DC Tom Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 So it would be harmful in your opinion if these people were not tossed out of the country because it will lead to dictatorship? That really makes sense So it would be harmless in your opinion to keep these people in legal uncertainty and subject to deportation any time someone decides to enforce the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 So to recap, a law that Obama couldn't get passed by his Supermajority Senate is only in its current state because of a disingenuous group of Republicans who didn't pass it either? Sheesh. Maybe you should figure out why 5 Dems voted it down. I'm willing to bet you'll find a more realistic story. The Dems were all from red or purple states and worried about reelection. We'll see how many GOP Congressman and Senators vote for the Dream Act who voted against it in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 So it would be harmless in your opinion to keep these people in legal uncertainty and subject to deportation any time someone decides to enforce the law? Oh, they should just legalize them for sure. But just because a Constitutional tool exists to harass brown skinned people doesn't mean it's right in anyway to use it. Joe Arpaio is happy right now. As are the Nazis and Klan people. This all fits a pattern if you haven't noticed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Oh, they should just legalize them for sure. But just because a Constitutional tool exists to harass brown skinned people doesn't mean it's right in anyway to use it. Joe Arpaio is happy right now. As are the Nazis and Klan people. This all fits a pattern if you haven't noticed Yes, the pattern that the left hates laws, and wants to be ruled by a central authority outside any legal strictures, and are a bunch of bitchy little girls when the central authority doesn't agree with them...which is WHY WE HAVE !@#$ING LAWS. You're the problem, dipshit. Not Republicans. You. You created a framework that could only be maintained by a fascist exercise of authority, but neglected to remember that we're not a fascist country and your framework could be taken down at the whimsy of a Cheeto Dust Golem, then have the gall to feign ignorance at the untenable legal position in which you put almost a million people. And then call others cruel because you !@#$ed up. Here's a thought: focus on fixing the problem you couldn't be bothered to fix seven years ago, rather than avoiding it and pretending the law under which these people are here illegally doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 Sorry to interrupt Gator's clichéd bigotry against those who do not conform to 'progressives' PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE RULE OF LAW President Trump should have ended the DACA program, or at least announced its phasing out, as soon as he took office. Nonetheless, his decision to announce its phasing out now, assuming he sticks to it, represents a victory for the rule of law. The legal status of “dreamers” is a matter for Congress, not the executive, to decide. Even President Obama said so before he elected to decide the matter anyway. Rich Lowry, no fan of Trump, argues that, thus far, Trump has been far more respectful of the rule of law than his predecessor was. He writes: More at the link: Trump’s DACA statement: “Above all else, we must remember that young Americans have dreams too” “Few in Washington expressed any compassion for the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” Prepare for the flood of tearful DACA media profiles And the fact that they will all miss the point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Sorry to interrupt Gator's clichéd bigotry against those who do not conform to 'progressives' PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE RULE OF LAW President Trump should have ended the DACA program, or at least announced its phasing out, as soon as he took office. Nonetheless, his decision to announce its phasing out now, assuming he sticks to it, represents a victory for the rule of law. The legal status of dreamers is a matter for Congress, not the executive, to decide. Even President Obama said so before he elected to decide the matter anyway. Rich Lowry, no fan of Trump, argues that, thus far, Trump has been far more respectful of the rule of law than his predecessor was. He writes: More at the link: Trumps DACA statement: Above all else, we must remember that young Americans have dreams too Few in Washington expressed any compassion for the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system. Prepare for the flood of tearful DACA media profiles And the fact that they will all miss the point It's really pissing me off that the focus of this is going to be "Trump bad! Impeach Trump!" rather than "Tell your congressmen to enact this in to law." For all the energy that's going to be spent whinging about this, people could instead lobby Congress to effect some real change. And Andrew Cuomo can !@#$ right off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Yes, the pattern that the left hates laws, and wants to be ruled by a central authority outside any legal strictures, and are a bunch of bitchy little girls when the central authority doesn't agree with them...which is WHY WE HAVE !@#$ING LAWS. You're the problem, dipshit. Not Republicans. You. You created a framework that could only be maintained by a fascist exercise of authority, but neglected to remember that we're not a fascist country and your framework could be taken down at the whimsy of a Cheeto Dust Golem, then have the gall to feign ignorance at the untenable legal position in which you put almost a million people. And then call others cruel because you !@#$ed up. Here's a thought: focus on fixing the problem you couldn't be bothered to fix seven years ago, rather than avoiding it and pretending the law under which these people are here illegally doesn't exist. Ya, sure, Trump is trying to do what's right here! What are Trump's motives? Do tell us. Seriously, what are his motives? Your bull sh it response is nothing but more pettifogging. I am the problem, wow! It's really pissing me off that the focus of this is going to be "Trump bad! Impeach Trump!" ff. It does piss you off Trump is getting blamed. Maybe he should have asked Congress to fix it, but fixing the system is not what motivates him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) It's all just racism. No reason to harass these people. They are defenseless and vulnerable so Trump and Sessions are throwing red meat to the haters out there No, it's not. I actually agree with Trump giving Congress an ultimatum although I would of given Congress a little bit longer as they have a lot on their plate right now. This should have passed in 2010. 91% of "Dreamers" are in the work force right now and it's not their fault their parents broke the law. Give these kids/young adults some type of amnesty, but do everything in your power to secure the border because addressing the illegal immigration issue is long overdue. Edited September 5, 2017 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Sorry to interrupt Gator's clichéd bigotry against those who do not conform to 'progressives' PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE RULE OF LAW President Trump should have ended the DACA program, or at least announced its phasing out, as soon as he took office. Nonetheless, his decision to announce its phasing out now, assuming he sticks to it, represents a victory for the rule of law. The legal status of “dreamers” is a matter for Congress, not the executive, to decide. Even President Obama said so before he elected to decide the matter anyway. Rich Lowry, no fan of Trump, argues that, thus far, Trump has been far more respectful of the rule of law than his predecessor was. He writes: More at the link: Trump’s DACA statement: “Above all else, we must remember that young Americans have dreams too” “Few in Washington expressed any compassion for the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” Prepare for the flood of tearful DACA media profiles And the fact that they will all miss the point Thanks for posting those. Just dripping with rhetoric of white victimization at the hands of drug infested, job stealing, tax payer enslaving immigrants. Harassing these people is like a victory for the crowd that reads that stuff. No, it's not. I actually agree with Trump giving Congress an ultimatum although I would of given Congress a little bit longer as they have a lot on their plate right now. This should have passed in 2010. 91% of "Dreamers" are in the work force right now and it's not their fault their parents broke the law. Give these kids/young adults some type of amnesty, but do everything in your power to secure the border because addressing the illegal immigration issue is long overdue. Congress isn't going to do anything. Paul Ryan said he hopes congress will do something. Hopes? Ya, sounds like a priority to him. So you think this has nothing to do with feeding his base? Nothing to do with Arpaio? The wall? You are seriously thinking this guy cares about the Constitution? Please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 A question for someone who may know: How is DACA unconstitutional? Sessions and Trump seem to be pushing this idea, but it seems like bunk to me. I understand the argument that it was an overreaching use of executive privilege. I can even understand that many could be against it as a policy that they don't like. That's not me, but I can understand that argument. What I can't understand is how it can be described as unconstitutional. Is that not just bully politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) A question for someone who may know: How is DACA unconstitutional? Sessions and Trump seem to be pushing this idea, but it seems like bunk to me. I understand the argument that it was an overreaching use of executive privilege. I can even understand that many could be against it as a policy that they don't like. That's not me, but I can understand that argument. What I can't understand is how it can be described as unconstitutional. Is that not just bully politics? I think they get an amnesty bill for the 800,000 or so Dreamers here today through (too much public pressure). Then put their hands up and say this is how government should work and take shots at Obama for executive overreach. Then asked why a majority of the GOP and the one Democratic Senator still in office (Jon Tester) opposed the Dream bill in 2010 but supported it now, they'll give some lame excuse when they were just playing politics. Edited September 5, 2017 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 And what will happen if Congress doesn't act in six months? I see the splits in the Republican Party being the biggest hurdle. Will Trump start deporting 800,000 Dreamers? Where will they go? What are the logistics of rounding them up without violence, and transporting them to another country? What if those countries refuse to take them? What if organizations like churches provide sanctuary, will ICE go in and arrest the Americans for aiding criminals? We should be given the specifics of how this DACA red line will work. When? Months ago So much for getting rid of the murderers, rapists and drug dealers first. 6 month deadline. Seems he's "forcing" Comgress to finally accomplish something. How many years have we had a stalemate in immigration reform? 4, 8, 12, 16? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 I understand the argument that it was an overreaching use of executive privilege. That's why. The initiating memo is a masterpiece of double-talk. I particularly like the part where Napolitano writes ICE should exercise prosecutorial discretion [...] in order to prevent low priority individuals from being removed from the United States. and For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action. Concluding with This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. She outlines a program to grant permanent residence and work authorization...then concludes with stating that only Congress can grant substantive rights. When? Months ago So much for getting rid of the murderers, rapists and drug dealers first. 6 month deadline. Seems he's "forcing" Comgress to finally accomplish something. How many years have we had a stalemate in immigration reform? 4, 8, 12, 16? 20+? Elian Gonzalez... I think they get an amnesty bill for the 800,000 or so Dreamers here today through (too much public pressure). Then put their hands up and say this is how government should work and take shots at Obama for executive overreach. Then asked why a majority of the GOP and the one Democratic Senator still in office (Jon Tester) opposed the Dream bill in 2010 but supported it now, they'll give some lame excuse when they were just playing politics. Yep. And they should all be hammered with questions about "Weren't you against Bush's amnesty policies ten years ago?" But only Republicans are hypocrites. Democrats...they "evolve." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Yep. And they should all be hammered with questions about "Weren't you against Bush's amnesty policies ten years ago?" But only Republicans are hypocrites. Democrats...they "evolve." I agree. Whoever's left from back then. I'll go out on a limb and saw the real drive behind amnesty for both parties over the years were to gain future voters. Democrats do seem to get a pass when it comes to changing positions over time. Specifically social issues like gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 I agree. Whoever's left from back then. I'll go out on a limb and saw the real drive behind amnesty for both parties over the years were to gain future voters. Democrats do seem to get a pass when it comes to changing positions over time. Specifically social issues like gay marriage. I do think Bush's amnesty suggestions were a truly honest recognition of the problem and an attempt to solve it, simply because I can't think of any ulterior motive that would make worthwhile the certainty of pissing off his Republican/religious/Texas base of support. The whole lot of Congress should be held accountable and thrown out, as this mess is fundamentally of their creation. They won't, because as Ben Franklin so often points out, incumbent reelection rates are ridiculous. But they should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 It seems like too many of you people don't remember history. We had amnesty under Reagan with the promise that we would secure our borders. When a new amnesty bill was brought up under Bush, conservatives rightfully threw a fit since we never did anything to secure our borders. This is how building the wall became an issue. The dems fooled us once, tried to do it again during the Bush presidency and failed. Now they are trying to do it again. The answer is really quite simple. Agree to work in a bipartisan way to secure the border and after that is done we'll do an amnesty bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue! 8:38 PM · Sep 5, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue! 8:38 PM · Sep 5, 2017 Racist. And stupid. "Congress, you have six months to fix this mess, or...nevermind..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue! 8:38 PM · Sep 5, 2017 He might want to look up the word leverage. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) He might want to look up the word leverage. LOL. "The Fingerpainting of the Deal." Really, could Trump possibly be a bigger idiot? Edited September 6, 2017 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts