• 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!

Gutiérrez Lashes Out After DACA Move: John Kelly Is ‘A Disgrace To The Uniform’

OTC, you seem to lay blame on those trying to correct an illegal action, rather than on those who created this situation. If someone offered to sell you a stolen car at half of retail, the fault is with them, not the police when they return the car to its owner.

That's a pretty lousy analogy. In your telling, the "thief" was the POTUS and his accomplices various agencies of the U.S. government, and for five years this allegedly "illegal" action was allowed to continue. It's unreasonable to expect the 800k affected to do their own Constitutional analysis and conclude that the "car" they're being offered is illegal. Sort of the equivalent would be you and thousands of others going to the local GM dealer and buying a new car, sticker on the window, THEN finding out it's stolen and people claiming it's your fault for not realizing this ahead of time.

With our Orange Moron In Chief directing this effort, who the hell knows what will happen if/when the program is officially rescinded, but don't you think we owe those affected not to use the information they provided as part of the program as a roadmap to round them up and very efficiently kick them out of the country? I agree with Chomsky that to do otherwise would be a huge breach of trust not matter whose fault it is.
 
Well, then he needs to work with Republicans and come up with something that will make it. Back in the Newt Gingrich days bills introduced in the House generally had a minority part cosponsor.

You're missing the point: House Republicans will not do anything that looks in any way like they are going to give rewards to illegal immigrants.
 
You're missing the point: House Republicans will not do anything that looks in any way like they are going to give rewards to illegal immigrants.

DACA and Border Security in the same bill? Why not? I can see it happen.
 
No, the democrats will call that a "poison pill"

Democrats call anything they do not like a poison pill, of course so do Republicans. There will have to be some give and take. What are the Democrats willing to give to get DACA?
 
If the Obama action was illegal why was it never challenged?

When the POTUS does it, it is never illegal.

The rule of law in this country has been dead for many years. Bush tortures, Obama does not pursue it. Congress abdicates with AUMF, nothing happens except mischief. While torture and military aggression is condoned, whistleblowers are struck with the heavy hammer. So it is at the end of the empire. Are We Rome?
 
You're missing the point: House Republicans will not do anything that looks in any way like they are going to give rewards to illegal immigrants.

No, I saw you throw that out there. I do not believe it. That is like me saying that House Democrats won't do anything that looks like they are agreeing with President Trump. But yesterday, the Democrats and Trump worked out a debt ceiling increase. Our country was built on give and take. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that gave amnesty to illegals but also was supposed to secure the border. The mistake was that it gave the amnesty immediately and secured the border later.
 
I don't understand the response. What point are you making?

If these "kids" are old enough to have completed college, then how does deporting them harm them?

They will be better educated (hopefully in core trade's and science subjects rather than underwater basket-weaving courses) than their original countrymen and can have a positive influence on their countries of origin.

Moreover, I have no problem with giving them priority in the Immigration track AFTER they are deported with their illegal family members.

Why? To show others that trying this method of obtaining citizenship via by-passing the required Immigration processes will not work.

Such circumventing of the law cannot be allowed. Agreed. It's been done in the past, and that's what's got the US into this mess. I rather doubt that a single other country has allowed such circumvention of their immigration laws.
 
Interesting turn of events, this.

[h=3]Attorneys general in blue states sue Trump over DACA - CNNPolitics[/h]www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/daca-trump-states-lawsuits/index.html
21 hours ago - Conservative states may have boxed President Donald Trump into ending ... federal court on Wednesday to stop Trump's sunset of DACA -- the ...

[h=3]'I'm not going to put up with it': Washington AG Ferguson says lawsuit ...[/h]www.seattletimes.com/.../washington-state-ag-bob-ferguson-says-states-to-sue-trump-ov...
1 day ago - Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said rescinding DACA is discriminatory ... The states involved in the lawsuit, filed in New York Wednesday, are ... The federal government has said that it does not intend to actively ...

[h=3]Attorneys general from 15 states, D.C. sue to save DACA - The ...[/h]https://www.washingtonpost.com/...states...sue...daca/.../98bca3b2-930f-11e7-aace-04b8...
1 day ago - Attorneys general from 15 states, D.C. sue to save DACA ... The suit, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, .... It asks a judge to stop the administration from rescinding DACA as well as bar the government ...

[h=3]15 states, DC seek court relief over DACA, but will it work? - ABC News[/h]abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/washington-states-sue-immigration-move-49658654
19 hours ago - Fifteen states and the District of Columbia sued the U.S. government ... with Mexican roots," the lawsuit filed in federal court in Brooklyn said.

Well known and accepted that Obama's DACA EO was illegal and beyond his constitutional authority.

So now states are suing the federal government to keep an illegal EO? How does that make any sense, legal or otherwise?
 
Well, Gutierrez is a disgrace to Mexico!

Mexico is corrupt to the core. Trump is telling congress to write a law to get him out of the EO that Obama created. Gutierrez, aren't you a congressman? It's your job to stand up Mr. Machoman, and put your finger on the "Yes", "No", or "Obama" button ("Present").

Don't expect Trump to cover your ass forever.


Gutierrez is sickening to look at and its more sickening to hear him utter his nonsense but I don't think he's Mexican,
I think he's Puerto Rican.
 
Gutierrez is sickening to look at and its more sickening to hear him utter his nonsense but I don't think he's Mexican,
I think he's Puerto Rican.

Luis Guitierrez was born in Chicago but is of Puerto Rican descent.
 
Ridiculous. John Kelly is in favor of DACA, and always has been. Once he realized that Trump was determined to act, he's the one who talked Trump into the six-month delay.
 
I think that's fair, despite my earlier post chalking it up to political rhetoric.

I sure would like more civility in politics, but the voters made their choice and this looks like the new norm.

Any time a politician calls someone a disgrace, they do so from within the glass house. I wish politicians would just shut up and do something useful - all of them.
 
That's a pretty lousy analogy.

No, it's an accurate analogy. When law enforcement occurs, blame the people who broke the law, not those tasked with enforcing it.

In your telling, the "thief" was the POTUS

Yup. Who admitted on multiple occasions that for him to do what he did would be UnConstitutional.... and who then did it anyway, because YOLO.

It's unreasonable to expect the 800k affected to do their own Constitutional analysis and conclude that the "car" they're being offered is illegal.

:shrug: in this scenario, no one is charging them with the crime of believing the President had the power to violate the Constitution.

With our Orange Moron In Chief directing this effort, who the hell knows what will happen if/when the program is officially rescinded

Actually we have a pretty good idea, because Trump is a lifelong liberal, and has already sat down and hashed this out with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer - he's going to betray the base who elected him, because giving Democrats what they want gets him good press. Ditto with debt ceiling deal.

don't you think we owe those affected not to use the information they provided as part of the program as a roadmap to round them up and very efficiently kick them out of the country

No. I want my government to be efficient when enforcing the law.
 
No, it's an accurate analogy. When law enforcement occurs, blame the people who broke the law, not those tasked with enforcing it.

I'm not sure who "them" was in this quote: "If someone offered to sell you a stolen car at half of retail, the fault is with them, not the police when they return the car to its owner."

But my point, which you conveniently snipped and didn't address, is the constitutionality of the program is FAR from clear. The SC deadlocked 4-4 on the decision. So if you expect the public to have a better grasp of Constitutional law than SC justices, you're being stupid.

Yup. Who admitted on multiple occasions that for him to do what he did would be UnConstitutional.... and who then did it anyway, because YOLO.

And, again, the SC deadlocked on it. So your point is what? That it's obvious and clear? :roll:

in this scenario, no one is charging them with the crime of believing the President had the power to violate the Constitution.

No, you just think that they should have expected that the Feds would take their papers, and their money, rescind the program, then use the data they provided when they came in out of the shadows to more easily find and deport them.

Actually we have a pretty good idea, because Trump is a lifelong liberal, and has already sat down and hashed this out with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer - he's going to betray the base who elected him, because giving Democrats what they want gets him good press. Ditto with debt ceiling deal.

No, we don't have any idea. He changes his mind from day to day. And I guess you understand how Congress works, right? It might be news to you but Nancy and Chuck can't do **** on their own because they're in the minority party. In the Senate there are only 48 Democrats and they'll need 60 to get this through. It would be quite a feat for Chuck to muscle 12 republicans to vote YES unless THEY want to betray their "base." In the House, as you know, Ryan can refuse to offer the bill up for a vote and there's not a damn thing Nancy can do about it, and even if Nancy brings along all her Democrats, we get a big fat NO on the final vote.

Other than that, excellent analysis!

No. I want my government to be efficient when enforcing the law.

Sure, and betray people who trusted them. No problem. Besides, we have 10 million or so illegals here. Makes sense to target kids brought here by their parents and who by qualifying for DACA mean they're NOT criminals, are in school or have graduated, and are otherwise doing what we expect of responsible residents in this country!
 
Back
Top Bottom