoked and
shall be treated as void, effective February 2, 1987.

Sec. 2. Revocation of Executive Order No. 12582 is not
intended to affect the status of anyone who was
naturalized pursuant to the terms of that order prior
to the date of publication of this order in the Federal
Register.

Federal Register, Volume 59 Issue 85 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)
 
Back
Top Bottom