• 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!

Rahm Emanuel creates ‘Trump-free zone’ for students at Chicago schools

The stupidity of such assertions...
How can an infant have any allegiance?

We are not talking about about six month olds, but rather legal adults.
Look, its a legitimate issue. DACA has no legal foundation-- the law simply does not allow what Obama's EO instructed the government to do.
Change the law.
 
We are not talking about about six month olds, but rather legal adults.
Yea, but these legal adults were minors at at the time of their arrival and had no control over it. That is what makes it a unique situation, that has to be addressed considering all the factors involved.

Look, its a legitimate issue.
Indeed it is. The crucial issue is that it is not as simple as some simple minded people pretend it to be. Deport them, is not a solution, but a manifestation of bigotry.

DACA has no legal foundation
Prosecutorial discretion is the foundation.

It is not a law.

Why do you think that this is not being considered by either house right now?
 
Yea, but these legal adults were minors at at the time of their arrival and had no control over it. That is what makes it a unique situation, that has to be addressed considering all the factors involved.

Indeed it is. The crucial issue is that it is not as simple as some simple minded people pretend it to be. Deport them, is not a solution, but a manifestation of bigotry.

Prosecutorial discretion is the foundation.

It is not a law.

Why do you think that this is not being considered by either house right now?

But all the factors involved should not include calling those who object as being motivated by bigotry.
It remains a fact that much of the EO had no basis in law. If we are going to do this, the law needs to be changed.
 
But all the factors involved should not include calling those who object as being motivated by bigotry.
What else is their motivation?

It remains a fact that much of the EO had no basis in law. If we are going to do this, the law needs to be changed.
But you did not answer why it is not being voted on right now by Congress.
 
Yea, but these legal adults were minors at at the time of their arrival and had no control over it. That is what makes it a unique situation, that has to be addressed considering all the factors involved.

Indeed it is. The crucial issue is that it is not as simple as some simple minded people pretend it to be. Deport them, is not a solution, but a manifestation of bigotry.

Prosecutorial discretion is the foundation.

It is not a law.

Why do you think that this is not being considered by either house right now?

Nope, the foundation is the lack of adequate funding for full enforcement of current immigration law. In order to become a "dreamer" the immigration law enforcement team (system?) had to allow that family to enter and remain in the country illegally for at least five years - that was not due to any prosecutorial discretion it was due to lack of evidence which was due to lack of effort in seeking any such evidence. DACA cannot exist without DAPA which cannot exist unless we continue to not enforce the current immigration law.
 
You keep saying that, yet there is nothing to support your assertion. Word have meanings and clearly you are unable to understand some, but blindly believe that if someone said something that aligns with your narrative it must be gospel.
iLOL
Wrong and purposely dishonest as well.
You were shown what the words used meant by the author of those very words.
Your inability to grasp that is not my problem but it is yours.


The information was already provided proving that you are wrong.
As that information was already provided all I have to do is keep pointing out that you are wrong and being purposely dishonest.


But since you seem not able to grasp the meaning of words, please feel free to again try and grasp what the author said.

Again.

The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.'
[...]
What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

"That is what it means" is declaratory, not opinion, especially as he is the author and actually knows what the words mean.



You have already demonstrated amply your understanding or rather the lack of it of words.
iLOL
Hilarious.
You are not only in denial but projecting as well.
 
trump is the anti-American cowardly, chickenhawk, steaming pile of pure manure that is hell-bent on blowing up this planet ...

That gives Rahm the right to defy our laws and create more division?
 
Trump is also the current POTUS - are you glad that Hillary ran against him now or not? ;)

I am probably not going to live out my entire life in this country. This isn't a mess for me to deal with.
 
A real American would never be a Trump supporter.

The average Americans aren't elected to uphold the rule of law, but merely exercise their right to vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom