Interior Enforcement Bill

Interior Enforcement Bill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 8:37:16 AM)
http://gowdy.house.gov/uploadedfiles/interior_enforcement_bill_text.pdf This bill allows local enforcement to unilaterally assist the Fed in the enforcement of the law of the land. I am pretty sure that Obama will veto it if it ever gets that far but I personally think it is a good idea.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 10:48:27 AM)
Obviously it allows Red State fanatics to move on immigration, abortion, drugs, etc etc regardless of any restraining influence from the feds and solely based on their insane psycho-ideology. This is a recipe for police state extremism. [sm=couch.gif]

BamaD -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 11:11:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking Obviously it allows Red State fanatics to move on immigration, abortion, drugs, etc etc regardless of any restraining influence from the feds and solely based on their insane psycho-ideology. This is a recipe for police state extremism. [sm=couch.gif] Or makes up for the inability for the Feds to be everywhere.

Sanity -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 11:15:33 AM)
Or make up for selective enforcement by a rabidly ideologically biased executive branch

bounty44 -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 11:23:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking Obviously it allows Red State fanatics to move on immigration, abortion, drugs, etc etc regardless of any restraining influence from the feds and solely based on their insane psycho-ideology. This is a recipe for police state extremism. [sm=couch.gif] I noticed the bill is 177 pages, did you actually read it?

Aylee -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 11:58:42 AM)
When did abortion become federal law? I just wonder because everything I have seen is that there are differences from state to state and that it is state legislatures who raise bills to be discussed and/or voted on.

Marini -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 2:33:54 PM)
Why do you think President Obama will veto this bill? Is there a limit to how many threads a person can start on a message board? KD you have about 6 going on here.

KenDckey -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 2:41:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Why do you think President Obama will veto this bill? Is there a limit to how many threads a person can start on a message board? KD you have about 6 going on here. I know my mind is going 10000 miles per hr lately in my old age. LOL I think Obama will veto it because of immigration.

Marini -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 3:02:17 PM)
That's okay, my mind tends to go in many directions also. I was curious, you are on a roll.

cloudboy -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 3:54:35 PM)
Can you please explain why you are for: (1) Mass Deportations (2) Not keeping families together (3) Massive spending on immigration enforcement despite a record of high inefficiency (4) Giving your middle finger to a large segment people ready to contribute and assimilate into the USA as your forefathers did (5) Reducing economic growth in favor of an expanded state role to police a broken immigration system

KenDckey -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 5:38:29 PM)
Sure Cloudboy be glad to I am against it because the law wasn't followed. The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is the degree of the law violation. Non the less the law was broken. The difference between legal and illegal immigration is the difference in living and dying by murder. One is leagle (living) and one is a violation of the law (murder). To my knowledge there is no deference in degree of law violation in illegal immigration. You change the law and say if you walk across the border you are in legally or if you change the law and say you are automatically a citizen, then so be it. Until then.....

BamaD -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 6:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Can you please explain why you are for: (1) Mass Deportations (2) Not keeping families together (3) Massive spending on immigration enforcement despite a record of high inefficiency (4) Giving your middle finger to a large segment people ready to contribute and assimilate into the USA as your forefathers did (5) Reducing economic growth in favor of an expanded state role to police a broken immigration system Nothing says families have to be broken up, anchor babies would have dual citizenship. Nobody wants to just pour money into enforcement, we want to fix enforcement. They don't want to assimilate, they was us to. Nobody wants to shut off immigration, but we don't want reward violating the law.

Aylee -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 6:40:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Can you please explain why you are for: (1) Mass Deportations (2) Not keeping families together (3) Massive spending on immigration enforcement despite a record of high inefficiency (4) Giving your middle finger to a large segment people ready to contribute and assimilate into the USA as your forefathers did (5) Reducing economic growth in favor of an expanded state role to police a broken immigration system Because they are breaking the law and we are supposed to be a society based on laws. There is no rule that says deported people may not take their children with them. I would say stop the system of "detained, prosecuted, and incarcerated," and go back to what we had before. Persons caught crossing the border were charged with a civil offense, "Entry Without Inspection" (EWI) and were given the option of "voluntary departure" by which they were returned to the other side of the border, without overnight detention or criminal charge (unless they had previously been deported from the U.S.) Then they should do so legally. See my third answer.

cloudboy -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 7:34:59 PM)
That's some BAD legalese. So, your answer IS: I. YES, I WANT MASS DEPORTATIONS. II. YES, I WANT TO RIP FAMILIES APART. III. YES, I WANT TO SPEND EVEN MORE THAT $18 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR ON ENFORCEMENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ITS BROKEN AND INEFFICIENCT IV. YES, I AM GIVING MY MIDDLE FIGURE TO ASPIRING IMMIGRANTS. I'M HERE ALREADY AND CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT MY FOREFATHERS WENT THROUGH V. YES, I LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSE ECONOMIC GROWTH. LET'S HANDLE THIS PROBLEM LIKE A POLICE STATE WOULD Smart people want to change the laws the because they are outdated.

cloudboy -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 7:38:52 PM)
Regulations are changed all the time. Immigration regulations are not "criminal laws" they are "administrative laws." Why can traffic laws, environmental laws, drug laws, and other laws be changed to help society, but immigration laws --- oooops, sorry we can't change them. We have to leave the 1996 Immigration Act (19 years old) on the books AS IS forever and ever. Grow up people. If you want penalties, impose fines. Move on. Move forward. Drop the ball and chain outlook. Channel your inner RONALD REAGAN on this one.

BamaD -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 8:15:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Regulations are changed all the time. Immigration regulations are not "criminal laws" they are "administrative laws." Why can traffic laws, environmental laws, drug laws, and other laws be changed to help society, but immigration laws --- oooops, sorry we can't change them. We have to leave the 1996 Immigration Act (19 years old) on the books AS IS forever and ever. Grow up people. If you want penalties, impose fines. Move on. Move forward. Drop the ball and chain outlook. Channel your inner RONALD REAGAN on this one. So you want to move illegals ahead of people who follow the rules. How is your Spanish. Wanting to enforce the law doesn't mean any of the things you want it to.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 10:10:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Regulations are changed all the time. Immigration regulations are not "criminal laws" they are "administrative laws." Why can traffic laws, environmental laws, drug laws, and other laws be changed to help society, but immigration laws --- oooops, sorry we can't change them. We have to leave the 1996 Immigration Act (19 years old) on the books AS IS forever and ever. Grow up people. If you want penalties, impose fines. Move on. Move forward. Drop the ball and chain outlook. Channel your inner RONALD REAGAN on this one. So you want to move illegals ahead of people who follow the rules. How is your Spanish. Wanting to enforce the law doesn't mean any of the things you want it to. He'll never get it, Bama...he'll, every time hrs been asked about what we should tell the ones who've done the immigration process legally, he never has an answer. Ask him why we should not follow the quotas on the number of citizens allowed in from each country every year and he doesn't have an answer.

KenDckey -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/1/2015 11:10:37 PM)
Sometimes I think that the more liberal side wants to punish those that follow the law and wait their turn.

Sanity -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/2/2015 6:43:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Sometimes I think that the more liberal side wants to punish those that follow the law and wait their turn. Theyre not "liberal" - theres nothing liberal about them. Their sole aim is to bring in people who will vote for leftists because they offer them "amnesty" and free stuff in exchange for their votes, in exchange for power They want to use them, just like they use other minorities

cloudboy -> RE: Interior Enforcement Bill (3/2/2015 8:04:55 AM)
It might help if you actually met some of these aspiring immigrants instead of regarding them as a scourge to your own sensibilities.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125