View Full Version : Obama And Immigration SNAFU
07-27-2012, 06:16 AM
"As you will hear today, this administration has engaged in a sustained, relentless effort to undermine America’s immigration laws. They have handcuffed and muffled those charged with protecting the public safety and the integrity of our borders. Such action has not only weakened our security but our democracy…"
Between the two, Obama and Romney, I'll still take Obama, BUT...his administration has really messed up on immigration. When will this nonsense end! sid
07-27-2012, 09:49 AM
The quote you cite is grossly hyperbolic.
If there is a sustained, relentless effort, they appear to be talking about approximately 30 days of the struggles involved in implementing the new policy.
The one man offers one example, which indeed sounds bad. But as the old Yiddish proverb explains, 'For example...' is not an argument.
To ramp up one example in a 30 day period to a 'sustained relentless effort to undermine immigration laws, that weakens our security and our democracy' is shameless demagoguery.
Does the new policy's implementation need scrutiny for best practices? Then say that, without the mealy mouthed politics intruding from the usual suspects (Mr. Sessions).
Did I see David Vitter there in the back round?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did I see David Vitter there in the back round?
What is a back round?
Well done MORON, got me there.
Shall I go through your last 30 posts and post all your spelling mistakes? It would be a long post.
BTW, I reposted your quotes and corrected your spelling mistakes and never mentioned it.
Q..don't bother thanking me.
07-27-2012, 11:04 AM
Probably the shape of his preferred diaper outfit? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
You might like this.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is a back round? </div></div>
Qtec...........".Well done MORON, got me there.
Shall I go through your last 30 posts and post all your spelling mistakes? It would be a long post."
LOL As it turns out, it was actually not so long!
I only had to go back to his PREVIOUS post where he said....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would I care if Romney makes a<span style='font-size: 20pt'><u> fax </u>pas?</span> </div></div>
07-27-2012, 11:12 AM
Fax pas are so 20th century!
But then so are Mitt's ma pa[nt]s, Mom jeans, I mean.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Probably the shape of his preferred diaper outfit? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>
Snoopy still wears diapers?
07-31-2012, 02:29 PM
Yet another SNAFU by our administration. It is a dmaned shame a president, hired to protect our citizens, aids crime by not enforcing laws on immigration.
That first video in post #1 should piss of both Dems and Reps. The lack if ire gotten from this group of pit vipers from both sides tells me a lot about our complacent voting public. Shame.
Report: Illegals released by feds committed 19 murders, 142 sex crimes
07-31-2012, 05:50 PM
This may or may not be true.
The source appears to be a House committee's report. It wouldn't be the first time such a report from a GOP House put out false conclusions concerning a Democratic president's administration. (See the Cox committee report, but for one example.)
The reporting source of the House committee report is the Washington Times. Ditto the above comment in the first paragraph concerning the WaTimes.
You will notice, if I point it out anyway, that the list of alleged crimes they've committed are ones they have been CHARGED with. Charged. Convicted? They do not say that. Isn't that a warning right there that this is probably not what it appears upon first glance? What is the number of CONVICTIONS for those crimes? They don't say. Fascinating, no?
Assuming it is true for now, what does it really mean?
It's a fact that deportations are way up, and have been up, each year of this president's term. It's their strategy to concentrate deportations on hard cases, violent criminals, and etc.
Would it really have been possible to deport these extra people (who hadn't committed a serious or violent crime as of when they came into the system) without NOT deporting the hard case violent criminals?
For there are limited funds, limited personnel, limited court times available, and etc. Hasn't the personnel for these departments in question been frozen out of budgetary concerns?
Given UNLIMITED, or vastly increased, say, doubled, resources, sure, more could have been done, on top of the very large numbers of those who were deported. Given limited resources, is that still true?
Assuming some tradeoff, that deporting these lower level criminals would have meant not deporting higher level criminals, isn't it likely those worse criminals would have committed still further violent acts than these non-violent criminals (non-violent, as of the time they came into the hands of the feds)?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.