• 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

So when do you think this Congress will ever pass their own bill?
after clearly refusing to take up their own Sen. Rubio's Dream Act?
And forever disdaining the process of Joint-Committee on anything ?

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 ?

I think that the real reason the republicants are in a snit is that Obama is really doing nothing different than Bush did (deporting a few but letting in even more) but has found a way to make it seem different. ;)
 
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.
What per chance would those great ideas be that Congress has?
They've refused any discussion on the floor for four years now.

Just as they have zero ideas on the floor to fix or replace ACA.
Nor did they even touch their outgoing Ways and Means chair's bill on tax reform.

You really can't be serious that this next Congress has a clue on how to solve anything can you?

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.

That would be patently untrue and you know it.
If you don't like Sen. Rubio's bill, pass your own and go to Joint-Conference--something all of you GOP Constitutionalists should be about.

But this GOP has no intention of doing that.
They fully intend to use the immigration problem as an electoral weapon in 2016, just as they did in 2014 .
 
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.

You are mistaken
 
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.

Then take them to court. I have given you my perspective, and all you are doing is sticking to yours. That is fine, and I have no problem with that, but it is not a debate when we repeat the same things just using different words. My point, is that the Congress would prevail in defending their power to do this... that is all.

A court would need to decide this. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
 
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.

You should source these statements. Also, we still do not know exactly what the executive order will be. What we do know for sure is this:

"There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system. To ignore those congressional mandates through executive order would not conform with my appropriate role as president." -President Obama in 2011

Straight from the horse's mouth.
 
Then take them to court. I have given you my perspective, and all you are doing is sticking to yours. That is fine, and I have no problem with that, but it is not a debate when we repeat the same things just using different words. My point, is that the Congress would prevail in defending their power to do this... that is all.

A court would need to decide this. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

sticking to mine, i can give you the founders on the commerce clause, and they tell us it about buying and selling, not loans.

foreign aid is not a debt of the federal government , and it is not a power of the federal government.
 
sticking to mine, i can give you the founders on the commerce clause, and they tell us it about buying and selling, not loans.

foreign aid is not a debt of the federal government , and it is not a power of the federal government.

As I said before, I agree in some ways. I don't know why you would want to continue an argument that I have basically agreed with, but have only stated that it can be argued in court by the Congress that they in fact have that power. I'm not stating that they do, just that they can easily argue that they do.
 
What per chance would those great ideas be that Congress has?
They've refused any discussion on the floor for four years now.

Just as they have zero ideas on the floor to fix or replace ACA.
Nor did they even touch their outgoing Ways and Means chair's bill on tax reform.

You really can't be serious that this next Congress has a clue on how to solve anything can you?



That would be patently untrue and you know it.
If you don't like Sen. Rubio's bill, pass your own and go to Joint-Conference--something all of you GOP Constitutionalists should be about.

But this GOP has no intention of doing that.
They fully intend to use the immigration problem as an electoral weapon in 2016, just as they did in 2014 .

You really DON'T have any idea where the House Republicans stand on immigration reform, do you? I'm really surprised, NIMBY...

This is from way back in January:

The principles stress interior and border enforcement must be enacted before mechanisms to legalization can begin and notes that Republicans do not favor a “special pathway” to citizenship for anyone who illegally traversed the border into the United States. However, it does present options for those roughly 11 million immigrants living in the country.

~

A GOP aide contrasted this piece-by-piece style with the Senate’s immigration bill, which was more than 1,200 pages long, and emphasized that leaders intend to make sure members and constituents understand each step of the immigration process before moving on to the next principle.

There's more in that article...you would do well to read it.

Boehner Releases Immigration Principles (Updated) | 218

Now, to be sure, Boehner doesn't have complete agreement with his fellow Republicans in the House, but that's to be expected and that's something he will need to go through the process of dealing with. That's just the way our legislative system works. But, above all, he shouldn't...and I don't believe he will...be held hostage to some EO threat by Obama and be forced to do what he doesn't want to do.
 
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.

Yes. There are many options at this point. That's what makes this thread a waste of time...except for the fun of speculation and the arguments that result.
 
I.e

Enforce a policy that treats those who enter the country illiegally like wild dogs.

illegally is the KEY word....

they broke the law, and by staying here, continue to break the law

our immigration policy needs fixing....no denying it

it shouldnt take 10-15 years to come here legally

but by thumbing their nose at our laws, what should we be thinking about them

i cant get past that issue.....i can understand their desire for a better life

i cant understand them breaking the law, and NEVER trying to right that wrong
 
I.e

Enforce a policy that treats those who enter the country illiegally like wild dogs.

Your point, other than to mischaracterize what happens during a deportation process?

Regardless, let's assume we are treating them like wild dogs, the solution for them is quite simple - don't come/stay here illegally and we won't treat you like the wild dogs your behavior suggests.
 
So when do you think this Congress will ever pass their own bill?
after clearly refusing to take up their own Sen. Rubio's Dream Act?
And forever disdaining the process of Joint-Committee on anything ?

When they get good and ready to do so, There is nothing wrong with existing law other than the fellow whose job it is to enforce it has decided not to do his job the last six years. And good on them if they don't take up the silly stupid Dream Act.
 
The President is being forced to act because the House hasn't acted.
That's called cause-and-effect, not strawman.

I realize you have no defense of the House inaction, which can't be defended, so you want to make this about the President.
We wouldn't be talking about what actions Mr. Obama would be taking if the House had done its job.

With many of the common-sense actions like my friend Beaudreax has put out along with like-minded GOP Congressmen.
This country needs more Republicans like him if we're to get compromise on IR and move forward .

So you support King Obama VIII?

He's pretty much on an island on this, acting like Fidel Castro.
 
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?

It does matter with regards to deporting families.
 
Your point, other than to mischaracterize what happens during a deportation process?

Regardless, let's assume we are treating them like wild dogs, the solution for them is quite simple - don't come/stay here illegally and we won't treat you like the wild dogs your behavior suggests.

I agree that that they broke the law but I am arguing that there are mitigating circumstance that we have to take into account.

I don't agree with the veiw that we have to ruthlessly condemn every illiegal the way we would a notorious murderer.
 
illegally is the KEY word....

they broke the law, and by staying here, continue to break the law

our immigration policy needs fixing....no denying it

it shouldnt take 10-15 years to come here legally

but by thumbing their nose at our laws, what should we be thinking about them

i cant get past that issue.....i can understand their desire for a better life

i cant understand them breaking the law, and NEVER trying to right that wrong

Maybe because you don't understand that these people do not have the luxury of time.
 
As I said before, I agree in some ways. I don't know why you would want to continue an argument that I have basically agreed with, but have only stated that it can be argued in court by the Congress that they in fact have that power. I'm not stating that they do, just that they can easily argue that they do.

i stated what i stated because you said its a power...

there is no such power in article 1 section 8
 
I agree that that they broke the law but I am arguing that there are mitigating circumstance that we have to take into account.

I don't agree with the veiw that we have to ruthlessly condemn every illiegal the way we would a notorious murderer.

That is a fallacious argument because, with the laws on the books right now, we don't HAVE to "ruthlessly condemn" anyone. If we enforced current laws, they would leave on their own. If we secured the border, they wouldn't come back and we wouldn't get waves of more illegal immigrants.

The only thing that would be left to do is to improve and streamline the ability for people to come here LEGALLY.
 
Back
Top Bottom