• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Questions for Oldtimer

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer please explain something to me. Obama claimed his executive order, that you are defending :roll: , is to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants that were brought into the country be their parents before the age of 16, have lived in the US for the last five years and have attended school in the US or served in the Military, as long as these kids which includes 30 year olds are LAW ABIDING.

Here are my questions for you

1. If they are ILLEGALLY in the country should they really be considered LAW ABIDING? HINT: Law abiding people would leave the country and re-enter by following the due process set up to be considered LEGAL.

2. If they are in the military how did they get there if they have to be a citizen to join the military? And didn't Bush sign a bill that gave immigrants that joined the military the right to citizenship after they were sworn in?

3. The Democrats keep saying illegals can't be deported as it would break up too many families. So by giving the KIDS the right to stay in the US does that not mean that their parents the brought them here ILLEGALLY are also being given the right to stay in the US as not to break up the Democrat precious family unit?

4. Obama claimed his actions only affected 800,000 KIDS that were ILLEGALLY in the US by no fault of their own but how many parents to those kids will also be allowed to stay and take jobs from US CITIZENS?

5, When you look at the results his executive order is going have on those AMERICAN CITIZENS looking for work in a down economy are his actions really the "RIGHT THING TO DO" for the US or are they
" THE RIGHT THING TO DO" for his election results?

6. AGAIN what has changed in the last year, other that Obama's re-election chances that gives him the authority to side step a Congressional vote denying this very action?

NO blaming Bush, No claiming well everyone does it, and no filthy name calling because you were told not to make your usual lame excuses. Just answer my questions IF YOU CAN.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer please explain something to me. Obama claimed his executive order, that you are defending :roll: , is to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants that were brought into the country be their parents before the age of 16, have lived in the US for the last five years and have attended school in the US or served in the Military, as long as these kids which includes 30 year olds are LAW ABIDING.

Here are my questions for you

1. If they are ILLEGALLY in the country should they really be considered LAW ABIDING? HINT: Law abiding people would leave the country and re-enter by following the due process set up to be considered LEGAL.

2. If they are in the military how did they get there if they have to be a citizen to join the military? And didn't Bush sign a bill that gave immigrants that joined the military the right to citizenship after they were sworn in?

3. The Democrats keep saying illegals can't be deported as it would break up too many families. So by giving the KIDS the right to stay in the US does that not mean that their parents the brought them here ILLEGALLY are also being given the right to stay in the US as not to break up the Democrat precious family unit?

4. Obama claimed his actions only effected 800,000 KIDS that were ILLEGALLY in the US by no fault of their own but how many parents to those kids will also be allowed to stay and take jobs from US CITIZENS?

5, When you look at the results his executive order is going have on those AMERICAN CITIZENS looking for work in a down economy are his actions really the "RIGHT THING TO DO" for the US or are they
" THE RIGHT THING TO DO" for his election results?

6. AGAIN what has changed in the last year, other that Obama's re-election chances that gives him the authority to side step a Congressional vote denying this very action?

NO blaming Bush, No claiming well everyone does it, and no filthy name calling because you were told not to make your usual lame excuses. Just answer my questions IF YOU CAN.

Tam- the attorneys and Homeland Security folks claim there is no violation of criminal law by just coming into the country- only if you are deported and then reenter after being deported do you violate a criminal law... I don't know Federal immigration law- but I do know that has been the policy long before Obama.. I always thought unlawful entering the country was a misdemeanor- and second offense was a felony...

But since these folks designated in the order had to be brought into the country before they were age 16- you are dealing with at the most a Juvenile misdemeanor violation- and with the younger ones, no ability to commit a crime when they were brought in by their parents...And under our law- someone can not be prosecuted for a crime committed by their parents....

Again to the issue of administrative discretion- back in the 70's thru 90's when I was in L.E.- many of the illegals picked up by Border Patrol after May or June were released with notice to appears (big joke) because their deportation budgets for the last 6 months of the budget had already been used up...They tried to save their money for only the bad a$$ characters- so used administrative/prosecutorial discretion...

I see one benefit to this policy...We have thousands of folks awaiting deportation hearings- and deportation facilities and courts that are backlogged by months... This will clear up some of the cases and allow them to go after the real criminals/bad boys..

And even tho I've hated to admit it- I do have to agree with Newt and Paul that there probably is no physical way we can deport 10-15 million people- and/or break up families deporting illegal alien parents- but having to give residency to their US citizen born children because of the anchor law...
The anchor citizenship law needs to be changed- or the cycle will continue...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer please explain something to me. Obama claimed his executive order, that you are defending :roll: , is to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants that were brought into the country be their parents before the age of 16, have lived in the US for the last five years and have attended school in the US or served in the Military, as long as these kids which includes 30 year olds are LAW ABIDING.

Here are my questions for you

1. If they are ILLEGALLY in the country should they really be considered LAW ABIDING? HINT: Law abiding people would leave the country and re-enter by following the due process set up to be considered LEGAL.

2. If they are in the military how did they get there if they have to be a citizen to join the military? And didn't Bush sign a bill that gave immigrants that joined the military the right to citizenship after they were sworn in?

3. The Democrats keep saying illegals can't be deported as it would break up too many families. So by giving the KIDS the right to stay in the US does that not mean that their parents the brought them here ILLEGALLY are also being given the right to stay in the US as not to break up the Democrat precious family unit?

4. Obama claimed his actions only effected 800,000 KIDS that were ILLEGALLY in the US by no fault of their own but how many parents to those kids will also be allowed to stay and take jobs from US CITIZENS?

5, When you look at the results his executive order is going have on those AMERICAN CITIZENS looking for work in a down economy are his actions really the "RIGHT THING TO DO" for the US or are they
" THE RIGHT THING TO DO" for his election results?

6. AGAIN what has changed in the last year, other that Obama's re-election chances that gives him the authority to side step a Congressional vote denying this very action?

NO blaming Bush, No claiming well everyone does it, and no filthy name calling because you were told not to make your usual lame excuses. Just answer my questions IF YOU CAN.

Tam- the attorneys and Homeland Security folks claim there is no violation of criminal law by just coming into the country- only if you are deported and then reenter after being deported do you violate a criminal law... I don't know Federal immigration law- but I do know that has been the policy long before Obama.. I always thought unlawful entering the country was a misdemeanor- and second offense was a felony...

But since these folks designated in the order had to be brought into the country before they were age 16- you are dealing with at the most a Juvenile misdemeanor violation- and with the younger ones, no ability to commit a crime when they were brought in by their parents...And under our law- someone can not be prosecuted for a crime committed by their parents....

Again to the issue of administrative discretion- back in the 70's thru 90's when I was in L.E.- many of the illegals picked up by Border Patrol after May or June were released with notice to appears (big joke) because their deportation budgets for the last 6 months of the budget had already been used up...They tried to save their money for only the bad a$$ characters- so used administrative/prosecutorial discretion...

I see one benefit to this policy...We have thousands of folks awaiting deportation hearings- and deportation facilities and courts that are backlogged by months... This will clear up some of the cases and allow them to go after the real criminals/bad boys..

And even tho I've hated to admit it- I do have to agree with Newt and Paul that there probably is no physical way we can deport 10-15 million people- and/or break up families deporting illegal alien parents- but having to give residency to their US citizen born children because of the anchor law...
The anchor citizenship law needs to be changed- or the cycle will continue...

Is the President of the US not sworn to uphold the law of the land Oldtimer?
What makes Obama think he and his Administration can choose what laws to enforce? He said himself just last year he did not have the authority to do what he did.

WHAT CHANGED IN THE LAST YEAR THAT MADE HIM THINK HE NOW HAS THE AUTHORITY TO STOP ENFORCING FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS?

It sure wasn't the law itself as the Congress voted NO and Obama side stepped them and basically enacted the Dream act without the Congress. On what date in the pass year did the US change to a DICTATORSHIP that gives Obama the Power to do what ever the hell he wants with or without Congressional approval?

The US government was set up with a system of checks and balances so ONE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T OVERRIDE THE POWER OF ANOTHER. Obama has trashed that system with his attitude that he has the ultimate power to do what ever he wants, if the Congress doesn't rein him in they will be looking as an Executive Order proclaiming Obama the life long King of Obamanation. :mad:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam- the attorneys and Homeland Security folks claim there is no violation of criminal law by just coming into the country- only if you are deported and then reenter after being deported do you violate a criminal law... ..

An illegal immigrant in the United States is a (non-citizen) who has entered the United States without government permission and in violation of United States Nationality Law, or stayed beyond the termination date of a visa, also in violation of the law.

An illegal immigrant is a person who has entered the country without official authorization.


Federal law defines illegal entry as someone who “enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” (8 U.S.C. §1325(a)). This includes crossing or attempting to cross the border on foot, by water or by hiding in an object passing through the border, such as the trunk of a vehicle. Aliens who are detained while attempting to enter the country illegally are subject to a fine of $50 to $250 for every individual attempt, or $100 to $500 for aliens with a previous record of attempting to enter illegally.

In these three definitions of ILLEGAL immigration where does it say the law is only broken when the perp is deported and tries to reenter? :?

It clearly states the FEDERAL law is broken when they even ATTEMPT to enter the US without the permission of an immigration officer. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Here is something else you can try defend Oldtimer. Over the first couple years of Obama's administration when Obama was critized for being weak on Border security we were reading articles like this

Deportation of illegal immigrants increases under Obama administration

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 26, 2010

In a bid to remake the enforcement of federal immigration laws, the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants and auditing hundreds of businesses that blithely hire undocumented workers.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush's final year in office.

The effort is part of President Obama's larger project "to make our national laws actually work," as he put it in a speech this month at American University.

The just last year he claimed he didn't have the authority to enact the Dream Act wanted by the Latino community as the Congress voted NO on the act.

But now that he is facing a tough election and is going to speak to the Latino Community next week, all of a sudden he writes an Executive order calling off the deportation of illegal immigrants and promises to provide them with work permits because it just cost to much to, how did he say it Oh Yea, Make the national laws actually work. :roll:

Face it Oldtimer, he is buying back latino votes he lost due to his bragging to bolster his imagine on Border Security, with work permits for jobs that US citizens could be doing.

Obama has only one job he is working to protect and that is HIS at all cost to the US tax payers. :x
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Funny what you find when you google something

Dec 28, 2011 4:31pm
Obama’s Record-High Deportations Draw Hispanic Scorn

The record-setting deportation of illegal immigrants under President Obama has drawn scorn from Hispanic Americans, despite recent administration efforts to temper the policy, according to a new Pew Hispanic Center study.

Fifty-nine percent of Latinos said they disapprove of the president’s approach to removing illegal immigrants, more than double the number who said they approved in Pew’s nationwide survey.

Among Latino registered voters, the sentiment was nearly as strong, with 52 percent disapproving of the Obama administration’s handling of deportations.

Since 2009, the annual average number of deportations has approached 400,000, according to the Department of Homeland Security. That’s double the annual average during President George W. Bush’s first term and 30 percent higher than the average when he left office.

Meanwhile, the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States has hit a decade low because of the down economy and stepped-up enforcement efforts.

The dynamic has drawn protests from immigrant rights advocates and some Obama supporters, particularly Hispanics, who make up 80 percent of the nation’s illegal immigrant population and 97 percent of deportees last year. Hispanics are also a key constituency for Obama’s re-election campaign.

The Pew study found ample confusion among Latinos about the administration’s policy both in terms of the increase in deportations since Obama took office and the recent implementation of greater prosecutorial discretion in non-criminal cases.

Forty-one percent of Latinos say they’re aware of the heightened deportations, 36 percent thought the numbers have been comparable to those under Bush, and 10 percent said they thought deportations had declined.

Pew did not explicitly measure attitudes toward Obama’s more “humane” approach to deportations announced in August, but experts say the relatively high disapproval of administration policy suggests that change is still not widely known.

Under the new approach, the Department of Homeland Security will review all 300,000 pending deportation cases and grant reprieves on a case-by-case basis to individuals who do not have criminal convictions. Only about 15,000 cases have been reviewed so far, officials say.

Meanwhile, the administration has instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement lawyers to help filter out nonpriority deportation cases from flooding the already-congested immigration court system. Removal orders involving veterans, parents of U.S. citizen children, students and the elderly are increasingly being dropped.

Administration officials say the revised approach should alleviate concerns within the Hispanic community about Obama’s deportation policy and caution it will take time to implement. They also say leniency can only go so far under existing law.

“President Obama has been forceful about the need to fix the broken immigration system comprehensively so that it meets America’s economic and security needs, but he cannot change the laws by himself,” White House spokesman Luis Miranda said.

“This Administration has made dramatic improvements by developing clear immigration enforcement priorities for the first time ever that include focusing on those with criminal records, a smarter approach from a law enforcement perspective that also better reflects our nation’s values.”

But whether Hispanic Americans will see and understand Obama’s policy changes – and approve – remains to be seen, Pew Hispanic Center associate director Mark Hugo Lopez said.

“We will continue to publish reports about how many unauthorized immigrants are in this country and likely will be asking in our next survey about the issue of immigration generally,” he said.

“We didn’t get into the prosecutorial discretion issue in this poll, we just asked more generally about how the Obama administration is handling deportations, and 59 percent of Latinos said they disapprove.”


Gee in Dec, 59% of Latinos disapproved of his handling of deportation and now that he is scheduled to meet with that key constituency for his re-election campaign, he is out in the Rose Garden making announcements to appease the Latinos. Kind of reminds me of him coming out in support of gay marriage just before he is scheduled to attend a Hollywood fund raiser. One thing for sure Obama is Transparent you can see right through him and see he is BUYING VOTES. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Federal law defines illegal entry as someone who “enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” (8 U.S.C. §1325(a)). This includes crossing or attempting to cross the border on foot, by water or by hiding in an object passing through the border, such as the trunk of a vehicle. Aliens who are detained while attempting to enter the country illegally are subject to a fine of $50 to $250 for every individual attempt, or $100 to $500 for aliens with a previous record of attempting to enter illegally.

In these three definitions of ILLEGAL immigration where does it say the law is only broken when the perp is deported and tries to reenter? :?

It clearly states the FEDERAL law is broken when they even ATTEMPT to enter the US without the permission of an immigration officer. :roll:

Tam that is the section of law I was thinking of...

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty
of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.

That may answer why the attorneys and Homeland Security folks claim those illegally crossing the border are not criminals- these are not criminal penalties, they are CIVIL penalties-- so technically they have committed no crime under them...

I wonder if the criminal penalties have been ruled unconstitutional by a court- or if its just policy change...
 

Trinity man

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
7
Location
Guy Store, Texas
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Federal law defines illegal entry as someone who “enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” (8 U.S.C. §1325(a)). This includes crossing or attempting to cross the border on foot, by water or by hiding in an object passing through the border, such as the trunk of a vehicle. Aliens who are detained while attempting to enter the country illegally are subject to a fine of $50 to $250 for every individual attempt, or $100 to $500 for aliens with a previous record of attempting to enter illegally.

In these three definitions of ILLEGAL immigration where does it say the law is only broken when the perp is deported and tries to reenter? :?

It clearly states the FEDERAL law is broken when they even ATTEMPT to enter the US without the permission of an immigration officer. :roll:

Tam that is the section of law I was thinking of...

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty
of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.

That may answer why the attorneys and Homeland Security folks claim those illegally crossing the border are not criminals- these are not criminal penalties, they are CIVIL penalties-- so technically they have committed no crime under them...

I wonder if the criminal penalties have been ruled unconstitutional by a court- or if its just policy change...


I guess the ones that hit the World Trade Center didn't didn't break in law. This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but its no wonder its our government saying it. The funny thing if its a civil penalties why is the federal government hammer Arizona so bad.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Federal law defines illegal entry as someone who “enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” (8 U.S.C. §1325(a)). This includes crossing or attempting to cross the border on foot, by water or by hiding in an object passing through the border, such as the trunk of a vehicle. Aliens who are detained while attempting to enter the country illegally are subject to a fine of $50 to $250 for every individual attempt, or $100 to $500 for aliens with a previous record of attempting to enter illegally.

In these three definitions of ILLEGAL immigration where does it say the law is only broken when the perp is deported and tries to reenter? :?

It clearly states the FEDERAL law is broken when they even ATTEMPT to enter the US without the permission of an immigration officer. :roll:

Tam that is the section of law I was thinking of...

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty
of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.

That may answer why the attorneys and Homeland Security folks claim those illegally crossing the border are not criminals- these are not criminal penalties, they are CIVIL penalties-- so technically they have committed no crime under them...

I wonder if the criminal penalties have been ruled unconstitutional by a court- or if its just policy change...

Entering the United States illegally is a federal crime, as well as assisting those attempting to enter the United States, however, by once in the country, illegal immigrants simply residing within the country are only in violation of civil laws.

Sorry but if the person is caught coming in they are guilty of breaking a FEDERAL CRIME it is only after they are in the US and residing in the US that they lessen the crime to a CIVIL law broken. Which is about as stupid as it comes If you broke a FEDERAL LAW to get there and were successful you are good to go with a simple fine. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
In these three definitions of ILLEGAL immigration where does it say the law is only broken when the perp is deported and tries to reenter? :?

It clearly states the FEDERAL law is broken when they even ATTEMPT to enter the US without the permission of an immigration officer. :roll:

Tam that is the section of law I was thinking of...

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty
of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.

That may answer why the attorneys and Homeland Security folks claim those illegally crossing the border are not criminals- these are not criminal penalties, they are CIVIL penalties-- so technically they have committed no crime under them...

I wonder if the criminal penalties have been ruled unconstitutional by a court- or if its just policy change...

Entering the United States illegally is a federal crime, as well as assisting those attempting to enter the United States, however, by once in the country, illegal immigrants simply residing within the country are only in violation of civil laws.

Sorry but if the person is caught coming in they are guilty of breaking a FEDERAL CRIME it is only after they are in the US and residing in the US that they lessen the crime to a CIVIL law broken. Which is about as stupid as it comes If you broke a FEDERAL LAW to get there and were successful you are good to go with a simple fine. :roll:

That may be the way the law is being interpreted now- and the reason the attorneys and courts are saying those folks illegally in the country can not be considered or handled as criminals as they are violating no law at the time-- I don't know...

But even so-- if brought in by their parents when young-under a certain age you can not be charged with a crime- or even if the government could show they were of an age where they could understand criminal intent- the most the crime would be is a Juvenile Misdemeanor (about equivalent to a teenager getting caught with a beer)...

And you can not charge the children for the crimes committed by their parents....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
thankfully Arizona and other states are finally seeing that the federal government is unable to fulfill it's Constitutional duties and are stepping up to the plate to help...

BTW.. it is against the law for an illegal to join the service/ military..

so how can they break several laws.. entering our country illegally,.. and fraudulently joining the military, yet still get amnesty..

(not being charged with crimes is amnesty) and then rewarded with permanent residence status..

if the feds would just follow and enforce existing law this wouldn't even be an issue...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam that is the section of law I was thinking of...



That may answer why the attorneys and Homeland Security folks claim those illegally crossing the border are not criminals- these are not criminal penalties, they are CIVIL penalties-- so technically they have committed no crime under them...

I wonder if the criminal penalties have been ruled unconstitutional by a court- or if its just policy change...

Entering the United States illegally is a federal crime, as well as assisting those attempting to enter the United States, however, by once in the country, illegal immigrants simply residing within the country are only in violation of civil laws.

Sorry but if the person is caught coming in they are guilty of breaking a FEDERAL CRIME it is only after they are in the US and residing in the US that they lessen the crime to a CIVIL law broken. Which is about as stupid as it comes If you broke a FEDERAL LAW to get there and were successful you are good to go with a simple fine. :roll:

That may be the way the law is being interpreted now- and the reason the attorneys and courts are saying those folks illegally in the country can not be considered or handled as criminals as they are violating no law at the time-- I don't know...

But even so-- if brought in by their parents when young-under a certain age you can not be charged with a crime- or even if the government could show they were of an age where they could understand criminal intent- the most the crime would be is a Juvenile Misdemeanor (about equivalent to a teenager getting caught with a beer)...

And you can not charge the children for the crimes committed by their parents....

Just wondering Oldtimer if it is not a Federal Crime to be illegally in the US then what was Obama's little speech for the other day? He was targeting kids that were brought into the country illegally years ago so by your definition of the law they did nothing FEDERALLY wrong. If they are living in the US illegally and are only subjected to a fine then what was Obama talking about when he said he was removing the shadow of deportation off of these poor innocent children so they can live a life in the US like any good US CITIZEN. No more hiding to avoid being deported. If living in the US only gets you a small fine then Obama's speech was a political ploy to buy support from the latino voters that he and his Administration has been bragging about how many they have deported since he took office. :roll:
 

smalltime

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
SD
Here is the thing I dont understand.Why are people so mad at Obama for doing something Romney obviously supports and would have done himself?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
0
Location
Heart of Texas
smalltime said:
Here is the thing I dont understand.Why are people so mad at Obama for doing something Romney obviously supports and would have done himself?

You may think that but now we'll never know right??

Let's see now..Obama has special advertising and meetings for "Blacks Only"... he's allied himself with the queers and now he's got the aliens on his side. Next he'll legalize marijuana nationwise (by exec. order of course) and get all the dope heads on his side ... what group is next?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TexasBred said:
smalltime said:
Here is the thing I dont understand.Why are people so mad at Obama for doing something Romney obviously supports and would have done himself?

You may think that but now we'll never know right??

Let's see now..Obama has special advertising and meetings for "Blacks Only"... he's allied himself with the queers and now he's got the aliens on his side. Next he'll legalize marijuana nationwise (by exec. order of course) and get all the dope heads on his side ... what group is next?


I wouldn't say that the "aliens" are totally on his side. They are still mostly Catholic and generally against birth control/abortion and gay marriage.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
smalltime said:
Here is the thing I dont understand.Why are people so mad at Obama for doing something Romney obviously supports and would have done himself?

under our Constitution the president can not make law nor disregard law...

Romney's now stated position is that the law or policy should be permanent and one brought through our legislative process

in that process it would be debated, voted on and as with most immigration amnesty programs it would fail...

many remember the promises made on the last one to and by president Reagan... and many remember the failure it was ...

not because it was a bad idea... one that promised more enforcement and protected a group of immigrants many felt deserved protection.. but in the fraud and abuse that the liberals shoved through in it's name...

what was the old saying fool me once,.. shame on you... well I ain't stupid enough to believe this well meaning well intended bypassing of our congress/Constitution is anything more them a political stunt... and a way to screw the American people again...

since Duncan Hunter or no other true anti illegal immigration politician is running i guess we are stuck with Romney's approach..

at least it isn't as bad as the Obama/Paul plan...
Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk
Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

when will the politicians realize.. a green card is an amnesty?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Bill OReilly had a illegal on tonight talking about Obama's new policy. The guy admitted he was sent by his mother to live with his Grandparents in the US at the age of 12 He had no idea he was illegal until he went to the DMV to get his drivers licence at the age of 16. He showed he green card and the lady told him it was a fake. It was at that time his Grandfather admitted he had bought his green card. The guy went on to college claiming he was a US citizen KNOWING HIS WASN"T. He admitted his Grandparents were both naturalized citizens. So really, they could have sponsored their grandson and he could have come legally but they CHOSE to cut corners and buy his green card.

Tonight he said he felt people in his situation and those that are over 30 years old coming illegally needed a process so they can become legal. :roll:

To bad the friggin idiot has never heard of LEGAL IMMIGRATION where you apply and the US immigration officers decide whether you can live in the country. I guess that just takes to long for those that want instant gradification. :roll:
 

Latest posts

Top