Is Obama not stregthening border security on purpose?

*WHY* an amnesty?

Bigger penalties for those that hire illegal immigrants, find something that will at least slow them from coming across the border.

I emigrated legally. I'm really annoyed at the illegals, and the government not seeming to want to do anything about it.
 
Shalamar said:
*WHY* an amnesty?
Click to expand...

One thing I'll say is that I'm all for the amnesty thing AFTER some of the underlying problems (the border, the immigration system itself) are resolved. At that point it's just a good way to clean things up. Until then, however, I'm not clear on how it would help.

That being said, on this issue... I wouldn't be shocked to find out they are holding off to gain support for a more comprehensive plan, but I WOULD be shocked to hear that Obama actually said as much to Kyl. That would just be idiotic.
 
INRM said:
Of course he's not strengthening border security on purpose. The democrats have a vested interest in the Hispanic vote, so they want to get a lot of illegal immigrants to become citizens for this purpose.
Click to expand...
Why bother waiting for them to become citizens? That's why they're fighting having to show identification at the polls. Your word that you are a citizen is good enough.
 
Brainster said:
Well, that settles it, provided Obama was the president in 2008. Errr.
Click to expand...
No, it proves that the oft-repeated canard that the federal government is not enforcing immigration laws is not only wrong, it's absurdly wrong since enforcement is at record levels.

Or do you suppose enforcement efforts have dropped off in the last two years? Those statistics aren't available yet, but I'm happy to bet that there has been no significant drop off in these numbers. (If I had to make a projection, I'd say the trend will continue to higher numbers.)

ETA: In case people didn't bother to look at this page the last time I posted the link:
http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0810/081023washington.htm
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Sorry, them catching a few percent is hardly impressive.
Click to expand...

Compared to what?

And remember, people have been saying simply that the federal government isn't enforcing immigration laws, which of course is not true.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Compared to what?
Click to expand...

Hell, more people are arrested for weed.

And remember, people have been saying simply that the federal government isn't enforcing immigration laws, which of course is not true.
Click to expand...

OK, so they should say the federal government does a horrible job of enforcing immigration laws instead.
 
Ysidro said:
So why didn't Bush do it? Come on, he must have had a good reason completely different from Obama's right?

Right?

Guys?
Click to expand...

Nope. His stance on immigration was about the same as Obama's. He supported "comprehensive reform" as opposed to securing the border. It was one of the things Bush got the most flack for from conservatives, even more than spending or the Harriet Myers nomination.

Karl Rove Forced To Defend Bush Immigration Policy - On Fox News?

From the wiki page for George W. BushWP:
In May 2004, Gallup reported that 89% of the Republican electorate approved of Bush.[289] However, the support waned due mostly to a minority of Republicans' frustration with him on issues of spending, illegal immigration, and Middle Eastern affairs.[290]
Click to expand...

And for a little flavor of criticism from actual republicans, here's Michelle Malkin in 2007: Dissecting the Bush/Kennedy shamnesty bill.

Google "Bush shamnesty" and you'll get tons of hits.
 
A bit more evidence that Obama is not strengthening the border on purpose:
The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement, Harold Hurtt, on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials on the issue.

as a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of "sanctuary city" policies, by which illegal immigrants who don't commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don't check for immigration papers.
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/obama-administration-picks-critic-immigration-enforcement-key-role-ice/
 
WildCat said:
Why bother waiting for them to become citizens? That's why they're fighting having to show identification at the polls. Your word that you are a citizen is good enough.
Click to expand...

I voted in the 2004 election in Socorro, New Mexico. I went to the polling station, and the nice lady there that was checking people in asked me to find my name on a list and check it off. It was more than just a little bit disconcerting.
 
If it were true, one wonders why Obama would be so careless telling a Republic* that. Seems to me that party has a habit of projecting their own motives on the Democrats. Calling the BP escrow fund a slush fund, for example, is reminiscent of Bush's croneyism. There was no reason to suggest Obama would direct any of those funds as political favors.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
If it were true, one wonders why Obama would be so careless telling a Republic* that.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's part of a larger Democ* strategy that we don't know about.





(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Republic Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Democ Party, in response.)
 
"During that secret meeting with Senator Kyl, he told me that he liked me. A LOT. He then touched my knee."

/Sarah Palin type wink.
 
So Kyl's now backing up a bit - says his comments were "taken a bit out of context". When he said they, he was referring to the president's base, not the administration.

Nice.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I voted in the 2004 election in Socorro, New Mexico. I went to the polling station, and the nice lady there that was checking people in asked me to find my name on a list and check it off. It was more than just a little bit disconcerting.
Click to expand...

I think it may be mostly this:

Call Rand-McNally!
 
Looks like another 5 states are considering Arizona's new immigration law for them selves.

http://www.lauraingraham.com/blog?c...yID=5&categoryID=6&categoryID=9&categoryID=10

June 25, 2010

States of Defiance: 5 states consider AZ-style immigration laws
Posted by Staff
Proposals similar to Arizona's tough new law against illegal immigraton are under consideration across the country.

Five states - South Carolina, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Michigan - are looking at Arizona-style legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The group said lawmakers in 17 other states, including Texas, had expressed support for similar measures.

In the first three months of this year, legislators in 45 states introduced 1,180 bills or resolutions dealing with immigrants, an unprecedented number, according to the NCSL. By the end of March, 107 laws and 87 resolutions had been adopted by 34 states, with 38 bills pending.
Click to expand...
 
Wait, so a racist Teabagger was lying about about a Democratic President regarding a subject sure to inflame other racist Teabaggers? And now he claims he quoted himself out of context? I refuse to believe this! Teabaggers would never do such a thing. Kyl is obviously not a true racist Teabagger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom