Amnesty Memo Surfaces

#2
#2
Weren't we just told by the left that circumventing is such an unpatriotic thing to do?
 
#4
#4
You mean that you find it slightly hypocritical that the Obama administration is in court arguing against Arizona SB1070 stating that it is unconstitutional while at the same time exploring every potential option of circumventing the entire governmental process laid out in the U.S. constitution?
 
#5
#5
No matter which approach is taken regarding the illegals here, it is a lose-lose situation for Obama.

Going forward with amnesty option, his critics would complain that he doesn't respect the law on the books, that he is rewarding lawbreakers, that it encourages more illegal immigration.

Going with enforcement option by rounding all the illegals up, his critics would complain that he is spending too much money, creating more big government by hiring more INS agents, building more jails, and he's just throwing money at the problem.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. IMO, neither party wants to shut the border down. If they wanted the border closed, they would have done it a long time ago.
 
#6
#6
Chattaben said:
Going with enforcement option by rounding all the illegals up, his critics would complain that he is spending too much money, creating more big government by hiring more INS agents, building more jails, and he's just throwing money at the problem.
Click to expand...

what critics do you think would take that approach?
 
#7
#7
Right now his only motive is stacking the deck for new voters to keep his rear in office in elections in two years. They failed miserably at stacking the deck for the census to affect reapportionment. Now it's all about CYA on reelection.
 
#9
#9
utvolpj said:
what critics do you think would take that approach?
Click to expand...

Probably the same ones who complain about how Obama is creating a big brother state and expanding the power of the federal government by borrowing and spending us into oblivion. The same ones who complain about government spending, the size of government, and budget deficits.

In order to take that option, the government will have to hire more agents, build more jails, increase the budget (increasing the deficit) for INS....which equals bigger government. Do you want bigger government?
 
#10
#10
Chattaben said:
Probably the same ones who complain about how Obama is creating a big brother state and expanding the power of the federal government by borrowing and spending us into oblivion. The same ones who complain about government spending, the size of government, and budget deficits.

In order to take that option, the government will have to hire more agents, build more jails, increase the budget (increasing the deficit) for INS....which equals bigger government. Do you want bigger government?
Click to expand...

border enforcement and immigration are Constitutional powers granted to the Federal Government, so, no, I wouldn't have any problem with that.

And, you can increase the budget without increasing the deficit by simply killing off the department of education
 
#11
#11
MG1968 said:
border enforcement and immigration are Constitutional powers granted to the Federal Government, so, no, I wouldn't have any problem with that.

And, you can increase the budget without increasing the deficit by simply killing off the department of education
Click to expand...

So do you have a problem with the state of Arizona encroaching on the federally constituted powers?
 
#12
#12
If the Feds shirk their duty and ignore the RESPONSIBILITY as specified in the Constitution, yes. As for "encroaching" there are numerous examples where the states step in to assist feds in carrying out their duties.
 
#13
#13
Chattaben said:
So do you have a problem with the state of Arizona encroaching on the federally constituted powers?
Click to expand...

no. Arizona's law did nothing of the sort. In fact, the threshold placed on AZ law enforcement was much higher than that of federal immigration officials.

the only encroachment here was the judge's ruling that since the Feds were doing nothing, AZ was "encroaching" by doing "something".
 
#14
#14
MG1968 said:
no. Arizona's law did nothing of the sort. In fact, the threshold placed on AZ law enforcement was much higher than that of federal immigration officials.

the only encroachment here was the judge's ruling that since the Feds were doing nothing, AZ was "encroaching" by doing "something".
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
#15
#15
MG1968 said:
border enforcement and immigration are Constitutional powers granted to the Federal Government, so, no, I wouldn't have any problem with that.

And, you can increase the budget without increasing the deficit by simply killing off the department of education
Click to expand...

Since we are throwing around ideas that have zero chance of happening, I recommend we kill off the tax exempt status for all religious organizations and tax them like any other business.
 
#17
#17
rjd970 said:
Since we are throwing around ideas that have zero chance of happening, I recommend we kill off the tax exempt status for all religious organizations and tax them like any other business.
Click to expand...
Because the chances of that happening are really high...
 
#18
#18
rjd970 said:
Since we are throwing around ideas that have zero chance of happening, I recommend we kill off the tax exempt status for all religious organizations and tax them like any other business.
Click to expand...

You know if one party did that, the other party would just promise to repeal it to get more votes.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
rjd970 said:
Since we are throwing around ideas that have zero chance of happening, I recommend we kill off the tax exempt status for all religious organizations and tax them like any other business.
Click to expand...

I agree. That would make a big dent in the national debt.
 
#20
#20
pic_memo_UCIS_072910.jpg
 
#21
#21
Chattaben said:
No matter which approach is taken regarding the illegals here, it is a lose-lose situation for Obama.

Going forward with amnesty option, his critics would complain that he doesn't respect the law on the books, that he is rewarding lawbreakers, that it encourages more illegal immigration.

Going with enforcement option by rounding all the illegals up, his critics would complain that he is spending too much money, creating more big government by hiring more INS agents, building more jails, and he's just throwing money at the problem.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. IMO, neither party wants to shut the border down. If they wanted the border closed, they would have done it a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You don't have a problem with the WH trying to circumvent an immigration debate and law making?

This WH is taking exec power to heights even W would have been embarrassed by.
 
#22
#22
volinbham said:
Seriously? You don't have a problem with the WH trying to circumvent an immigration debate and law making?

This WH is taking exec power to heights even W would have been embarrassed by.
Click to expand...

My bad bham, I wasnt clear in my response. I think going about giving amnesty in this manner is a bad idea. I doubt they would follow through with this path to amnesty because it looks bad for precisely the reason you stated. But I wouldn't be surprised if they push for a legislative way to give amnesty.

If the WH really wants amnesty, they should go about it the same way Reagan gave amnesty to illegals in 1986. Call it "legalization" not amnesty, frame it as a human rights issue (illegals are used and abused, etc), they are just here to become a part of the best country in the world ie have family, work, etc.

I read somewhere (I'll try to find it) that one of the current Senate bills dealing with amnesty and requirements for amnesty is almost identical to the bill that Regan signed. As Sean Hannity would say "What would Reagan do?" He'd prolly sign it.
 
#23
#23
The problem as I see it is on one hand the WH has stated a preference for "comprehensive immigration reform" and that it doesn't want to take any individual steps (e.g. controlling the border) until all the steps are agreed to in one big bundle. In short, they've repeatedly passed the buck to Congress to make law before any action takes place.

On the other hand, they are working behind the scenes to take an individual step of de facto amnesty - more than likely primarily as a voting block move more than any thing else. Once again actions and words don't sync from this WH.

WRT to Reagan, he did sign an amnesty bill under the promise that along with it the borders were to be controlled. It was presented as a situation where those here can stay but no more illegals could come in. Well we see now that without border security, the rest of immigration policy is virtually worthless. My guess is that Reagan if still around would NOT do it this way again and would be a "borders first" guy.

I've stated many times that in principle I support comprehensive immigration reform including guest worker programs and a pathway to citizenship. However, securing the borders is a necessary first step.

Backdooring amnesty is the absolute worst move possible (not surprising this WH is considering it).
 
#25
#25
Chattaben said:
What do you think about changing birth right citizenship?
Click to expand...

I'd have to look more deeply at the pros and cons but right now I lean against it (assuming parents were illegal).

I really don't know all the details but on the surface I'd say that being born to citizens should make you a citizen (regardless of where you are born) while being born to non-citizens likewise makes you a non-citizen. Basically, geography of birth is overrated IMHO.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top