• 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!

Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

Since this would cost Obama hispanic votes and future voters, he will never do this. Hope and change.
That's the great Irony of our our Decades of Bungling.

There are now so many former illegals, they are large enough to be the swing Vote on current illegals!

In states like Texas, politicians have to pander to amnestied/former illegals not to lose!
What a mess.

Hopefully someone can rise above the fray in 2016, and I don't mean accomodationist Governors like Perry (I think), who HAVE to compromise with illegals.
Which means virtually No democrats and no Texas governors in memory. All of the latter have had to pander to the immigrant population.

There are only a very few who will Enforce and defend rather than let them All in with some BS excuse.
I will vote for any (of the few) candidates who will pledge to defend our borders and not fudge the problem.
I don't know if either party will produce such a candidate.
As I said, there are so many former illegals now, they may constitute a swing vote that no major candidate can afford to oppose.
We have been successfully invaded.
 
Last edited:
This 'Stimulus Plan' of his will only stimulate more illegal immigration.

Of course it will-when you subsidize anything you get more of it. We are not only accommodating-but subsidizing illegal immigration, and then giving them handouts when they get here. WE are creating this mess. BTW we still take in more legal immigrants than any place in the world.
 
That's the great Irony of our our Decades of Bungling.

There are now so many former illegals, they are large enough to be the swing Vote on current illegals!

In states like Texas, politicians have to pander to amnestied/former illegals not to lose!
What a mess.

Hopefully someone can rise above the fray in 2016, and I don't mean accomodationist Governors like Perry (I think), who HAVE to compromise with illegals.
Which means virtually No democrats and no Texas governors in memory. All of the latter have had to pander to the immigrant population.

There are only a very few who will Enforce and defend rather than let them All in with some BS excuse.
I will vote for any (of the few) candidates who will pledge to defend our borders and not fudge the problem.
I don't know if either party will produce such a candidate.
As I said, there are so many former illegals now, they may constitute a swing vote that no major candidate can afford to oppose.
We have been successfully invaded.

That is correct. Our government allowed Mexico to colonize the United States. For a government to destroy its own country and culture like that is an event unprecedented in history.

I have a hunch that the very vocal conflict regarding the invading Mexicans may be far from over. Obama's latest stunt has created enormous American resentment of all of them and reopened discussion of the fact of their presence in such huge numbers when their own country is right next door.

Why it is necessary for them to be here at all?
 
Last edited:
That is correct. Our government allowed Mexico to colonize the United States. For a government to destroy its own country and culture like that is an event unprecedented in history.

I have a hunch that the very vocal conflict regarding the invading Mexicans may be far from over. Obama's latest stunt has created enormous American resentment of all of them and reopened discussion of the fact of their presence in such huge numbers when their own country is right next door.

Why it is necessary for them to be here at all?

Mexico is a hostile enemy country. She has been waging war against us for nearly as long as the Islamofascists have. It is time to treat her as the enemy she is. It is time to put two army Corps on the border and drive south, and seize enough terrain to establish a shorter defensible border farther south.

Go door to door, or if you prefer Walmart parking lot to Walmart parking lot, round up all of the illegals and kick them out of our country. Every state governor should have to certify to his or her citizens that every measure has been taken to find and deport every illegal alien in their states.

Mayors of sanctuary cities should be imprisoned for life for their crimes against their own citizens.

Obama and his henchmen should be stripped of their wealth and thrown out of the country.
 
You mean he visited China?

He also changed American recognition of the legitimate government of China. Prior to Nixon, The United States recognized the nationalist government, exiled to Taiwan, as the legitimate government of China. Officially, at least. As we know, the government in Taipei still sees itself as the legitimate government of all of China, as well as parts of Mongolia and I think Russia.
 
I think we all know that Obama already picks and chooses the laws he wants to enforce.

So do you want him to follow the laws, or do you just disagree with which laws he picks and chooses?
 
Mexico is a hostile enemy country. She has been waging war against us for nearly as long as the Islamofascists have.
Is this a joke?

You do understand that the recent surge in illegal immigrants are not from Mexico, right?

You do understand that the stuff you're saying is xenophobic nonsense, right?


It is time to put two army Corps on the border and drive south, and seize enough terrain to establish a shorter defensible border farther south.
Right. So, instead of them coming here, we're going to what, annex the land upon which millions of Mexicans live?

How far "south" do we need to go to make a "defensible" border? Are you even remotely familiar with Mexico's geography?


Go door to door, or if you prefer Walmart parking lot to Walmart parking lot, round up all of the illegals and kick them out of our country....
Dude. There's nearly 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. That's the population of Ohio. It requires a little more than "rounding up people at Walmart."

Plus, there's this pesky thing called "due process." We can't handle the 360,000 people already slated for court cases -- hence the problems. How long will it take us to kick out 2 million people? How much will it cost?


Every state governor should have to certify to his or her citizens that every measure has been taken to find and deport every illegal alien in their states. Mayors of sanctuary cities should be imprisoned for life for their crimes against their own citizens. Obama and his henchmen should be stripped of their wealth and thrown out of the country.
Egads.

Why don't we just turn the US into a police state, and tattoo bar codes on our wrists? I'm sure that will work.
 
When I said what caused the big divide between the Republican and Democrat parties, China played a major role and so did the Korean War, the firing of Gen. MacArthur and a few other things.

I want to point out that both Republicans and Democrats were both patriotic, even the liberals in America were nationalistic and anti commie and anti socialist. In fact from the fall of Nationalist China to 1970 it was who was a bigger hawk, who was tougher against communism. JFK was an anti communist big time and a hawk. His brother Bobby Kennedy was one of the biggest hawks in Washington. Bobby wore two hats in the JFk administration, the Attorney General and he was in charge of CIA special ops.

But the divide started in 1952 when the Republicans got dirty.

>" The Republican right divided all Democrats into five categories: The Criminals, the traitors, the cowards, the incompetents who always blundered into war. And the effete who lacked sufficient vigor to invade China and conquer it."<

(The above is from a history book we were required to read back in college over forty years ago.)

But I digress, if I continued it would be thread drift and it should be in a Vietnam War thread not this thread.

To get back on track, it was Obama's failure or refusing to secure our borders, refusing to enforce our immigration laws and going around Congress and writing his own immigration polices using executive orders why this thread exist today. Obama created the illegal alien jihad at the border and instead of stopping it he's relocating the illegal Allen jihad throughout our neighborhoods in America and the taxpayers will be footing the cost.

Cant say I vote for either party. I barely care about the USA in general. I figure it is a debacle either way and that the best thing is to enjoy being from a weird nation like the USA and to live the strange life as a wacked out weirdo that is the true essense of the American dream, not owrrying about immigrants or becoming middle class car owner Christian, but degenerating and losing touch with the reality of the world, becoming a mutant-freak. This is my American dream.
 
So do you want him to follow the laws, or do you just disagree with which laws he picks and chooses?
Call me old-fashioned, but I think the President should following existing laws, or try to have them changed through the Constitutional process.
 
Call me old-fashioned, but I think the President should following existing laws, or try to have them changed through the Constitutional process.

Which is what's happening here. In 2008 a bill was passed and signed into law that makes different rules for Central America than there are for Mexico.

Now what some things mean in that law may be unclear...but that's for better legal minds than mine to judge. If, as you say, you want the President to follow the law him doing so shouldn't be a matter of disagreement. You may not like the law, but that's something else altogether.
 
Which is what's happening here. In 2008 a bill was passed and signed into law that makes different rules for Central America than there are for Mexico.

Now what some things mean in that law may be unclear...but that's for better legal minds than mine to judge. If, as you say, you want the President to follow the law him doing so shouldn't be a matter of disagreement. You may not like the law, but that's something else altogether.

No one seems to like this law, which was passed to defend children being sexually exploited, and it can be changed rather quickly. Obama, despite having changed or ignored other laws, does not seem to have the same interest here. Certainly these laws are being exploited and the message being sent out is two-fold. One is that you can enter America and not be turned back and Two is that you'll get free food after you arrive. Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program for Illegal Aliens | Judicial Watch

My feeling is that all of this is deliberate.
 
No one seems to like this law

Actually, the law is well-supported which is why it passed both halves of Congress with near unanimous votes. What isn't so popular is paying for it.

With funding, we could build the facilities to house these immigrants and hire the judges needed to hear their cases in a speedy manner. The faster the courts could hear their cases, the faster they could be deported back to their home countries.

But some people don't want to spend money to fix this problem. Maybe they think it can be done for free.
 
I'm pretty sure the text I referred to was included intentionally and didn't insert itself into the bill accidentally.

Nice try at the spin, but that text was not intended to apply to this current situation. You know this.
 
No one seems to like this law, which was passed to defend children being sexually exploited, and it can be changed rather quickly. Obama, despite having changed or ignored other laws, does not seem to have the same interest here. Certainly these laws are being exploited and the message being sent out is two-fold. One is that you can enter America and not be turned back and Two is that you'll get free food after you arrive. Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program for Illegal Aliens | Judicial Watch

My feeling is that all of this is deliberate.

Of course it's all deliberate. To be sure, he likes this law so is choosing to follow it.

But since I like it when the President follows the law, I'm not going to complain about it. I wish he'd do it more often, but ....

As far as changing the law, that's not likely between now and the election.
 
No one seems to like this law, which was passed to defend children being sexually exploited, and it can be changed rather quickly. Obama, despite having changed or ignored other laws, does not seem to have the same interest here. Certainly these laws are being exploited and the message being sent out is two-fold. One is that you can enter America and not be turned back and Two is that you'll get free food after you arrive. Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program for Illegal Aliens | Judicial Watch

My feeling is that all of this is deliberate.

You know there was a bill that would address the 2008 law.

It is called s.744 and it passed the senate last year and is currently in the house.
 
Which is what's happening here. In 2008 a bill was passed and signed into law that makes different rules for Central America than there are for Mexico.

Now what some things mean in that law may be unclear...but that's for better legal minds than mine to judge. If, as you say, you want the President to follow the law him doing so shouldn't be a matter of disagreement. You may not like the law, but that's something else altogether.

Nice try, but no cigar. That law was intended to address the huge problem of human trafficking. It was never meant to cover the current situation. You know it, or should and Obama definitely does.
 
Nice try at the spin, but that text was not intended to apply to this current situation. You know this.

I know they intentionally wrote the law so that it prohibits unaccompanied alien minors (from non-contigous nations) from being immediately deported
 
I know they intentionally wrote the law so that it prohibits unaccompanied alien minors (from non-contigous nations) from being immediately deported

To deal with sex trafficking. Funny how that keeps slipping through the cracks with you, being as it's in big bold letters on every link you post concerning the law.
 
Is this a joke?

You do understand that the recent surge in illegal immigrants are not from Mexico, right?

You do understand that the stuff you're saying is xenophobic nonsense, right?



Right. So, instead of them coming here, we're going to what, annex the land upon which millions of Mexicans live?

How far "south" do we need to go to make a "defensible" border? Are you even remotely familiar with Mexico's geography?

Dude. There's nearly 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. That's the population of Ohio. It requires a little more than "rounding up people at Walmart."

Plus, there's this pesky thing called "due process." We can't handle the 360,000 people already slated for court cases -- hence the problems. How long will it take us to kick out 2 million people? How much will it cost?

Egads.

Why don't we just turn the US into a police state, and tattoo bar codes on our wrists? I'm sure that will work.

I agree, and will just add the current freakout seems to ignore that of the 11-12 million illegals here, about 11-12 million of them arrived here BEFORE Obama became POTUS. Roughly 500,000 per year, every year, from about 1990-2008. I'm not pointing that out to cheer Obama's efforts - most of the pause was due to the Great Recession and not enough work to make it worthwhile to come here, but the point is at WORST his record is no different in any material way than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II have done on the border, which is not much, but a long history of increasing money and attention to the border.
 
Last edited:
To deal with sex trafficking.

Wrong.

The text I quoted deals with unaccompanied alien minors and is intended to deal with unaccompanied alien minors.

It even says so in the text I quoted.

And here's the opening words of the original bill
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hr3244/text
To combat trafficking in persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery, and involuntary servitude, to reauthorize certain Federal programs to prevent violence against women, and for other purposes.

Note how it's not limited to sex trafficking, as you dishonestly claim. It was intended to deal with all trafficking in persons.
 
Actually, the law is well-supported which is why it passed both halves of Congress with near unanimous votes. What isn't so popular is paying for it.

With funding, we could build the facilities to house these immigrants and hire the judges needed to hear their cases in a speedy manner. The faster the courts could hear their cases, the faster they could be deported back to their home countries.

But some people don't want to spend money to fix this problem. Maybe they think it can be done for free.

The law was well supported but its unintended consequences aren't. It should be re-written and most agree with that.
 
The law was well supported but its unintended consequences aren't. It should be re-written and most agree with that.

Then the house has the perfect opertunity to pass s.744 which passed the senate in 2013 and is currently stuck in the house?
 
Back
Top Bottom