(11-20-2014 10:50 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Problem is we're in a "lame duck" session in Congress too.

I voted for legislative remedy, but that means we have to get through two months without any remedy at all.

Personally, since i've got to go with "fill in the blank". The Republican governors step up and defend their borders with National Guard Troops, and then ship whomever they catch over to ICE centers... and then when they get released from ICE, the troops then grab them again as soon as they step out the doors, and put them back in the ICE centers....

(11-20-2014 01:02 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Depending on what he does, impeachement.

Please, Please impeach the President.


That would be awesome.

(11-20-2014 01:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 01:02 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Depending on what he does, impeachement.

Please, Please impeach the President.


That would be awesome.

It's there for situations in which the president breaks the law, depending on what his "solution" is, and how much gets implemented unilaterally, this very well might be that situation.

FWIW, impeaching Clinton was a waste of resources.

(11-20-2014 01:09 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  FWIW, impeaching Clinton was a waste of resources.

President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to the American people. Seems like a pretty good use of resources, to me at least.

(11-20-2014 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 01:09 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  FWIW, impeaching Clinton was a waste of resources.

President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to the American people. Seems like a pretty good use of resources, to me at least.

Depends what your definition of the word "is" is.

(11-20-2014 01:32 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 01:09 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  FWIW, impeaching Clinton was a waste of resources.

President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to the American people. Seems like a pretty good use of resources, to me at least.

Depends what your definition of the word "is" is.

My definition of "is" includes the President of the United States not lying under oath to the American people.

Pass the law that we need and put it on Obama's desk early next year.

We can't send them back. 11 million people (or whatever the number is) dumped back into Mexico makes Mexico an anarchy overnight. Not what we want on our southern border. Particularly considering that people like al-Qaeda exist and considering how many Americans live within scud range of the Rio Grande.

We can't make them citizens. That makes a total mockery of the rule of law.

What we can do is what virtually every other country in the world does--Guest worker status, either 10 years with renewals or permanent. Give them green cards, get them in the system, find out just how many we have an where they are, so we can do a better job of enforcing other laws going forward.

The D's will turn Owls solution into Apartheid. I've already have heard it and seen it. The GOP can read the tea leaves here. This will be a major major win for 1/3rd of the Republican base and D politicians.

The GOP will likely craft an immigration reform bill after they take control of the Senate. That bill will need some Dem votes to make it to the President's desk so they may start with pieces of the Senate's bill that passed with votes from both sides. The House version will be much more partisan but they can work that out in committee (something they could have done anytime in the last year by passing an amended version of the Senate bill).

What the President is doing is creating a starting point for reform. He's creating a status quo that the GOP has to respond to in their legislation. Do they undo everything he's trying to do with their bill? That's tricky because some of it is very popular.

My guess is that some portions of the EO will be kept as a compromise for the immigration reform bill that gets sent up to the White House late next year. The rest will be overturned by law.

(11-20-2014 03:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We can't send them back.

Why the heck not? I've seen this argument made over and over... "because it'll turn Mexico into anarchy? Because Guatemala can't handle taking all their people back?

SO we have to allow lawbreakers here because it's not good for other countries?

Let's just further the perpetuation: hey, let's just rush across the border, because we know they're not going to send us back, ever!

(11-20-2014 10:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I get it LSU. What can the GOP do here? What should be their response? Add a fill in the blank if you wish.

Obama sits at 42% approval rate. Only 38% of Americans support this move...only 43% of "hispanic" americans aprrove of this move...and he has the Republicans triangulated.

There is nothing they can do. I don't like this President but I will tip the hat 2 him.

Obama never wanted to reach accross the aisle..and he is not about to now. This is a real scorched earth strategy on his part. We elected a radical when we elected this man to be president imo.

RCP is reporting that the ABC, CBS, and NBC will not cover his prime time address tonight becuase they view it as a political move...

Long term who knows how it will play out.

(11-20-2014 04:16 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 03:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We can't send them back.

Why the heck not? I've seen this argument made over and over... "because it'll turn Mexico into anarchy? Because Guatemala can't handle taking all their people back?
SO we have to allow lawbreakers here because it's not good for other countries?

No, because it's not good for US.

Probably should reword. Maybe it's not that we can't send them back, in terms of physical impossibility, but more like it's not a good idea to send them back, because there are unintended consequences that we are really better off without.

If he tries to write law by executive fiat ... impeach his sorry ***. He's President, not King George in the 1760's.

As soon as you make them legal they will be voting. I guarantee it.

(11-20-2014 04:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Probably should reword. Maybe it's not that we can't send them back, in terms of physical impossibility, but more like it's not a good idea to send them back, because there are unintended consequences that we are really better off without.

I imagine you're correct in the "unintended consequences" aspect of things. But starting from the date of Amnesty, all illegal immigrants whether black, white, up, down, left, or right are deported back to their country of origin and prohibited from being issued an immigrant work visa for 10 years.

There have to be consequences to illegal entry to this country.

(11-20-2014 04:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  As soon as you make them legal they will be voting. I guarantee it.

Sarcasm? Mach what % will vote in your opinion? How soon after being legalized?

I'm saying Democrats will demand that they have voting status. That's the only way this makes sense on their end. I've heard Donna Brazillensay. The GOP wants apartheid. You can't grant second class citizenship. This is a conundrum.

(11-20-2014 11:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:38 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Here's what you're looking at Mach.. You got about 1,989 miles of border to try and protect. If you put a chain link fence up, you'll have to man up to check the fence, make repairs, round up people, etc.

You could construct a huge wall of mortar, but there's ways around that as well..

Rounding up illegal immigrants isn't cost feasible either.. Because you have to round them up, place them somewhere, check to make sure they aren't in the country legally and if they are prepare for a lawsuit, then deport. Then you have to make sure the borders are secure to ensure it doesn't happen again.

If the feds would allow the state and local authorities who have been begging for years for the authority to enforce the laws the chance to do it it quickly becomes a lot more feasible.

In no way do I want to empower people who shrug their shoulders when a no knock raid goes pear shaped or treat SWAT teams as a board in Call of Duty this kind of authority. If illegals are caught via a felony offense, sure deport them. But otherwise I'm fine with illegals living in the US as residents, not citizens.

(11-20-2014 04:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've heard Donna Brazillen say

You appear to have accidentally crushed your own credibility.

(11-20-2014 04:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  As soon as you make them legal they will be voting. I guarantee it.

I'd bet a fair sum that a lot of them are voting now.