• 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’s DHS pick a major Democratic donor, senators question credentials

I give the guy a chance. Just because he gave some money to Obama and some other Democrats IMO is not a disqualify. That seems to be what most Republicans are upset about. I don't have a problem with that and from reading a bit of his history, he deserves a shot.
 
jonny5 said:
How exactly is a lawyer well qualified to run a agency tasked with defending the homeland? What about writing legal breifs makes someone a manager, a security expert, etc? Napolitano was a bad pick, this is much worse. This is like making a budget bureaucrat in charge of the entire countries intelligence operation.






Wouldnt the acting secretary be more qualified?
Click to expand...

1. Probably.

2. Look on the bright side. If we are attacked, he'd probably be great at writing the legal brief protesting the attack! :mrgreen:

3. Why not appoint Sheriff Arpaio if he's serious about border security? I know, I know, wrong eye color, right?

Since Jeh is a friend of BHO, he doubtless thinks like BHO, so there goes any thought about controlling illegal immigration! :thumbdown: He'll probably have big "welcome" signs posted instead.

Greetings, Jonny5. :2wave:
 
jonny5 said:
How exactly is a lawyer well qualified to run a agency tasked with defending the homeland? What about writing legal breifs makes someone a manager, a security expert, etc? Napolitano was a bad pick, this is much worse. This is like making a budget bureaucrat in charge of the entire countries intelligence operation.

(b) Mission

(1) In General. - The primary mission of the Department is to

(A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;

(B) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; and

(C) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States."
Click to expand...

Wouldnt the acting secretary be more qualified?
Click to expand...

Not sure where you retrieved the mission criteria for DHS from (I assume it was from the law that created the agency), but the core roles as outlined at dhs.gov are:

The Core Missions

There are five homeland security missions:

1.Prevent terrorism and enhancing security;

2.Secure and manage our borders;

3.Enforce and administer our immigration laws;

4.Safeguard and secure cyberspace;

5.Ensure resilience to disasters.
Click to expand...

#3 is where being an experienced lawyer would certainly come into play. Seems all other core responsibilities would fall under having "sound management skills".

I could understand if people would prefer having someone with an intelligence background holding the Sec, DHS position based on items 1 and 2, but if you limit the scope of experience in that way wouldn't that also mean the individual would also require a background in IT security and previously held the position of FEMA at least at the state level somewhere?

Since "capture and hold" individuals who violate our national security, immigration and cyber-security laws seem to be the focus of the Sec, DHS position, it makes sense to find someone with a strong legal background to put in the position.

You can read more about DHS at their website, Homeland Security.

Thoughts?
 
polgara said:
1. Probably.

2. Look on the bright side. If we are attacked, he'd probably be great at writing the legal brief protesting the attack! :mrgreen:

3. Why not appoint Sheriff Arpaio if he's serious about border security? I know, I know, wrong eye color, right?

Since Jeh is a friend of BHO, he doubtless thinks like BHO, so there goes any thought about controlling illegal immigration! :thumbdown: He'll probably have big "welcome" signs posted instead.

Greetings, Jonny5. :2wave:
Click to expand...

You might want to reconsider your position on this one because the facts just don't support your claim (sarcastic as it might be).

From NationalJournal.com:

Actually, Obama Has Been Terrible for Immigrants - NationalJournal.com

The first black president could be the one who detains and deports the most brown people in U.S. history. Without a course correction, that’s the legacy President Obama is building, and it could put him and his Democratic allies at odds with the fastest-growing demographic in the country.

Obama is on track to deport 3 million immigrants without papers by the end of his second term, more than any other president. George W. Bush deported about 2 million over two terms.
Click to expand...
 
Objective Voice said:
You might want to reconsider your position on this one because the facts just don't support your claim (sarcastic as it might be).

From NationalJournal.com:

Actually, Obama Has Been Terrible for Immigrants - NationalJournal.com
Click to expand...

Obama's deportation numbers are just another Obama lie and have been cooked.

Obama counts those illegal aliens who are caught at the border as being deported. Only a court can deport someone.

How the Obama Administration Inflates Deportation Statistics

>" For the last few years, the Obama Administration has claimed that it's deporting a record number of illegal aliens. But, the Administration is adding numbers to its overall deportation statistics that have not been historically included in the total number of annual deportations. Here's a look at how the Obama Administration has artificially inflated the number of deportations.

Download the Fact Sheet







•Removal numbers have traditionally consisted of legal immigrants who have committed crimes, those who overstay visas, or illegal aliens caught inside the country.
◦The immigration statistics yearbook states that removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal.
◦An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.
•In the past, removal numbers did not include “returns,” who are Mexican nationals caught illegally crossing the border by the Border Patrol and returned.
◦According to the yearbook, returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal.
◦Most of the voluntary returns are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.
•The Obama administration has started counting certain “returns” as “removals” in order to artificially inflate the numbers and create a “record level” of deportations. Specifically, those caught by the Border Patrol who are shuttled to a different town along the border before they are returned are being dishonestly counted as deportations. This has falsely increased the number of total removals by more than 100,000 for the past two years.
•In fact, if we count removals and returns together historically, then the Obama administration numbers are not close to “record-setting.” In the 1990s, the totals of returns and removals were well over one million. For example, according to the yearbook of immigration statistics, in 1996, removals and returns numbered more than 1.6 million, up from more than 1.3 million in 1995.
•In an October 2011 roundtable with Hispanic reporters, President Obama himself said the deportation numbers were artificially high because they include those caught at the border:..."<

continue -> https://www.numbersusa.com/content/...stration-inflates-deportation-statistics.html
 
I'd agree with you, Apacherat, except the criteria for deportations seems to have changed considerable since the Clinton Administration as the article I linked to from the National Journal would indicate. As such, President Obama's deportation numbers may not be as conflated as you think.

As I've said before, each successive Administration executes legal authority/administrative policy based on actions from their predecessor. Therefore, unless Congress changes the law(s) accordingly...

Nuff Said.

You can't argue with the numbers if they're legal.
 
American said:
No surprise from you, all you have are your election day talking point. Here's the dirty little secret, lots of people were elected on Election Day, not just your personal savior. Get over it. I doubt you shut you hole up and sat down the day Bush was re-elected.
Click to expand...

Well, you once more demonstrate your total ignorance regarding how the U.S. Government works. See, it's like this. There are a lot of appointed positions, and the guy who's been elected President gets to appoint people to fill those positions. Are you with me so far, or am I going too fast?

Some of these positions are subject to confirmation, but the way its supposed to work is that the Senate confirms the President's appointments unless they are criminals or unless they are proven to be unqualified for the position. You don't get to vote no on his appointments because you don't like the President or his politics. I'll repeat: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

As for Republican Presidents, I said exactly the same thing. Elections have consequences. Its really not that difficult - unless, of course, your just a partisan no-nothing who would just like to pretend that the 2012 election never happened. Oh, wait a minute..........
 
Wiseone said:
Doesnt look like a great choice.
Click to expand...

I can't say, upon hearing primary bit of credentials, I was especially thrilled with selection of the new secretary my agency falls under.

I'm not shocked that Obama would put someone tied to his administration into the office...that's kind of status quo for politicians (And at this point anyone that thought his "Change from Politics as Usual" shtick was legitimate is a master of self deception). But would've hoped for someone with a bit more tangible and substantial law enforcement or counter terrorism experience. Then again, with the Napolitano pick previously, I'm not exactly surprised.

::shrugs:: We need to win another election; this is the results of not.
 
Wiggen said:
Well, you once more demonstrate your total ignorance regarding how the U.S. Government works. See, it's like this. There are a lot of appointed positions, and the guy who's been elected President gets to appoint people to fill those positions. Are you with me so far, or am I going too fast?

Some of these positions are subject to confirmation, but the way its supposed to work is that the Senate confirms the President's appointments unless they are criminals or unless they are proven to be unqualified for the position. You don't get to vote no on his appointments because you don't like the President or his politics. I'll repeat: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

As for Republican Presidents, I said exactly the same thing. Elections have consequences. Its really not that difficult - unless, of course, your just a partisan no-nothing who would just like to pretend that the 2012 election never happened. Oh, wait a minute..........
Click to expand...

Some people are closer to what's going on in the govt than some sailor, so just remember one thing. You may not always know who you're really talking on the Internet. ;) Secondly, you can't escape those "consequences".
 
Zyphlin said:
I can't say, upon hearing primary bit of credentials, I was especially thrilled with selection of the new secretary my agency falls under.

I'm not shocked that Obama would put someone tied to his administration into the office...that's kind of status quo for politicians (And at this point anyone that thought his "Change from Politics as Usual" shtick was legitimate is a master of self deception). But would've hoped for someone with a bit more tangible and substantial law enforcement or counter terrorism experience. Then again, with the Napolitano pick previously, I'm not exactly surprised.

::shrugs:: We need to win another election; this is the results of not.
Click to expand...

Well I don't claim to be an expert on the qualifications for the DHS, but just reading his very short Wikipedia page it doesn't look like he has them. Yes my opinion is formed on a low amount of questionable information, but I'm not stuck on it either. But yes I would have liked to see some more experience with the issues the DHS faces, not necessarily a lawyer.
 
Will Republicans shut down the government over this nominee?
 
I don't imagine that he has much input in these things. As I've said, when Progressive Insurance needs to make a big decision, they don't ask Flo.

President Defacto Jarrett is much more likely the author of this travesty.
 
Objective Voice said:
Not sure where you retrieved the mission criteria for DHS from (I assume it was from the law that created the agency), but the core roles as outlined at dhs.gov are:



#3 is where being an experienced lawyer would certainly come into play. Seems all other core responsibilities would fall under having "sound management skills".

I could understand if people would prefer having someone with an intelligence background holding the Sec, DHS position based on items 1 and 2, but if you limit the scope of experience in that way wouldn't that also mean the individual would also require a background in IT security and previously held the position of FEMA at least at the state level somewhere?

Since "capture and hold" individuals who violate our national security, immigration and cyber-security laws seem to be the focus of the Sec, DHS position, it makes sense to find someone with a strong legal background to put in the position.

You can read more about DHS at their website, Homeland Security.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Again, what does a lawyer know about enforcing the law? You don't hire a lawyer to be sheriff. You hire a cop with management skills. And yes, having someone who knows something about cybersecurity, emergency management, etc is exactly who you want. This is why governors are the natural choice for such executive positions.
 
jonny5 said:
Again, what does a lawyer know about enforcing the law? You don't hire a lawyer to be sheriff. You hire a cop with management skills. And yes, having someone who knows something about cybersecurity, emergency management, etc is exactly who you want. This is why governors are the natural choice for such executive positions.
Click to expand...

Come now, if nominated as Sec, DHS, he'd interpret immigration law like any other lawyer and, as should, be bound by his oath of office to enforce immigration policy. Frankly, I'd prefer such an individual come from the intelligence community since criteria #1 and #2 deal with aspects of anti-terrorism, but lacking such a background, I can accept an individual with a strong legal background because that's also what holding the position would require.

As for nominating a governor for the position, I seriously doubt an acting Governor would level such a job just to hold a federal job without the perks that come with living in the Governor's Mansion.
 
Objective Voice said:
Come now, if nominated as Sec, DHS, he'd interpret immigration law like any other lawyer and, as should, be bound by his oath of office to enforce immigration policy. Frankly, I'd prefer such an individual come from the intelligence community since criteria #1 and #2 deal with aspects of anti-terrorism, but lacking such a background, I can accept an individual with a strong legal background because that's also what holding the position would require.

As for nominating a governor for the position, I seriously doubt an acting Governor would level such a job just to hold a federal job without the perks that come with living in the Governor's Mansion.
Click to expand...

It could be a former governor. Jeb Bush for example.
 
American said:
Oh come on, you now Obama is political. He's probably a buddy. Look, I get that but people should have some background.
Click to expand...

It's just Obama that's "political," though. It's not like George W. Bush tried to appoint his own goddamn lawyer to the Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom