Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4z5UlLCZm8[/youtube]

There's only 1 direction these buses should be heading, and that is south to Mexico..

Well, they stopped a 3rd round of busses:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Cali ... ol-Station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, a leaked DHS memo:
"....only 0.1 percent of the Central American minors illegally entering the U.S. having been deported in Fiscal Year 2013, down from two percent prior, plays a significant role in why the current border crisis is occurring...."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texa ... der-Crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we let 99.9% stay. If we instead immediately sent them all back, they'd stop coming....this is all on Obama. Its his DHS that's not sending them back and letting them stay. And he's the one who said if you come here as a child you can stay...

BDKJMU wrote:Well, they stopped a 3rd round of busses:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Cali ... ol-Station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, a leaked DHS memo:
"....only 0.1 percent of the Central American minors illegally entering the U.S. having been deported in Fiscal Year 2013, down from two percent prior, plays a significant role in why the current border crisis is occurring...."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texa ... der-Crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we let 99.9% stay. If we instead immediately sent them all back, they'd stop coming....this is all on Obama. Its his DHS that's not sending them back and letting them stay. And he's the one who said if you come here as a child you can stay...

BDMBFK

How else are we going to keep wages down, Poindexter?

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 made it impossible to deport unaccompanied minors without first appearing before an immigration judge.

No doubt these dorks turned around and patronized businesses that employ illegals. Conks.

BDKJMU wrote:Well, they stopped a 3rd round of busses:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Cali ... ol-Station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, a leaked DHS memo:
"....only 0.1 percent of the Central American minors illegally entering the U.S. having been deported in Fiscal Year 2013, down from two percent prior, plays a significant role in why the current border crisis is occurring...."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texa ... der-Crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we let 99.9% stay. If we instead immediately sent them all back, they'd stop coming....this is all on Obama. Its his DHS that's not sending them back and letting them stay. And he's the one who said if you come here as a child you can stay...

99.9% of conk illegal employers probably go unprosecuted too.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 made it impossible to deport unaccompanied minors without first appearing before an immigration judge.

Fucking Donks.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Well, they stopped a 3rd round of busses:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Cali ... ol-Station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, a leaked DHS memo:
"....only 0.1 percent of the Central American minors illegally entering the U.S. having been deported in Fiscal Year 2013, down from two percent prior, plays a significant role in why the current border crisis is occurring...."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texa ... der-Crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we let 99.9% stay. If we instead immediately sent them all back, they'd stop coming....this is all on Obama. Its his DHS that's not sending them back and letting them stay. And he's the one who said if you come here as a child you can stay...

99.9% of conk illegal employers probably go unprosecuted too.

So do 100% of Donk employers..................

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: So do 100% of Donk employers..................

Donk employers? Didn't know welfare queens had employees.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: So do 100% of Donk employers..................

Donk employers? Didn't know welfare queens had employees.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 made it impossible to deport unaccompanied minors without first appearing before an immigration judge.

nope. not impossible

all Obama has to do is issue another executive order to DHS to disregard the law. Congress will let him get away with it just like they did when he ordered ICE to stop deporting the Dreamers

He could stop this right now

He could also lean on the Central American governments who are already asking "how much is it worth to you" to accept these kids back

i would start with threatening to rescind TPS and take away some aid dollars

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 made it impossible to deport unaccompanied minors without first appearing before an immigration judge.

nope. not impossible

all Obama has to do is issue another executive order to DHS to disregard the law. Congress will let him get away with it just like they did when he ordered ICE to stop deporting the Dreamers

He could stop this right now

He could also lean on the Central American governments who are already asking "how much is it worth to you" to accept these kids back

i would start with threatening to rescind TPS and take away some aid dollars

You're expecting Obama to play hard ball?

Baldy wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 made it impossible to deport unaccompanied minors without first appearing before an immigration judge.

Fucking Donks.

I guess that I should have added that it passed by unanimous consent and was signed in law by Dubya.

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 made it impossible to deport unaccompanied minors without first appearing before an immigration judge.

nope. not impossible

all Obama has to do is issue another executive order to DHS to disregard the law. Congress will let him get away with it just like they did when he ordered ICE to stop deporting the Dreamers

He could stop this right now

He could also lean on the Central American governments who are already asking "how much is it worth to you" to accept these kids back

i would start with threatening to rescind TPS and take away some aid dollars

He's trying to get Congress to do this.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /11915723/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If he does it by executive order you'll bitch about him like you are in the executive order thread.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Baldy wrote: **** Donks.

I guess that I should have added that it passed by unanimous consent and was signed in law by Dubya.

CID1990 wrote:
nope. not impossible

all Obama has to do is issue another executive order to DHS to disregard the law. Congress will let him get away with it just like they did when he ordered ICE to stop deporting the Dreamers

He could stop this right now

He could also lean on the Central American governments who are already asking "how much is it worth to you" to accept these kids back

i would start with threatening to rescind TPS and take away some aid dollars

He's trying to get Congress to do this.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /11915723/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If he does it by executive order you'll bitch about him like you are in the executive order thread.

Nope

I have no problem with the executive doing it when there are exigent circumstances

when it is done for short term
political gain thats a different story

and you mean exigent from your perspective.

the exigent circumstances you disagree with are still exigent. i.e. delaying the ACA employer mandate you were bitching about in the other thread.

this is certainly exigent as it was otherwise going into effect in a matter of months. and, really, i suspect you overall support the delay in the employer mandate. just not by executive order.

and, in this thread you say that you have no problem with the executive doing it if there are exigent circumstances. explain how the employer mandate wasn't an exigent circumstance.

From Obama's perspective I can see how delaying the employer mandate was exigent. He knew that if he didn't delay it beyond the elections, the Dems would get their asses handed to them. Of course, the Dems are going to get their asses handed to them anyway.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Baldy wrote: Fucking Donks.

I guess that I should have added that it passed by unanimous consent and was signed in law by Dubya.

No shit jellybean. Passed by unanimous consent by a 100% Donk controlled Congress, and everyone knew Dubs was an amnesty kinda guy.

Skjellyfetti wrote:and you mean exigent from your perspective.

the exigent circumstances you disagree with are still exigent. i.e. delaying the ACA employer mandate you were bitching about in the other thread.

this is certainly exigent as it was otherwise going into effect in a matter of months. and, really, i suspect you overall support the delay in the employer mandate. just not by executive order.

and, in this thread you say that you have no problem with the executive doing it if there are exigent circumstances. explain how the employer mandate wasn't an exigent circumstance.

you are pretty dense if you dont see it

ALL of Obama's tweaks to the ACA were to soften the political blows of a poorly written law- and contrary to what you say- i have spilled very little ink on that- as i said in the other thread it was telling ICE to stop deporting certain classes of illegals which was so brazen.

There is a HUGE difference between thise examples (certainly exigent if you are a liberal.. we cant have the consequences of our dumb law coming back to bite us at the ballot box, can we?)

the situation on the border was tailor made for an executive action but Obama cannot do it because .... drum roll... he and his few shoulder canaries cannot decide if by doing so he will waste the political capital he gained by, ironically, ignoring another immigration law

but none of this matters to you- except that your argument that it would be impossible to just send those kids back is blowed up

BDKJMU wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4z5UlLCZm8[/youtube]

There's only 1 direction these buses should be heading, and that is south to Mexico..

Aren't they from Central America?

I'm torn on this. Part of me is pissed that Obama has not enforced out immigration laws. A couple of colleagues on the Border Patrol have told me how difficult it is for them to actually enforce the laws they swore to uphold. Many of these children are coming here and when asked why, they state they believe Obama will allow them to stay.

Another part of me feels sorry for the children, coming alone or travelling with cartels, these children have been examined and show signs of sexual abuse, mutilation, starvation and much more. What can we do with these kids? It's a tough situation that our Failed President and Legislature have put us in. If you want to immigrate to the US, then don't be a border jumper. Go through it properly.

It's a sad situation for those that think they are getting a free pass, especially the children. We have a grave humanitarian issue on our hands, not just an immigration problem.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4z5UlLCZm8[/youtube]

There's only 1 direction these buses should be heading, and that is south to Mexico..

Aren't they from Central America?

Yes, and therein lies one of the problems.

The law that requires UACs to be turned over to HHS applies to Central Americans. Mexicans can be kicked directly back across the border.

The law itself was well intended- if we just kick kids back across the border, then when they wind up trafficked or victimized it becomes Big Bad Evil America''s fault as usual. HHS is better equipped to place the children than DHS. However, that usually means placing them with family members who are already in the US (some of THEM are illegal as well but on protected status like most Salvadorans). Once this happens, the kids are effectively on TPS and will not be removed, and will eventually adjust status to LPR.

Most of these "Dreamers" we hear about got here precisely in this manner, and now we talk about how they should be allowe to stay. I am actually on the fence about most of them, and probably would be all for some kind of an amnesty predicated on better border security and a revamped visa program. But after the double cross after the last amnesty in the 80s it should come as no surprise that people are sceptical about the government's desire to truly enforce border controls.

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Aren't they from Central America?

Yes, and therein lies one of the problems.

The law that requires UACs to be turned over to HHS applies to Central Americans. Mexicans can be kicked directly back across the border.

The law itself was well intended- if we just kick kids back across the border, then when they wind up trafficked or victimized it becomes Big Bad Evil America''s fault as usual. HHS is better equipped to place the children than DHS. However, that usually means placing them with family members who are already in the US (some of THEM are illegal as well but on protected status like most Salvadorans). Once this happens, the kids are effectively on TPS and will not be removed, and will eventually adjust status to LPR.

Most of these "Dreamers" we hear about got here precisely in this manner, and now we talk about how they should be allowe to stay. I am actually on the fence about most of them, and probably would be all for some kind of an amnesty predicated on better border security and a revamped visa program. But after the double cross after the last amnesty in the 80s it should come as no surprise that people are sceptical about the government's desire to truly enforce border controls.

Good post, Cid. It's a sticky situation for sure.

Require national voter ID, and enforce proof of citizenship for voter registration, and this problem goes away.

I'd bet my life.

Ibanez wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Yes, and therein lies one of the problems.

The law that requires UACs to be turned over to HHS applies to Central Americans. Mexicans can be kicked directly back across the border.

The law itself was well intended- if we just kick kids back across the border, then when they wind up trafficked or victimized it becomes Big Bad Evil America''s fault as usual. HHS is better equipped to place the children than DHS. However, that usually means placing them with family members who are already in the US (some of THEM are illegal as well but on protected status like most Salvadorans). Once this happens, the kids are effectively on TPS and will not be removed, and will eventually adjust status to LPR.

Most of these "Dreamers" we hear about got here precisely in this manner, and now we talk about how they should be allowe to stay. I am actually on the fence about most of them, and probably would be all for some kind of an amnesty predicated on better border security and a revamped visa program. But after the double cross after the last amnesty in the 80s it should come as no surprise that people are sceptical about the government's desire to truly enforce border controls.

Good post, Cid. It's a sticky situation for sure.

And now back to our discussion about the difference between a humanitarian and national security crisis (exigent circumstance) and a political problem (not exigent) for the benefit of the simple minded

travelinman67 wrote:Require national voter ID, and enforce proof of citizenship for voter registration, and this problem goes away.

I'd bet my life.

Is that really required? I don't know about the other 49 states, but in SC, to get a DL or just a State issued ID, you need to prove the following:

A completed Application for a Non-Commercial Credential (Class D, E, F, G, M, or an ID) (Form 447-NC).
Proof of your identity and citizenship (e.g. original birth certificate, U.S. passport, or original Certificate of Naturalization).
Proof of your Social Security number (e.g. Social Security Card, U.S. military photo ID card, or Medicare card).
Proof of your SC residence (e.g. recent utility bill, current SC payroll stub, or SC student ID card).

Plus, it's free (for people 17 and older). The problem is getting people the IDs. But in 2014, how many people don't have some sort of state issued identification? I find it amazing that there's a population out there who can't provide some government issue ID to prove who they are.

Maybe it's not that simple. I know legal immigrants can get one, but I don't know if it says anything on it or what.