hussein to stop paying state to jail illegals.

#2
#2
exactly, while hes at it, why dont he just divide all the lottery and give it to the gitmo detainees...
 
#4
#4
at what point does the supreme court step in and say no, this is crossing the line? anyone remember the concept of checks and balances?


i mean with several states stepping up and claiming their 10th ammendment rights, doesnt the lightbulb have to click on and say wait a minute, maybe their is a problem..

the liberals instead see that as being a close minded bigot and being racist or whatever their feeble brains believe and instead of coming to the table and trying to work stuff out, they make things worse,,,
 
Last edited:
#5
#5
So instead of infringing on state rights, he is now going to cut back on financial aide to those states directly related to the issue of illegal immigration. If the Federal Govt. cant handle the issue and the states cant afford to, I guess we just do less as far as prevention methods.

How bout this math, cutting to save 400 million and then in turn dropping 1.4 Billion to add 20,000 Federal employees to beef up Boarder Protection/indentification.
 
#6
#6
TXVOL07 said:
So instead of infringing on state rights, he is now going to cut back on financial aide to those states directly related to the issue of illegal immigration. If the Federal Govt. cant handle the issue and the states cant afford to, I guess we just do less as far as prevention methods.

How bout this math, cutting to save 400 million and then in turn dropping 1.4 Billion to add 20,000 Federal employees to beef up Boarder Protection/indentification.
Click to expand...

if the fed is going to cut funds, then the states should be allowed to deal with the issue at whatever way they see fit. (alligators in the rio grande on HGH) etc etc
 
#7
#7
That's always been my stance too, however, if your not going to help us financially, dont compound the problem by creating a program that cost 1.4 billion and tell me we are going to "save" by doing so. 400 million is less than 1.4 billion by my math.

I guess one could say this is an infringment on states rights, but more importantly, it looks to be a larger fiscal burden. I hope the man never comes to Texas.
 
#8
#8
He is creating jobs though, so he can hang his hat on that I guess.
 
#10
#10
Is this camparable to Mayor Nagan moving the gang members back into NOLA after Katrina to get re-elected? I mean, if he gets these illegals citizenship, registered and gets them a ride to the polls, I can see it as strategic.
 
#11
#11
TXVOL07 said:
Is this camparable to Mayor Nagan moving the gang members back into NOLA after Katrina to get re-elected? I mean, if he gets these illegals citizenship, registered and gets them a ride to the polls, I can see it as strategic.
Click to expand...

yah, im still wondering at what point will the issues be brought to the supreme court,
 
#12
#12
this isn't an Obama issue it's a Congress one. Bush tried the same and it was shot down too
 
#14
#14
You cant tell me that the members of the Supreme Court wont fold up like the rest of those in Washington have. Through his appointments and the folks he has surrounded himself with, there is not many people around to tell him "no". I'm certainly not a doomsday theorist, but I cant get with this guy and his choices. I really tried for a bit because of the office he holds, but I just end up being concerned more than pleasantly surprised.

One thing is for sure, the Republican party dropped the ball, and they had better step their game up.
 
#15
#15
what exactly is the USSC supposed to do about this? And with all the people screaming "STATE RIGHTS!" shouldn't they welcome less federal funding and more control over their border security?
 
#16
#16
TXVOL07 said:
You cant tell me that the members of the Supreme Court wont fold up like the rest of those in Washington have. Through his appointments and the folks he has surrounded himself with, there is not many people around to tell him "no". I'm certainly not a doomsday theorist, but I cant get with this guy and his choices. I really tried for a bit because of the office he holds, but I just end up being concerned more than pleasantly surprised.

One thing is for sure, the Republican party dropped the ball, and they had better step their game up.
Click to expand...

yup....
 
#17
#17
It was my understanding that he was the presenter of this policy pj. Thats makes him accountable imo.
 
#18
#18
utvolpj said:
what exactly is the USSC supposed to do about this? And with all the people screaming "STATE RIGHTS!" shouldn't they welcome less federal funding and more control over their border security?
Click to expand...

Sure those states should. I think my Gov. was pretty clear on where he stands on that. My point is this, it'll cost tax payers more by cutting the aide given. I read it was roughly 25%. The issue then becomes, where you leave it to the states to handle it, while at the same time spending 1.4 bill, thats gotta be paid somehow. That somehow will be the tax payers.

To add to that, when you "leave it up to us", dont you think they will have a say so or voice their concerns as to how we handle it?

Heres how i read it and correct me if Im wrong.

1.Let us take care of it ourselves.
2.Restrict how we do so inevitably.
3.Say your spending less, but actually spend quite a bit more.
4.Create jobs that will be useless, because you claim it is now our responsibillity.

Why hire 20,000 border patrol officers if it is to be a "State issue"? Why spend the money if youre gonna "hand it over"?
 
#20
#20
TXVOL07 said:
Sure those states should. I think my Gov. was pretty clear on where he stands on that. My point is this, it'll cost tax payers more by cutting the aide given. I read it was roughly 25%. The issue then becomes, where you leave it to the states to handle it, while at the same time spending 1.4 bill, thats gotta be paid somehow. That somehow will be the tax payers.
Click to expand...

but that's what your Gov is asking for right? You can't have it both ways by telling the fed govt to stay out of your state but still expect the govt cheese to roll in like before. States that want to go that route have to realize that the US taxpayers aren't going to be funding your little effort. We can applaud it but but if I wanted to support it with cash I would move there.
 
#21
#21
It'll cost you all more in the long run by changing the current situation. Look, I'll be the first to say, I could care less about a handout. I just know that this is enevitably taking away a handout, then restricting how we go about business. Keep your Washington dollars, by all means, but dont come down here an tell us how to spend "our" money.

It'll be a National issue and you'll be more concerned when he comes into your pocket to pay for that 1.4 billion.
 
#22
#22
I know that Perry sounds like a kid that wants his cake, and wants to pick the flavor, but he is dead on about Washington over stepping it's bounds.
 
#23
#23
TXVOL07 said:
I know that Perry sounds like a kid that wants his cake, and wants to pick the flavor, but he is dead on about Washington over stepping it's bounds.
Click to expand...

where did this big government principal begin? The Great Society? The New Deal?
 
#24
#24
Some might say Bush, but I dont wont to invite his detractors into the conversation. They typically focus on his short comings rather than reacting to the current admins. issues.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top