• 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!

New DHS rules cancel deportations

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Homeland Security Department said Thursday it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria such as attending school, having family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care.The move, announced in letters to Congress, won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had chided President Obama for months for the pace of deportations and had argued he had authority to exempt broad swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation.“Today’s announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat.
New DHS rules cancel deportations - Washington Times Do laws even matter anymore?
 
Immigration courts are way over capacity as is. It currently takes 18 months for somebody who is detained to get deported and that window is just getting longer. Detaining more people doesn't mean more people get deported, it just means they are in detention centers for longer at our expense. So, definitely prioritizing in on the highest priority people makes sense. Does anybody actually disagree with that?
 
This is how Obama can circumvent the law without a fight over Amnesty in the House.

This is all about the Mexican vote, and I figure the illegal vote because in California you can register your dead dog and and ask to vote but mail and every election you can vote for Fido and no one will ever check to see if Fido is even real or not.

I have been waiting for Obama to pull an end around for votes.

This is so much BS.
 
Immigration courts are way over capacity as is. It currently takes 18 months for somebody who is detained to get deported and that window is just getting longer. Detaining more people doesn't mean more people get deported, it just means they are in detention centers for longer at our expense. So, definitely prioritizing in on the highest priority people makes sense. Does anybody actually disagree with that?

The solution is simple, actually - give the detained illegal alien a choice, they can sit in jail and wait 18 months for their hearing or they can be released and deported immediately. Their choice.
 
The solution is simple, actually - give the detained illegal alien a choice, they can sit in jail and wait 18 months for their hearing or they can be released and deported immediately. Their choice.

That is how it works. Still there is a massive backlog.

Some people assume that the way it works with immigration trials is that somehow the court magically knows whether they are citizens or not. That isn't the case at all. Immigration courts like any other kind of court are bound by the constitution to presume innocence unless somebody can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If somebody contends that they were in fact born on US soil in a barn and there was no record made, the government needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that is not the case. If somebody claims that they were born in Mexico, but that his father was a US citizen, then the government needs to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Or there are a lot of affirmative defenses the defendant can raise. For example, they can argue that they were the victim of domestic violence perpetrated by a citizen or legal permenant resident. For affirmative defenses the burden of proof is on the defendant, but still they often are not open and shut cases. On top of that you have lots of people who were just caught up by a technicality. For example, they had a student visa and forgot to submit a form in time, or an employer paid visa where their employer forgot to send in the payment until after the deadline or sent in a business check when DHS wanted a cashier's check or something. A judge usually won't rip somebody away from their entire life because of something like that. So, for all those reasons, many of the people in detention believe they will be vindicated by a trial.
 
At some point in time the American Citizenry is going to have to step up and start doing the job the LEO's and Government are not willing or capable of doing in terms of enforcing the Laws of our land.
 
At some point in time the American Citizenry is going to have to step up and start doing the job the LEO's and Government are not willing or capable of doing in terms of enforcing the Laws of our land.

I think you mean to say that at some point racist vigilantes will start attacking people based on their ethnicity until they are put down by the FBI... But, we've already crossed that line. The so called minutemen, for example, were posting armed goons at polling places trying to prevent hispanics from voting. That american nazi party aligned organization supposedly sent snipers to the border. Etc.
 
Last edited:
I think you mean to say that at some point racist vigilantes will start attacking people based on their ethnicity until they are put down by the FBI... But, we've already crossed that line. The so called minutemen, for example, were posting armed goons at polling places trying to prevent hispanics from voting. That american nazi party aligned organization supposedly sent snipers to the border. Etc.

I'm not just talking about Immigration issues, teamosil. I'm talking about the Rule of Law in general.
 
I'm not just talking about Immigration issues, teamosil. I'm talking about the Rule of Law in general.

The law is being enforced on immigration. The law is that ICE has discretion about who to detain. The law specifies what rights defendants have in immigration courts and sets a budget for those courts. The law specifies that some cities are sanctuary cities. The law sets the budget for border patrol. It sounds like you want to change the law, not like you want to enforce the law as written, right?

If there are other situations where you believe the law isn't being followed, we can certainly discuss those too, but I have a suspicion that it will play out the same way- they will be situations where what the US is doing is different from your vague sense of what they ought to be doing, not actual laws.

But, regardless, the notion that bands of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands would somehow be a victory for the rule of law just don't make any sense at all. That sounds more like anarchy.
 
Last edited:
The law is being enforced on immigration. The law is that ICE has discretion about who to detain. The law specifies what rights defendants have in immigration courts and sets a budget for those courts. The law specifies that some cities are sanctuary cities. The law sets the budget for border patrol. It sounds like you want to change the law, not like you want to enforce the law as written, right?

I want to see it changed. I can take all the paragraphs of that law and simplify it to a couple sentences.....

"Nobody is allowed to be in the United States unless they are a Citizen of the United States. Any non-citizen found in the United States will be executed on the spot."
 
I want to see it changed. I can take all the paragraphs of that law and simplify it to a couple sentences.....

"Nobody is allowed to be in the United States unless they are a Citizen of the United States. Any non-citizen found in the United States will be executed on the spot."

Ah, ok. So it isn't actually that you have an interest in the rule of the law. Your interest is actually in genocide. Got ya.
 
Ah, ok. So it isn't actually that you have an interest in the rule of the law. Your interest is actually in genocide. Got ya.

Yes, I do. I just want to see a different law in place. No interest in Genocide either. There's no need for these spies and sabotouers to be in the United States in the first place.
 
I think you mean to say that at some point racist vigilantes will start attacking people based on their ethnicity until they are put down by the FBI... But, we've already crossed that line. The so called minutemen, for example, were posting armed goons at polling places trying to prevent hispanics from voting. That american nazi party aligned organization supposedly sent snipers to the border. Etc.

and the black panthers blocking voting in some places.

How much do you know of the border security issue between Mexico and the US? There are places I would not go unless armed due to drug smugglers. Local news showed many private groups just watching the border and calling the BP when illegal crossers were spotted. Yes some were armed, but not to shoot or hold at gunpoint illegal aliens. There can be extremists in every group.

So you believe the Federal Govt is enforcing all immigrations and security laws to its fullest ability? When the Federal Govt. fails in its duties, at times States or people will react.
There are some that choose to ignore or let conditions continue to disintergrate.
 
Last edited:
and the black panthers blocking voting in some places. When the Federal Govt. fails in its duties, at times States or people will react.

Fails in its duties? The federal govenment doesn't have a "duty" to prevent a racial group from voting, they have a duty to prevent vigilantes- be they minutemen or black panthers- from trying to stop racial groups from voting.
 
Yes, I do. I just want to see a different law in place. No interest in Genocide either. There's no need for these spies and sabotouers to be in the United States in the first place.

I mean, obviously killing millions of men women and children because they don't have their paperwork in order is insane over the top nazi crazy talk... Not really sure what else I can say to that... I'm sure you don't really believe that. At least I assume you aren't really a genocidal maniac...
 
Fails in its duties? The federal govenment doesn't have a "duty" to prevent a racial group from voting, they have a duty to prevent vigilantes- be they minutemen or black panthers- from trying to stop racial groups from voting.

They also have a duty to ENSURE that everyone who votes is a Citizen, and a Legitimate Voter; something they do not even make the barest attempt to do. THAT is why a lot of us are suggesting that other means may be necessary.
 
They also have a duty to ENSURE that everyone who votes is a Citizen, and a Legitimate Voter; something they do not even make the barest attempt to do. THAT is why a lot of us are suggesting that other means may be necessary.

You understand that vigilantes interfering with people's right to vote is the most serious of all possible types of voter fraud, right?

As for non-citizens voting there has never been anything to indicate that happens in even remotely significant numbers. The republican party in Colorado got all worked up about how they thought it must be happening all the time and they did a big study and hired detectives and all this... They eventually produced an estimate that in the entire state of Colorado somewhere around 81 people voted who were not legally supposed to. Most of them were former felons, not non-citizens. It's just hype. Don't fall for things so easily.
 
You understand that vigilantes interfering with people's right to vote is the most serious of all possible types of voter fraud, right?

I disagree. In my mind I would rather see thousands of votes uncast in order to ensure that even 1 non-voter doesn't get into the voting booth than to allow that 1 vote to be cast. Then again, I tend to believe that somewhere between 75 & 90% of the American voting public doesn't deserve to be allowed to cast a ballot to begin with, so that's probably something you'd take issue with as well.

As for non-citizens voting there has never been anything to indicate that happens in even remotely significant numbers. The republican party in Colorado got all worked up about how they thought it must be happening all the time and they did a big study and hired detectives and all this... They eventually produced an estimate that in the entire state of Colorado somewhere around 81 people voted who were not legally supposed to. Most of them were former felons, not non-citizens. It's just hype. Don't fall for things so easily.

That's 82 more people than should have been allowed to vote illegally.
 
I disagree. In my mind I would rather see thousands of votes uncast in order to ensure that even 1 non-voter doesn't get into the voting booth than to allow that 1 vote to be cast.

Why? 1 person voting who shouldn't be allowed to skews the results exactly as much as 1 person who should be allowed to vote that isn't. That sounds like an emotional rather than a logical position.
 
Why? 1 person voting who shouldn't be allowed to skews the results exactly as much as 1 person who should be allowed to vote that isn't. That sounds like an emotional rather than a logical position.

The back half of that paragraph should have explained it pretty well.... I tend to believe that the vast majority of American Citizens don't deserve the Right to Vote, nevermind those who are not supposed to be voting in the first place.
 
The back half of that paragraph should have explained it pretty well.... I tend to believe that the vast majority of American Citizens don't deserve the Right to Vote, nevermind those who are not supposed to be voting in the first place.

Are you assuming that somehow the people illegally prevented from voting would happen to be people who you believe don't deserve to vote? Why?

Regardless, the notion that you, who proposed genocide just a few minutes ago, are the person who should be deciding who gets to vote and who doesn't just doesn't fly with me.
 
Are you assuming that somehow the people illegally prevented from voting would happen to be people who you believe don't deserve to vote? Why?

They are often the same people, but you need to understand what the criteria I believe are missing in most American voters to understand why.... I am a believer in the idea of an "Informed and Educated" electorate as the best group to determine the course of this nation. We don't have that anymore. We now allow any resident over the age of 17 to vote, regardless of their knowledge of the system, how it is supposed to work, and/or the candidates and issues that they're voting on. MOST of these individuals are neither Informed nor Educated on the issues of the day, nevermind BOTH. To that end I have proposed a Poll Exam (multiple choice) that should be required of every voter prior to voting in each election. Failure to get an 80% grade on the exam would exclude the individual from voting. Three straight failures would exclude them from ever voting again. Obviously the Constitution would have to be amended for this to be done, but I believe it's what we need.
 
They are often the same people, but you need to understand what the criteria I believe are missing in most American voters to understand why.... I am a believer in the idea of an "Informed and Educated" electorate as the best group to determine the course of this nation. We don't have that anymore. We now allow any resident over the age of 17 to vote, regardless of their knowledge of the system, how it is supposed to work, and/or the candidates and issues that they're voting on. MOST of these individuals are neither Informed nor Educated on the issues of the day, nevermind BOTH. To that end I have proposed a Poll Exam (multiple choice) that should be required of every voter prior to voting in each election. Failure to get an 80% grade on the exam would exclude the individual from voting. Three straight failures would exclude them from ever voting again. Obviously the Constitution would have to be amended for this to be done, but I believe it's what we need.

So what does that have to do with vigilante groups trying to prevent people from voting on the basis of their race?

As for merit-based voting rights, you probably don't actually want to go down that road. Almost 2/3 of people with graduate degrees describe themselves as liberal.
 
I was just wondering how many laws can Obama ignore before someone has the guts to call calls him on it.

Everyone seems to be afraid out of gear of being called a racist. Will screw that they are allowing him to become a Dictator without a word of protest.

Had Republicans not take control of the House every day would be a BOHICA day as we saw on the, "Wait until we pass it then you can see what's in it," we saw with Obamney Care.

I'm getting tied of this crap, and I don't have much representation for me to bitch to. My Representative is Jerry Lewis (not the comic) and he's okay but no one outside of this district ever heard of him. I know Jerry and he's a good guy but he doesn't have much pull. Other than him I get the Feinstein & Boxer neither one is worth a damn.

obama-nazi.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom