• 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

rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that all Presidents fallow the law and Barrack Obama has decided to follow one of them now, though not all of it of course.

But promising free entry for illegal aliens to the States and free food after they arrive (and now free transportation) is a deliberate strategy by this administration, and we seem to agree on that..
 
sangha said:
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


Note how it's not limited to sex trafficking, as you dishonestly claim. It was intended to deal with all trafficking in persons.
Click to expand...

Wrong again and you prove it with yet another link to the same bill. Once again you ignore the big bold letters at the top of the link:

Text of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
Click to expand...

And nice try, going with the change what I said tactic hoping I wouldn't notice. I specifically have said the bill's intent was to deal with trafficking.

Look, give it up. You know the intent of the legislation and are busy trying to stretch it to apply here. It doesn't.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Wrong again and you prove it with yet another link to the same bill. Once again you ignore the big bold letters at the top of the link:
Click to expand...

You should read that again. The first words of the title are "Victims of Trafficking", not "Victims of Sex Trafficking"

Unaccompanied alien minors are victims of trafficking
 
sangha said:
No, most don't agree with that. Most don't even understand what the law is
Click to expand...

Which you further help along by ignoring the intent of the legislation.
 
sangha said:
You should read that again. The first words of the title are "Victims of Trafficking", not "Victims of Sex Trafficking"

Unaccompanied alien minors are victims of trafficking
Click to expand...


Your semantic tactics are lame. And no, they are not victims of trafficking.
 
clownboy said:
Your semantic tactics are lame. And no, they are not victims of trafficking.
Click to expand...

Unaccompanied alien minors are victims of trafficking.

Trafficking in Persons Report 2012: Definitions and Methodology

People may be considered trafficking victims regardless of whether they were born into a state of servitude, were transported to the exploitative situation, previously consented to work for a trafficker, or participated in a crime as a direct result of being trafficked.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
The intent included prohibiting the govt from immediately deporting unaccompanied alien minors.

You are ignoring the intent of the law.
Click to expand...

No. Repetition is not repairing your broken argument. Funny how you go semantic when I say the intent is to deal with victims of sex trafficking, even though I said that once and every other time has been human trafficking, but when that tactic doesn't work for you now it's about the deportation of unaccompanied minors.

This is not the Unaccompanied Alien Minors bill.
 
clownboy said:
No. Repetition is not repairing your broken argument. Funny how you go semantic when I say the intent is to deal with victims of sex trafficking, even though I said that once and every other time has been human trafficking, but when that tactic doesn't work for you now it's about the deportation of unaccompanied minors.

This is not the Unaccompanied Alien Minors bill.
Click to expand...

It's the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. Unaccompanied alien minors are victims of trafficking.
 
clownboy said:
Neither the quoted text nor your bolded portion describes this situation or these aliens. This is not a case of human trafficking.
Click to expand...

The quoted text describes victims of human trafficking and unaccompanied alien minors are included.
 
sangha said:
The quoted text describes victims of human trafficking and unaccompanied alien minors are included.
Click to expand...

No, but nice try. You really want this to be about trafficking so your argument won't fall so flat. Can't have everything. Context is the key. In a bill meant to address human trafficking unaccompanied alien minors are mentioned in that context.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what it was intended to address, what matters is how it's written.

So in the meantime, we are to do what, assuming this law isn't followed? Can't legally deport them all or logistically. Do you want to wait around for Congress to pass something? In an election year ?:lamo :lamo Because I'm sure John Boehner's looking for an opportunity to look "soft on immigration" between now and November...:lamo

There is no law meant to address this situation because there hasn't been a situation to address. Basically the choices are take an existing law and apply it to this situation, or wait for Congress to pass a law. Only one of those is likely to happen.
 
clownboy said:
No, but nice try. You really want this to be about trafficking so your argument won't fall so flat. Can't have everything. Context is the key. In a bill meant to address human trafficking unaccompanied alien minors are mentioned in that context.
Click to expand...

So President clownboy's solution is to wait for a law to be passed that deals specifically with this situation. Great Idea! Congress has gotten so much done....I mean I can't tell you how many bills passed the House and Senate that are waiting for Obama's signature.
 
clownboy said:
No, but nice try. You really want this to be about trafficking so your argument won't fall so flat.
Click to expand...

It *is* about trafficking. It's right there in the title of the bill (ie Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000)
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Why not? Does the bill not include a gigantic border wall?
Click to expand...

Have you read the Bill and the reasons many have against it? I'm sure the government can do better than 'a step in the right direction' if they concentrated on the direct problem at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom