• 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

Obama is not a conservative though, and the legeslation the conservatives want to enact has little chance surviving a veto unless the bills are within reason.

I stand by what I think should have been the conservative move IF he doesn't go forward with executive action...

Law and Enforcement:

Enhanced border security (include pushing for a fence, but let this be a negotiating point)
Enhanced enforcement on businesses
Streamlining of the means of legally immigrating into this country
Re-evaluating the work and student visa system.

Those here:

6 months to come forwrad and register to be accounted for. Any illegal who doesn't come forward who is found after that 6 month time is deported regardless of age, family, criminal history, etc. For those who do come forward, three choices:

1. 2 years of a "TEMPORARY RESIDENT" status for you and your dependents, allowing you to legally work and live in the United States but conferring no citizenship benefits. Monthly check in's are required, and any check-in that are entirely no-shows results in removal of the status. Being in this status makes on inelligble for Citizenship or Permanent Residency for a 3 year period. Essentially, illegals here have 2 years to get their affairs in order and return to their country, where they can either stay or proceed with legally returning to the country.

2. You may leave, without any penalty for illegal action in relation to your presence within the country, and immedietely apply for any method of re-entry into the country under the newly updated laws)

3. If you were brought here under the age of 18 but are now over 18, you may enlist within the military for a 4 year tour of duty. Upon completion you will be granted citizenship. IMMEDIETE family members, other than other siblings that qualify for this option (who instead must take it as well), are given the option for a conditional residency status that becomes permanent should the 4 year tour be completed. However, said family members are barred from ever obtaining citizenship if this option is taken.

There latter part is your compromise. The people here get to either stay temporarily to feasibly prepare for the difficulties of a return to their home OR they can leave absolved of their crimes and free to try and return, and those who were brought here as youths have a chance to serve the country and gain permanent citizenship. Those here temporarily however don't get to vote, they don't get to be on the path to citizenry, and they must be accounted for.

Both sides at least give lip service to better enforcement on businesses. Both sides at least give lip service on streamlining legal immigration. Both sides at least give lip service to fixing our temporary visa programs. This does all that. It "deals" with those people here...deporting those who refuse to be accounted for, and giving a possible transition period or oppertunity to utilize the newly updated laws to those who do get accounted for.

Is it possibly going to have more conservative than liberal parts in it? Absolutely. That is the consequences of going from a Democratic majority in the Congress to a Democratic Minority over the span of 6 years. The President doesn't always get what he wants, and he's going to have to deal with the fact his part has lost the congress. Or, as he put so succinctly after winning an election that promised "post partisanship" and a "change from politics as usual"....."We Won". However, it should have enough bones and compromises...(it's not saying just deport them all)...to warrant a signing by this President. Especially since he already claimed that he'd sign whatever bill the congress could get to his desk on immigration.
 
Can you point me to an immigration bill the House has even allowed onto its floor.
Besides all the repeal but don't replace nonsense you keep yammering about.
I can Hardly wait to see how many of these worthless House bills McConnell actually brings up . :lamo

Once again, the republican leadership has already stated their priorities, immigration "reform" not being one of them. Besides, we don't need reform, we need an executive that will enforce the law. You know, his oath, his actual job.
 
Once again, the republican leadership has already stated their priorities, immigration "reform" not being one of them. Besides, we don't need reform, we need an executive that will enforce the law. You know, his oath, his actual job.

Won't get that anytime soon I'm afraid.
 
Not really. To enforce legislation requires more than merely writing a law; it must include adequate funding for the executive to do so. Obama, like Bush, cannot secure the border using 20K border patrol agents or catch and deport 20 million illegals scattered about the entire US interior using 5K ICE agents. Reality requires at least giving the executive adequate means to enforce the law not merely saying git-r-done.

That is a budget issue. And there is no budget. A President may not "fail to faithfully execute" laws. Let's agree that the President's motives with this proposed/potential/who knows what it is going to be executive order are not budgetary. He is happy to spend into the red when it suits him to do so.

If funding is the problem, then amnesty is NOT the solution.
 
And you would know better than this since the House has refused to touch immigration reform since it has been in power .

So? Once again, the failure of the congress to take up an issue does not grant the executive the power to legislate.
 
I read what you said tres borrachos--it was very clear--and since you continue to call me out by name first.
Obama should have solved every problem he inherited in the short time he had 60 Senators according to the propaganda of you people.
And frankly, the Dems continue to lose this messaging war to the public .

Call you out? You posted to me first, Nimby. I never posted to you first.

I never said anything about votes. I asked a question, and a filibuster proof majority or not doesn't change what I'm asking.

Obama promised to tackle immigration in 2009. His words, not mine.
 
I stand by what I think should have been the conservative move IF he doesn't go forward with executive action...

Law and Enforcement:

Enhanced border security (include pushing for a fence, but let this be a negotiating point)
Enhanced enforcement on businesses
Streamlining of the means of legally immigrating into this country
Re-evaluating the work and student visa system.

Those here:

6 months to come forwrad and register to be accounted for. Any illegal who doesn't come forward who is found after that 6 month time is deported regardless of age, family, criminal history, etc. For those who do come forward, three choices:

1. 2 years of a "TEMPORARY RESIDENT" status for you and your dependents, allowing you to legally work and live in the United States but conferring no citizenship benefits. Monthly check in's are required, and any check-in that are entirely no-shows results in removal of the status. Being in this status makes on inelligble for Citizenship or Permanent Residency for a 3 year period. Essentially, illegals here have 2 years to get their affairs in order and return to their country, where they can either stay or proceed with legally returning to the country.

2. You may leave, without any penalty for illegal action in relation to your presence within the country, and immedietely apply for any method of re-entry into the country under the newly updated laws)

3. If you were brought here under the age of 18 but are now over 18, you may enlist within the military for a 4 year tour of duty. Upon completion you will be granted citizenship. IMMEDIETE family members, other than other siblings that qualify for this option (who instead must take it as well), are given the option for a conditional residency status that becomes permanent should the 4 year tour be completed. However, said family members are barred from ever obtaining citizenship if this option is taken.

There latter part is your compromise. The people here get to either stay temporarily to feasibly prepare for the difficulties of a return to their home OR they can leave absolved of their crimes and free to try and return, and those who were brought here as youths have a chance to serve the country and gain permanent citizenship. Those here temporarily however don't get to vote, they don't get to be on the path to citizenry, and they must be accounted for.

Both sides at least give lip service to better enforcement on businesses. Both sides at least give lip service on streamlining legal immigration. Both sides at least give lip service to fixing our temporary visa programs. This does all that. It "deals" with those people here...deporting those who refuse to be accounted for, and giving a possible transition period or oppertunity to utilize the newly updated laws to those who do get accounted for.

Is it possibly going to have more conservative than liberal parts in it? Absolutely. That is the consequences of going from a Democratic majority in the Congress to a Democratic Minority over the span of 6 years. The President doesn't always get what he wants, and he's going to have to deal with the fact his part has lost the congress. Or, as he put so succinctly after winning an election that promised "post partisanship" and a "change from politics as usual"....."We Won". However, it should have enough bones and compromises...(it's not saying just deport them all)...to warrant a signing by this President. Especially since he already claimed that he'd sign whatever bill the congress could get to his desk on immigration.

What garentee do we give to those who are afraid of being separated from their families during the deportation process?
 
Exactly--the GOP is more concerned with running on the fact that there is an immigration problem then actually deoing something about it.
Even ttwtt disagrees with that ridiculous notion .
Once again, the republican leadership has already stated their priorities, immigration "reform" not being one of them. Besides, we don't need reform, we need an executive that will enforce the law. You know, his oath, his actual job.
 
Last edited:
What garentee do we give to those who are afraid of being separated from their families during the deportation process?

Why would someone who has broken US law get a guarantee like that?
 
Once again, the republican leadership has already stated their priorities, immigration "reform" not being one of them. Besides, we don't need reform, we need an executive that will enforce the law. You know, his oath, his actual job.

I.e

Enforce a policy that treats those who enter the country illiegally like wild dogs.
 
And every time you post to me tres borrachos, you use my name, which I didn't with you until now.
I won't bother anymore since that's your style and it is clear what you're trying to do.

And yes Obama inherited a horrific immigration problem as with all the other remainders from last decade.
And yes, the GOP has put up fierce resistance to solving any of these problems for six years.
Loyal opposition my ass .

Call you out? You posted to me first, Nimby. I never posted to you first.

I never said anything about votes. I asked a question, and a filibuster proof majority or not doesn't change what I'm asking.

Obama promised to tackle immigration in 2009. His words, not mine.
 
And every time you post to me tres borrachos, you use my name, which I didn't with you until now.
I won't bother anymore since that's your style and it is clear what you're trying to do.

And yes Obama inherited a horrific immigration problem as with all the other remainders from last decade.
And yes, the GOP has put up fierce resistance to solving any of these problems for six years.
Loyal opposition my ass .

So posting your name gets you upset?
 
Why subject a family to the inhumanity of seperation?

Sending them all back is not inhumane. Requiring them to follow US law to legally immigrate is not inhumane. They broke the law; there's no guarantee.... If they wanted a guarantee they wouldn't have risked knowingly breaking the law. :shrug:

Don't think me callous - of course it's a risk many are willing to take - but there is no reason to guarantee anything. What you think is inhumane is irrelevant and subjective.
 
Why subject a family to the inhumanity of seperation?

If a father is convicted of murder and goes to jail, the inhumanity of separation happens. If both parents are convicted of murder, it does as well. I don't think "inhumanity of family separation" is supposed to be taken into account during the application of laws, is it?
 
What garentee do we give to those who are afraid of being separated from their families during the deportation process?

Well one, I think it's the wrong question. There's no "guarantee" that needs to be given to any person in this country illegally; but there should be to those you're trying to win support from in government. I'd say you make it policy that Husbands and Wives are required to be transported together, and that any children they have under the age of 18 will be required to be transported with them as well. I'd also suggest it should be Standard Operating Procedure to attempt to transport as many related individuals togehter WHEN possible, but the only ones REQUIRED to be transported together would be husband/wife/children under 18.

Those over 18 are offered all 3 choices and are adults. Again, we should endevour to keep their trasnport with their relatives as much as possible, but if it isn't logistically feasible then so be it.

Those parents with Children under the age of 18, and those children are U.S. Citizens, have the choice to either have the child come with them (in which case the government will pick up the bill for their transport, just as if we were deporting them) or enter the children into the orphanage systems we already have place in this country until such point that they are legally allowed to return to the country.

Most likely, with a streamlined legal immigration law, the best choice for such parents in the second paragraph would be to take option 2 (go home and be absolved of all immigration related crimes), have their US Citizen child come with them, and then utilize the fact the child is a US Citizen as a means of apply for legal entry into the country through the proper system.
 
That is a budget issue. And there is no budget. A President may not "fail to faithfully execute" laws. Let's agree that the President's motives with this proposed/potential/who knows what it is going to be executive order are not budgetary. He is happy to spend into the red when it suits him to do so.

If funding is the problem, then amnesty is NOT the solution.

Obama argues, quite successfully, that he "lacks resources" to deport more than about 400K illegals per year. Congress does not contest that. Using that limit as the basis, Obama seeks to exclude deportation of those illegals that he deems lower risk for the sole purpose of deporting more illegals that he deems higher risk. To avoid having to decide each such low risk case again (possibly multiple times) he will issue "I am okey dokey" passes to those illegal aliens deemed currently unworthy of deportation.
 
So? Once again, the failure of the congress to take up an issue does not grant the executive the power to legislate.

Obama has recognized that it is the power of congress to create immigration laws, by stating to congress he wants one for the last several years. however he knows he cannot get one he desires, so now he seeks to go around congress and enact his own , even though the last several years he has acknowledged its a power of congress.
 
congress is granted authority for delegated powers, there is no power to give foreign aid...

money collected must be used to pay the debts of the government for its delegated powers.

commerce, what does the buying and selling of goods have to do with foreign aid?

I fully understand your point, and in some ways agree with it. That is why I said in my original response to you that we should have tighter strings attached to the money.

However, to your point about commerce... if we loan money to foreign countries, we get interest for that loan - that is commerce. If we GIVE money to foreign countries, in return for actions that we require they make (like not assisting our foes) then that is the same as buying their services - that is commerce.

My point is, that it would not be difficult at all for the Congress to argue in court that the aid they send to other countries is within their power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Not that I agree or disagree with foreign aid through and by this argument, just that it's possible to be argued and won in court rather easily.
 
Once again, the republican leadership has already stated their priorities, immigration "reform" not being one of them. Besides, we don't need reform, we need an executive that will enforce the law. You know, his oath, his actual job.

Oh...they have taken a position on immigration reform. They want to secure the border first...then address other issues that pertain to illegal and legal immigration. And you can be sure they will address those issues next year.

But that's not good enough for Obama. He wants to force them to enact the crappy, bloated Senate bill that really does nothing except grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Sorry...that's not going to happen.
 
I fully understand your point, and in some ways agree with it. That is why I said in my original response to you that we should have tighter strings attached to the money.

However, to your point about commerce... if we loan money to foreign countries, we get interest for that loan - that is commerce. If we GIVE money to foreign countries, in return for actions that we require they make (like not assisting our foes) then that is the same as buying their services - that is commerce.

My point is, that it would not be difficult at all for the Congress to argue in court that the aid they send to other countries is within their power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Not that I agree or disagree with foreign aid through and by this argument, just that it's possible to be argued and won in court rather easily.

commerce is the buying and selling of goods, it is not loans......the u.s. cannot make loans to other governments, but it can borrow money on the credit of the u.s.

regulate means to keep commerce flowing.

commerce in the constitution means the federal government will have the power to regulate commerce among the states, and that with foreign governments, ....meaning states cannot enter into foreign commerce unless the federal government gives its approval.

no were can congress dole out money to foreign governments.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

the general welfare is the 18 powers of congress, ...not what government thinks is good.
 
Oh...they have taken a position on immigration reform. They want to secure the border first...then address other issues that pertain to illegal and legal immigration. And you can be sure they will address those issues next year.

But that's not good enough for Obama. He wants to force them to enact the crappy, bloated Senate bill that really does nothing except grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Sorry...that's not going to happen.

An EO can be found Unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The house could not fund the EO or Congress can just pass their own bill - which I'm sure Obama would veto and then Congress would need the 2/3 majority to overturn the veto which probably won't happen.
 
Since your posts are trying to walk a calm moderate line for a conservative,
how do you view it from my POV that Obama is called a "deporter-in-chief" by his own Latino base?

That these Dreamers heckled Obama before the election and didn't come out to vote at all?

The GOP is to be congratulated for sitting on an issue and demonizing it rather than acting--it helped them win an election.
What now--did the GOP really expect him to continue to roll over after getting crushed in an election ?

Obama argues, quite successfully, that he "lacks resources" to deport more than about 400K illegals per year. Congress does not contest that. Using that limit as the basis, Obama seeks to exclude deportation of those illegals that he deems lower risk for the sole purpose of deporting more illegals that he deems higher risk. To avoid having to decide each such low risk case again (possibly multiple times) he will issue "I am okey dokey" passes to those illegal aliens deemed currently unworthy of deportation.
 
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.

If I'm not mistaken, Democrats and their friends at the Washington Post were crowing about how the government shutdown in 2013 was going to cost the Republicans the House and any chance at the Senate in 2014. That prediction worked out well for you, didn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom