Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
About time someone makes a MOVE now the **** is on the table ... they have to deal with it, make some compromises and make a ruling. The problem as been a do nothing congress saying NO to everything like a rebellious child - for YEARS
front and center- get to work!
I dunno. New Orleans sure seemed to move out a lot of "undesirables" during Katrina.
True.
But they weren't fighting it because there was no home for them to go to. The people in the US without legal status have years of appeals. It drives me bonkers. They're only internationally obligated to give one review of a decision. The Border Officer tells them no, they get to talk to a supervisor or an asylum officer. If the second person says no, then the answer should be... "No." If they have any additional concerns or arguments, they should make them from their country of origin. Not in the U.S.
About time someone makes a MOVE now the **** is on the table ... they have to deal with it, make some compromises and make a ruling. The problem as been a do nothing congress saying NO to everything like a rebellious child - for YEARS
front and center- get to work!
That's because no one is enforcing the laws already on the books.
If one President would just friggen enforce the laws as they already are, then Congress would be open to changes because it's only when we actually enact the full provisions of the law, that we can see what needs fixing.
Currently, there is no enforcement. And BO has weakened it even more.
And when I say enforcement, I don't just mean the border. I mean employer raids, fraud, overstays, abuse of the visa system etc etc. All of it.
If one President would just friggen enforce the laws as they already are, then Congress would be open to changes because it's only when we actually enact the full provisions of the law, that we can see what needs fixing[/QUOTE]
Please wake up! They have already shown that if they come up with an idea and the president supports it they would fight it, go against it and blame him for it. The only time they will pander to Hispanics is when they need them to vote.
The fact that the president has deported more people than the last two presidents combined, breaking up families and trying to compromise with them to pass a bill for 1.5 years now just shows how much they will fix. When you have well defined racists like Ted Cruz and Steve King who will never win a presidential election if nominated, who just know how to divide rather than unite is just regressing the GOP. That is why Bohener tried to get all the tea party candidates replaced before this last election.
To think that they will do anything just look at how Cruz acted when they tried to pass a budget 3 weeks ago.
They aren't going to do anything.
What's worst is that have the power now to undo the executive actions fully by writing new laws but instead they chose to fight. I guess doing things the easy way makes them look to Democratic.
I think its a sign he knows seeing the exit polls at reform isn't even on voters priority list; so he did what he could to please that special interest. Democrats loss on the issues they pushed.
The fact that the president has deported more people than the last two presidents combined, breaking up families and trying to compromise with them to pass a bill for 1.5 years now just shows how much they will fix.
I am awake.
He has not deported more than the last two Presidents combined and he admitted it. The media is reporting people who are turned away at the border as deportation. That's not a deportation. That's an administrative voluntary departure or withdrawal of request for admission. Deportation is removing someone from the country, not shooing them away when they come too close.
So he hasn't done anything terribly wonderful (numbers wise) with true deportations. But those he is deporting are bad and I give him credit for that. If he made one DWI and one theft deportable offenses, I'd be more friendly to his current policy. As it is, all he's done is put up a hand to drug smugglers, which is useless because he and Mexico refuse to dismantle their operational support systems.
Family separation is a non-issue for me because it is the natural consequence of their poor decisions. They initially chose separation when they entered and left their kids with grandparents. Then they chose to pay a smuggler to bring the "child" to the U.S. And then they chose to live unlawfully in the U.S.
I'm the wrong person to use "but for the children" argument. "But for the children" has been the chant of left and right wing nut jobs to justify their poor decisions for decades. "But for the children" has resulted in schools telling parents how to raise their children by not allowing the parent to decide when the child needs a day off school. "But for the children" has been used to sell lottery tickets where the money only goes to unions and pension funds, while increasing property taxes that were allegedly to be reduced by the lottery. "But for the children" has allowed CPS to take children away from their parents for being unfit because they are disciplined at home. "But for the children" has been used to force one parent to pay an outrageous sum of money to another parents after divorce. "But for the children" is used by lazy people at their jobs in order to get unquestionable time off of work. "But for the children" has made it unlawful for parents to pack their children's lunch in some jurisdictions. "But for the children" has been used to pass gun control laws that are unconstitutional. "But for the children" is a chant held by extremist groups such as "million moms" to get media attention for unrelated issues such as Helen Degeneres being the JC Penney spokesperson.
The "But for the children" cry only makes me angry because it is the most pathetic and abused slogan in the U.S.
He has not deported more than the last two Presidents combined and he admitted it. The media is reporting people who are turned away at the border as deportation. That's not a deportation. That's an administrative voluntary departure or withdrawal of request for admission. Deportation is removing someone from the country, not shooing them away when they come too close.
So he hasn't done anything terribly wonderful (numbers wise) with true deportations. But those he is deporting are bad and I give him credit for that. If he made one DWI and one theft deportable offenses, I'd be more friendly to his current policy. As it is, all he's done is put up a hand to drug smugglers, which is useless because he and Mexico refuse to dismantle their operational support systems.
Family separation is a non-issue for me because it is the natural consequence of their poor decisions. They initially chose separation when they entered and left their kids with grandparents. Then they chose to pay a smuggler to bring the "child" to the U.S. And then they chose to live unlawfully in the U.S.
I'm the wrong person to use "but for the children" argument. "But for the children" has been the chant of left and right wing nut jobs to justify their poor decisions for decades. "But for the children" has resulted in schools telling parents how to raise their children by not allowing the parent to decide when the child needs a day off school. "But for the children" has been used to sell lottery tickets where the money only goes to unions and pension funds, while increasing property taxes that were allegedly to be reduced by the lottery. "But for the children" has allowed CPS to take children away from their parents for being unfit because they are disciplined at home. "But for the children" has been used to force one parent to pay an outrageous sum of money to another parents after divorce. "But for the children" is used by lazy people at their jobs in order to get unquestionable time off of work. "But for the children" has made it unlawful for parents to pack their children's lunch in some jurisdictions. "But for the children" has been used to pass gun control laws that are unconstitutional. "But for the children" is a chant held by extremist groups such as "million moms" to get media attention for unrelated issues such as Helen Degeneres being the JC Penney spokesperson.
The "But for the children" cry only makes me angry because it is the most pathetic and abused slogan in the U.S.
I not only agree, I hardily agree; especially with your "but for children" paragraph. How true it is, but expect the liberals to say you are misinformed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
