Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on July 20, 2014, 08:49:56 PM
-
IT IS OFFICIAL! Fox news is officially a shitbag, liberal, obama-kneepadding amnesty machine. They're shitting all over Cruz because... drum roll please... he wants to actually enforce American immigration law.
LOL @ The bolded part... Chris Wallace whining because we don't just let illegals come here because it's bad in their country. Hey, it's bad in North Korea too... who wants 5 million north korean children arriving tomorrow? lol. Pathetic all the way. Shame on you, fox news and all who support you.
Fox host calls out Ted Cruz’s false compassion on border crisis: Your plan ‘doesn’t help the kids’
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Sunday declared that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and other Democrats “want” a situation where refugee children were maimed and brutalized.
In an interview on Fox News, Cruz told host Chris Wallace that Reid and President Barack Obama were holding thousands of children “ransom” because they had been unwilling to “fix the problem” by deporting every undocumented immigrant child in the U.S.
“You keep talking about helping the kids,” Wallace noted. “One question I have is, how do you help the kids — I understand how it helps the United States not to allow them to come into this country — how does it help the kids to just say, ‘Hey, you’ve got to stay in Central America.’”
“You talk about the violence in Central America, the murder rate in some of these countries,” Wallace added. “I’m not saying it’s our responsibility to help the kids, but it doesn’t help the kids.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/20/fox-host-calls-out-ted-cruzs-false-compassion-on-border-crisis-your-plan-doesnt-help-the-kids/
-
Another day, another lie. Nothing new here.
-
Just asking a question here... Whose law was implemented in 2008 that forbade the immediate deportation if children?
-
No idea.
-
In fact, desperate Central American parents are exploiting separate legal loopholes in American border security passed before Obama took office.
Unaccompanied minors fall under the bipartisan law, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
That law says the children cannot be sent back. They must instead be held humanely by the Department of Health and Human Services until the courts release them to a “suitable family member” in this country.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/analysis-whats-the-real-reason-behind-central-american-immigrant-wave-u-s-law/&sa=U&ei=lErNU-P6AYf1oATco4KIAw&ved=0CCMQFjAD&sig2=a1z3JLcojLsQi7ifQjOXoQ&usg=AFQjCNHJ99Av-S_5Xnwnudn-2X5B6HS7Ew
-
In fact, desperate Central American parents are exploiting separate legal loopholes in American border security passed before Obama took office.
Unaccompanied minors fall under the bipartisan law, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
That law says the children cannot be sent back. They must instead be held humanely by the Department of Health and Human Services until the courts release them to a “suitable family member” in this country.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/analysis-whats-the-real-reason-behind-central-american-immigrant-wave-u-s-law/&sa=U&ei=lErNU-P6AYf1oATco4KIAw&ved=0CCMQFjAD&sig2=a1z3JLcojLsQi7ifQjOXoQ&usg=AFQjCNHJ99Av-S_5Xnwnudn-2X5B6HS7Ew
Even if true ("exploiting separate legal loopholes") that does't excuse poor leadership on this issue. The buck stops at the top. Or at least it did before Obama took office.
-
In fact, desperate Central American parents are exploiting separate legal loopholes in American border security passed before Obama took office.
Unaccompanied minors fall under the bipartisan law, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
That law says the children cannot be sent back. They must instead be held humanely by the Department of Health and Human Services until the courts release them to a “suitable family member” in this country.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/analysis-whats-the-real-reason-behind-central-american-immigrant-wave-u-s-law/&sa=U&ei=lErNU-P6AYf1oATco4KIAw&ved=0CCMQFjAD&sig2=a1z3JLcojLsQi7ifQjOXoQ&usg=AFQjCNHJ99Av-S_5Xnwnudn-2X5B6HS7Ew
So why now all of a sudden?
If this was truly to blame, we would have seen this in 2008, 2009, 2010... why did they just randomly hold off until 2014? ::)
-
Even if true ("exploiting separate legal loopholes") that does't excuse poor leadership on this issue. The buck stops at the top. Or at least it did before Obama took office.
then if he supercedes a LAW....hes called a Tyrant, king, and blah blah...
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/02/immigration-obama-deportation-children-border/11915723/
but who gives a shit.. theyre just facts....what do the talking heads tell me?
-
then if he supercedes a LAW....hes called a Tyrant, king, and blah blah...
If he doesn't enforce the law he is violating his Constitutional duty as president. But I don't think anyone is asking him to not enforce the law or "supercede" the law. He needs to do his friggin job.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/02/immigration-obama-deportation-children-border/11915723/
but who gives a shit.. theyre just facts....what do the talking heads tell me?
He should not be allowing them to get here in the first place moron
-
IF Fox News says it, it is because Rupert M. wants it.
-
So why now all of a sudden?
If this was truly to blame, we would have seen this in 2008, 2009, 2010... why did they just randomly hold off until 2014? ::)
-
No idea.
what a surprise
::)
-
So why now all of a sudden?
If this was truly to blame, we would have seen this in 2008, 2009, 2010... why did they just randomly hold off until 2014? ::)
Still crickets...
-
Just asking a question here... Whose law was implemented in 2008 that forbade the immediate deportation if children?
And you think that conservatives supported Bush's view of illegal immigration?
You are another low information voter. Step off child. You know nothing.
-
How does that help the children?
USA doesn't need to help them. That help needs to come from their own home countries. Why are the dumocrats and the RINOs not putting any responsibility on those foreign countries? It is their responsibility to crack down on crime.
By the way, where can we send all those children from Chicago, St. Louis and Compton that live every day in danger of falling victim to gang violence? Canada?
-
And you think that conservatives supported Bush's view of illegal immigration?
You are another low information voter. Step off child. You know nothing.
what does that have to do with the price of tea in china...
There is a law in place. He is following the law.
Nothing more to talk about..
No go run along and get "information" from sean hannity and rush limbaugh
-
How does that help the children?
USA doesn't need to help them. That help needs to come from their own home countries. Why are the dumocrats and the RINOs not putting any responsibility on those foreign countries? It is their responsibility to crack down on crime.
Perry said their deaths are on Obama's hands.
IMO, Obama is acting like a republincan here - Perry is the lib that wants to use US resources to help illegals.
-
And of course all these libtards focus on the children. Awwwwww, the poor little kids. Look at them. So innocent. So much in need. Forget the law, just give'm amnesty.
The fact is only 1/4 of those crossing are children or less than 18 years old. Probably even less under the age of 10.
Their age shouldn't matter anyway. They all have to go back.
-
And of course all these libtards focus on the children. Awwwwww, the poor little kids. Look at them. So innocent. So much in need. Forget the law, just give'm amnesty.The fact is only 1/4 of those crossing are children or less than 18 years old. Probably even less under the age of 10.
Their age shouldn't matter anyway. They all have to go back.
oh Jesus H Christ, talk about "low information"
The law that Bush put in place in 2008 made it illegal to deport the children tho crossed the border......you did know that right?
-
oh Jesus H Christ, talk about "low information"
The law that Bush put in place in 2008 made it illegal to deport the children tho crossed the border......you did know that right?
You sure about that? You're taking a sentence from an op ed piece and running with it. Are these kids victims of human trafficking?
-
You sure about that? You're taking a sentence from an op ed piece and running with it. Are these kids victims of human trafficking?
glad you asked.... give me a sec
-
1) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/analysis-whats-the-real-reason-behind-central-american-immigrant-wave-u-s-law/
2) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/02/immigration-obama-deportation-children-border/11915723/
3) http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/politics/immigration-unintended-consequences/
Washington (CNN) -- It was a good idea back in 2008, in the final days of the Bush administration.
With almost no opposition, Congress passed a new law to protect immigrant children from sex traffickers trying to bring them to the United States. It required judges to hold hearings for youngsters from countries other than neighboring Mexico and Canada, preventing them from possibly getting turned away at the border.
More than five years later, though, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Action Act is having unintended consequences. It contributes to the surge of child migrants from Central America overwhelming the U.S. immigration system.
Immigration Debate
'Documented' reporter detained at airport Now some in Congress want to change the law -- a possibility that could bring more unintended consequences
How did a law aimed at sex traffickers play a role in Central American kids coming here?
A desire to crack down on the global child slave trade led to the law named for a 19th Century British abolitionist. President George W. Bush signed it the month before he left the White House.
It ensured that children who came to the United States got a full immigration hearing instead of being turned away or sent back. The goal of the hearing? To determine if the children had a valid claim for asylum.
Here's the catch: The immigration courts are so backlogged that it can take years for a child's hearing date to come around. As they wait, most stay with relatives or friends already in the country, attend school and generally go about their lives.
It didn't take long for word to spread to families in Central America: Send the kids, and they'll end up in immigration limbo with little threat of deportation -- all the while getting a decent education.
-
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/decodedc/bush-era-law-makes-it-hard-to-return-unaccompanied-kids-to-central-america
But a 2008 law makes it nearly impossible to repatriate unaccompanied minors to Central America without letting them appear before an immigration judge. And so now the president is seeking to change that law. Obama sent a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, last week saying he would ask Congress to give the Homeland Security secretary more flexibility to send minors back to Central America.
Just before leaving office, on Dec. 23, 2008, George W. Bush signed into law the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. This bipartisan measure, named for a 19th century British abolitionist, was aimed at extending and beefing up efforts to prevent and prosecute human trafficking and protect the victims of trafficking. More importantly, it described exactly how unaccompanied children crossing the border must be treated.
-
1) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/analysis-whats-the-real-reason-behind-central-american-immigrant-wave-u-s-law/
2) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/02/immigration-obama-deportation-children-border/11915723/
3) http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/politics/immigration-unintended-consequences/
Washington (CNN) -- It was a good idea back in 2008, in the final days of the Bush administration.
With almost no opposition, Congress passed a new law to protect immigrant children from sex traffickers trying to bring them to the United States. It required judges to hold hearings for youngsters from countries other than neighboring Mexico and Canada, preventing them from possibly getting turned away at the border.
More than five years later, though, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Action Act is having unintended consequences. It contributes to the surge of child migrants from Central America overwhelming the U.S. immigration system.
Immigration Debate
'Documented' reporter detained at airport Now some in Congress want to change the law -- a possibility that could bring more unintended consequences
How did a law aimed at sex traffickers play a role in Central American kids coming here?
A desire to crack down on the global child slave trade led to the law named for a 19th Century British abolitionist. President George W. Bush signed it the month before he left the White House.
It ensured that children who came to the United States got a full immigration hearing instead of being turned away or sent back. The goal of the hearing? To determine if the children had a valid claim for asylum.
Here's the catch: The immigration courts are so backlogged that it can take years for a child's hearing date to come around. As they wait, most stay with relatives or friends already in the country, attend school and generally go about their lives.
It didn't take long for word to spread to families in Central America: Send the kids, and they'll end up in immigration limbo with little threat of deportation -- all the while getting a decent education.
The first link is one you already posted. The second and third say the same thing as the first. None of them answer the question I asked, which is whether these are the kids of human trafficking.
I also read this from the third link: "The government says up to 90,000 children will arrive on their own this year, compared with about 39,000 the Border Patrol detained last year." I guess it's possible that there was a spike in purported human trafficking that resulted the number doubling, but it's more likely that people know it's open season on our borders, with the president essentially bypassing Congress on amnesty.
-
The first link is one you already posted. The second and third say the same thing as the first. None of them answer the question I asked, which is whether these are the kids of human trafficking.
I also read this from the third link: "The government says up to 90,000 children will arrive on their own this year, compared with about 39,000 the Border Patrol detained last year." I guess it's possible that there was a spike in purported human trafficking that resulted the number doubling, but it's more likely that people know it's open season on our borders, with the president essentially bypassing Congress on amnesty.
As per the law. It is illegal to deport alien children. Its intensions were to curb human trafficking, but its doesnt differentiate between which children are a victim of trafficking. It applies to all unaccompanied children...... hence, the reason they cant be deported immediatly... And now Obama is trying to close the loophole in the law...
Is it a bit more clear?
-
The first link is one you already posted. The second and third say the same thing as the first. None of them answer the question I asked, which is whether these are the kids of human trafficking.
I also read this from the third link: "The government says up to 90,000 children will arrive on their own this year, compared with about 39,000 the Border Patrol detained last year." I guess it's possible that there was a spike in purported human trafficking that resulted the number doubling, but it's more likely that people know it's open season on our borders, with the president essentially bypassing Congress on amnesty.
Procedures for helping young unaccompanied illegal immigrants are based in part on legislation approved by Congress in 2008, yet some lawmakers who did not object to the measure then are against the procedures now.
Gov. Mary Fallin and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, were members of the U.S. House when the bill passed without objection.
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 also passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
The act was mainly intended to help human trafficking victims, but one part had provisions for unaccompanied illegal immigrants under age 18.
-
As per the law. It is illegal to deport alien children. Its intensions were to curb human trafficking, but its doesnt differentiate between which children are a victim of trafficking. It applies to all unaccompanied children...... hence, the reason they cant be deported immediatly... And now Obama is trying to close the loophole in the law...
Is it a bit more clear?
Based on what I read (which is what you posted), it's illegal to deport the kids who are victims of human trafficking without a hearing. I didn't see the part that says all unaccompanied children are presumed to be victims of human trafficking, but if that's what the law says, then I understand.
-
Great info, Option D. You've made it clear to us all that Obama is just following Bush policy here.
Personally, I think these whiny libs crying about this mess should stop disrepecting Dubya. He was the MAN as president and he's the man now. If he signed this law, then the hater-ass libs should just obey it, like Obama is doing.
-
Procedures for helping young unaccompanied illegal immigrants are based in part on legislation approved by Congress in 2008, yet some lawmakers who did not object to the measure then are against the procedures now.
Gov. Mary Fallin and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, were members of the U.S. House when the bill passed without objection.
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 also passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
The act was mainly intended to help human trafficking victims, but one part had provisions for unaccompanied illegal immigrants under age 18.
Which part of the law says that? (And I didn't even have to use 18 point font to ask that question.) :)
-
im not sure if youre fucking with me or you really dont understnd this.
but ill explain it once more. The bill was put into place with intensions to deal with human trafficking. One of the provisions of the bill was no immediate deportation of minors. And thats why we are where we are with this matter.
-
So why did they randomly wait until 2014 to start taking advantage of the law passed in 2008? ::)
This is clearly not the main reason behind the current situation. It is simply the only bs excuse the dems can come up with, while blaming bush/repubs for it at the same time.
-
im not sure if youre fucking with me or you really dont understnd this.
but ill explain it once more. The bill was put into place with intensions to deal with human trafficking. One of the provisions of the bill was no immediate deportation of minors. And thats why we are where we are with this matter.
I'm saying two things:
1. Which part of the law says what you are saying? Are you relying on a few editorials or did you read it yourself?
2. I don't believe this massive influx is because there was a spike in human trafficking. I think the massive influx is related to the president's leadership failure when it comes to securing the border.
-
I'm saying two things:
1. Which part of the law says what you are saying? Are you relying on a few editorials or did you read it yourself?
2. I don't believe this massive influx is because there was a spike in human trafficking. I think the massive influx is related to the president's leadership failure when it comes to securing the border.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr7311#summary
Section235 -
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop policies and procedures to ensure that unaccompanied alien children in the United States are safely repatriated to their country of nationality or of last habitual residence.
Sets forth special rules for unaccompanied alien children from contiguous countries.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) develop a safe repatriation pilot program for alien children; and (2) negotiate child repatriation agreements between the United States and countries contiguous to the United States designed to protect children from severe forms of trafficking in persons.
States, with specified exceptions, that the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children in the United States shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Sets forth related provisions respecting: (1) notification of, and transfer to, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); (2) age determinations; (3) safe placement; (4) legal and child advocate access; (5) immigration status adjustment and asylum protections; and (6) assistance eligibility.
Authorizes the Secretary of Heath and Human Services to award grants to, and enter into contracts with, voluntary agencies to carry out such responsibilities.
-
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr7311#summary
Section235 -
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop policies and procedures to ensure that unaccompanied alien children in the United States are safely repatriated to their country of nationality or of last habitual residence.
Sets forth special rules for unaccompanied alien children from contiguous countries.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) develop a safe repatriation pilot program for alien children; and (2) negotiate child repatriation agreements between the United States and countries contiguous to the United States designed to protect children from severe forms of trafficking in persons.
States, with specified exceptions, that the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children in the United States shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Sets forth related provisions respecting: (1) notification of, and transfer to, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); (2) age determinations; (3) safe placement; (4) legal and child advocate access; (5) immigration status adjustment and asylum protections; and (6) assistance eligibility.
Authorizes the Secretary of Heath and Human Services to award grants to, and enter into contracts with, voluntary agencies to carry out such responsibilities.
Ok. Now we are making progress. :) Thanks. I can see an argument based on the language you provided. One caveat: this is a summary and not the actual language of the law.
-
Ok. Now we are making progress. :) Thanks. I can see an argument based on the language you provided. One caveat: this is a summary and not the actual language of the law.
ill get the actual abstract
-
So why did they randomly wait until 2014 to start taking advantage of the law passed in 2008? ::)
This is clearly not the main reason behind the current situation. It is simply the only bs excuse the dems can come up with, while blaming bush/repubs for it at the same time.
Still no reply.
-
Still no reply.
I did:
The first link is one you already posted. The second and third say the same thing as the first. None of them answer the question I asked, which is whether these are the kids of human trafficking.
I also read this from the third link: "The government says up to 90,000 children will arrive on their own this year, compared with about 39,000 the Border Patrol detained last year." I guess it's possible that there was a spike in purported human trafficking that resulted the number doubling, but it's more likely that people know it's open season on our borders, with the president essentially bypassing Congress on amnesty.
-
So why did they randomly wait until 2014 to start taking advantage of the law passed in 2008? ::)
This is clearly not the main reason behind the current situation. It is simply the only bs excuse the dems can come up with, while blaming bush/repubs for it at the same time.
I'm thinking that it's because the timing isn't random.
Some people in Central America who are in some way involved in the transport of people across the southern border (including both illegal smugglers and legal immigration lawyers) have surely known about the law for some years now. If more and more children are arriving only recently then it's not only because knowledge of the law is becoming more widespread, it's likely also because the environments in the kids' countries of origin is perceived to have become dangerous enough for parents to think their best option is to send their unaccompanied kids away to an uncertain future in a foreign country.
-
And of course all these libtards focus on the children. Awwwwww, the poor little kids. Look at them. So innocent. So much in need. Forget the law, just give'm amnesty.
...
Their age shouldn't matter anyway. They all have to go back.
LOL. You are such a tool...for the left.
What I mean is that when hard-hearted extremist righties like you speak openly about their lack of concern for the fate of innocent children, all you do is make it obvious to most others (of all political stripes) that you are not like them.
'Fess up, Dario: At the end of Toy Story 3, you WANTED the toys to fall into the fire of the incinerator, didn't you? LOL
-
I'm thinking that it's because the timing isn't random.
Some people in Central America who are in some way involved in the transport of people across the southern border (including both illegal smugglers and legal immigration lawyers) have surely known about the law for some years now. If more and more children are arriving only recently then it's not only because knowledge of the law is becoming more widespread, it's likely also because the environments in the kids' countries of origin is perceived to have become dangerous enough for parents to think their best option is to send their unaccompanied kids away to an uncertain future in a foreign country.
Makes no sense. It doesnt take 6 years for the word to reach latin america, nor does it take them 6 years to get here.
The law they are blaming was passed in 2008. If this law is to blame for the current rush, why didnt this rush begin in 2008-2009? It is nothing more than the Left scrambling to find someone (bush lol) other than themselves to blame for this mess.
-
Makes no sense. It doesnt take 6 years for the word to reach latin america, nor does it take them 6 years to get here.
The law they are blaming was passed in 2008. If this law is to blame for the current rush, why didnt this rush begin in 2008-2009? It is nothing more than the Left scrambling to find someone (bush lol) other than themselves to blame for this mess.
I agree.
-
Methinks Gov Perry and the recent GOP tirade of "oh, let's let the illegals stay" couldn't have helped things.
Coincidence that the same time they get "compassionate", all these illegals start creeping up thru that exact border?
If Obama was making noise about compassion for illegals, then a bunch showed up, obama would sure get the blame for it.
-
Makes no sense. It doesnt take 6 years for the word to reach latin america, nor does it take them 6 years to get here.
The law they are blaming was passed in 2008. If this law is to blame for the current rush, why didnt this rush begin in 2008-2009? It is nothing more than the Left scrambling to find someone (bush lol) other than themselves to blame for this mess.
Sorry, I think I wasn't clear.
I'm trying to say that in the 6 years since the law was passed, the situation in Central America has probably become worse.
BTW, I don't really have any idea about whether this is the case. FWIW, I have heard that it's become much more dangerous in Mexico the last few years, though.
-
I agree.
Has the security situation in the countries these kids come from been static for the last 6 years?
-
Has the security situation in the countries these kids come from been static for the last 6 years?
I don't know. Do you?
What I do know is the one major change over the past six years in this country is a president who has failed to secure the borders and been doing backdoor amnesty for illegals.
-
Has the security situation in the countries these kids come from been static for the last 6 years?
dude... just drop it... no one wants facts... everyone wants to play dumb and ignore facts while placing blame on "the other side"
this shit is sickening
-
dude... just drop it... no one wants facts... everyone wants to play dumb and ignore facts while placing blame on "the other side"
this shit is sickening
Yeah it is - Obama is playing golf, partying, vacationing, going to fundraisers, etc while the border is flooded w 3rd worlders, drug dealers, gang bangers, etc. and we do nothing but ask for 4 billion for housing for these invaders while vets starve and get cut, etc.
-
dude... just drop it... no one wants facts... everyone wants to play dumb and ignore facts while placing blame on "the other side"
this shit is sickening
You and others only want to deal with some facts.
This isn't about blaming a side. It's about the president and Congress doing their job.
-
I don't know. Do you?
What I do know is the one major change over the past six years in this country is a president who has failed to secure the borders and been doing backdoor amnesty for illegals.
Wait, are we still talking about the influx of kids from Central America or are you now just talking about illegal immigration in general?
Also, what's the major change? What is Obama doing differently than his predecessor with regard to illegal immigration? (Honest questions -- and I think I deserve points for resisting the urge to post that amusing "Thanks Obama!" video from Jenna Marbles.)
Side question: Have our borders EVER been (what anyone would call) secure? I doubt it.
-
You and others only want to deal with some facts.
...
The guy who answers "I don't know. Do you?" and leaves it at that says this? LOL
You know who Beach Bum reminds me of?: Years ago, after I'd served 4 years in the Army just before going back to school, I got a job as a retail associate (salesman) at a place called Cycle Gear, a retail shop in a small chain of stores that sold motorcycle parts and accessories. It was a challenging job at first because I was always being asked questions that I didn't immediately have the answer for. I was a good employee so, when asked questions like "What's the biggest tire I can fit on the back of my GSXR", I'd answer "I don't know but I'll find out". Well, one week one of my fellow employees took some time off so a guy from another store (I don't remember his name) came to fill in. This is the guy who BB reminds me of because this guy, when asked a question by a customer to which he didn't have an answer, would astound me by simply answering, "I don't know" and then just smiling until the customer went away.
Some folks here, on both the left and the right, DO want to know the facts. Often, however, BB is not among these folks.
-
Wait, are we still talking about the influx of kids from Central America or are you now just talking about illegal immigration in general?
Also, what's the major change? What is Obama doing differently than his predecessor with regard to illegal immigration? (Honest questions -- and I think I deserve points for resisting the urge to post that amusing "Thanks Obama!" video from Jenna Marbles.)
Side question: Have our borders EVER been (what anyone would call) secure? I doubt it.
Do you live in the U.S.? Have you been listening to the president since he has taken office? (Honest questions -- and I think I deserve points for not calling you Simpleton Simon again.)
-
The guy who answers "I don't know. Do you?" and leaves it at that says this? LOL
You know who Beach Bum reminds me of?: Years ago, after I'd served 4 years in the Army just before going back to school, I got a job as a retail associate (salesman) at a place called Cycle Gear, a retail shop in a small chain of stores that sold motorcycle parts and accessories. It was a challenging job at first because I was always being asked questions that I didn't immediately have the answer for. I was a good employee so, when asked questions like "What's the biggest tire I can fit on the back of my GSXR", I'd answer "I don't know but I'll find out". Well, one week one of my fellow employees took some time off so a guy from another store (I don't remember his name) came to fill in. This is the guy who BB reminds me of because this guy, when asked a question by a customer to which he didn't have an answer, would astound me by simply answering, "I don't know" and then just smiling until the customer went away.
Some folks here, on both the left and the right, DO want to know the facts. Often, however, BB is not among these folks.
Cool story bro.
-
Do you live in the U.S.? Have you been listening to the president since he has taken office? (Honest questions -- and I think I deserve points for not calling you Simpleton Simon again.)
I do live in the USA. I guess you could say I've listened to the president since he's taken office but that's about the vaguest question ever so I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.
Anyway, in case you did want to answer my questions but just sorta forgot after posing your own, here they are again:
1. When you made the comment about about Obama's lack of leadership in the last 6 years as far as securing the border, are you still talking about the influx of kids from Central America or are you referring to illegal immigration in general?
I'm asking this because JM was questioning why it took 6 years (from 2008 until 2014) for the ostensible results of the 2008 law to be felt and that law concerned not turning away kids from Central America, right? So I hazarded a guess that in the past 6 years it might be because the security situation in the kids' home countries has worsened and then you made your own comment about the last 6 years but it seems like maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the kids (since Obama didn't have much to do with enacting the law that makes turning them away illegal) so I'm asking for clarification. Sorry if this puts you out at all but because of the posts before your post, your post isn't so clear.
2. What's the major change you're referring to? -- What is Obama doing differently than his predecessor with regard to illegal immigration? No big deal if you're not prepared to answer this intelligently. After all, I doubt if you're some kind of immigration expert so it's reasonable to expect that you're reluctant to make claims that you're not sure of.
3. To your knowledge, have our borders EVER been (what anyone would call) secure?
You're (at least a little) older than I am so you might be better able to answer this question than I can. That's all.
-
I do live in the USA. I guess you could say I've listened to the president since he's taken office but that's about the vaguest question ever so I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.
Anyway, in case you did want to answer my questions but just sorta forgot after posing your own, here they are again:
1. When you made the comment about about Obama's lack of leadership in the last 6 years as far as securing the border, are you still talking about the influx of kids from Central America or are you referring to illegal immigration in general?
I'm asking this because JM was questioning why it took 6 years (from 2008 until 2014) for the ostensible results of the 2008 law to be felt and that law concerned not turning away kids from Central America, right? So I hazarded a guess that in the past 6 years it might be because the security situation in the kids' home countries has worsened and then you made your own comment about the last 6 years but it seems like maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the kids (since Obama didn't have much to do with enacting the law that makes turning them away illegal) so I'm asking for clarification. Sorry if this puts you out at all but because of the posts before your post, your post isn't so clear.
2. What's the major change you're referring to? -- What is Obama doing differently than his predecessor with regard to illegal immigration? No big deal if you're not prepared to answer this intelligently. After all, I doubt if you're some kind of immigration expert so it's reasonable to expect that you're reluctant to make claims that you're not sure of.
3. To your knowledge, have our borders EVER been (what anyone would call) secure?
You're (at least a little) older than I am so you might be better able to answer this question than I can. That's all.
1. I'm talking about Obama's lack of leadership across the board. His failure to secure the borders. His support for amnesty. His failure to prosecute illegal aliens. Facilitating welfare benefits for illegals. Running media advertisements encouraging illegals to apply for government assistance. All of this has sent a very public message to those south of the border that we have an open door immigrate policy. You really haven't been paying attention, have you?
2. See response to number 1.
3. I don't know if our borders have ever been totally secure. But what the heck difference does that make? This hope and change president was supposed to be different. What matters is what is happening on his watch.
And how the heck do you know how old I am? Are you another creepy stalker? Geeze Louise. You little turds are everywhere.
-
1. I'm talking about Obama's lack of leadership across the board. His failure to secure the borders. His support for amnesty. His failure to prosecute illegal aliens. Facilitating welfare benefits for illegals. Running media advertisements encouraging illegals to apply for government assistance. All of this has sent a very public message to those south of the border that we have an open door immigrate policy. You really haven't been paying attention, have you?
2. See response to number 1.
3. I don't know if our borders have ever been totally secure. But what the heck difference does that make? This hope and change president was supposed to be different. What matters is what is happening on his watch.
And how the heck do you know how old I am? Are you another creepy stalker? Geeze Louise. You little turds are everywhere.
Your answers to 1 and 2 are OK. Sorry to repeat myself but you seemed to be answering JM's question but it turns out you weren't so I'm glad I asked for clarification.
Re: Your answer to #3, I'm happy with that, too but my response is just to smirk knowingly. LOL.
I have to ask, did you really accuse me of being a creepy stalker after going through my post history searching for and finding something like 7 separate references I've made to my military service? Bwahaha. You sound a little mental, BB.
BTW, I don't know your age. Honestly, I'm not sure where I got the idea that you're older than me. I've never looked at your post history but I think mentioned grandkids, haven't you? If you aren't older than my 50 years, then I stand corrected.
-
Your answers to 1 and 2 are OK. Sorry to repeat myself but you seemed to be answering JM's question but it turns out you weren't so I'm glad I asked for clarification.
Re: Your answer to #3, I'm happy with that, too but my response is just to smirk knowingly. LOL.
I have to ask, did you really accuse me of being a creepy stalker after going through my post history searching for and finding something like 7 separate references I've made to my military service? Bwahaha. You sound a little mental, BB.
BTW, I don't know your age. Honestly, I'm not sure where I got the idea that you're older than me. I've never looked at your post history but I think mentioned grandkids, haven't you? If you aren't older than my 50 years, then I stand corrected.
Yeah. In fact, I have great-grandkids. I'm really 90 years old.
Now tell me which one of us is constantly asking people for personal information? (That would be you.)
And, Simpleton Simon, what I did was save you the trouble of asking me to prove that you keep trying to use your alleged service to demean others. You like to ask for proof, and I've embarrassed you with it in the past. So I just saved you the trouble.
This is a slow news day and I have too much time on my hands. lol
-
In fact, desperate Central American parents are exploiting separate legal loopholes in American border security passed before Obama took office.
Unaccompanied minors fall under the bipartisan law, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
That law says the children cannot be sent back. They must instead be held humanely by the Department of Health and Human Services until the courts release them to a “suitable family member” in this country.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/analysis-whats-the-real-reason-behind-central-american-immigrant-wave-u-s-law/&sa=U&ei=lErNU-P6AYf1oATco4KIAw&ved=0CCMQFjAD&sig2=a1z3JLcojLsQi7ifQjOXoQ&usg=AFQjCNHJ99Av-S_5Xnwnudn-2X5B6HS7Ew
Hey, genius. Do you still think that obamatheclown has that law in mind when he thinks of redefining what a refugee is?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/world/americas/administration-weighs-plan-to-move-processing-of-youths-seeking-entry-to-honduras-.html?_r=0#
Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.
If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
National Guard in Texas Could Get Arrest PowerJULY 24, 2014 Trying to Slow the Illegal Flow of Young MigrantsJULY 20, 2014 Rush to Deport Young Migrants Could Trample Asylum ClaimsJULY 19, 2014 Fleeing Gangs, Children Head to U.S. BorderJULY 9, 2014 Wave of Minors on Their Own Rush to Cross Southwest BorderJUNE 4, 2014 New U.S. Effort to Aid Unaccompanied Child MigrantsJUNE 2, 2014 Critics of the plan were quick to pounce, saying it appeared to redefine the legal definition of a refugee and would only increase the flow of migration to the United States.
-
yes
-
yes
So in your mind, redefining what a refugee is and then busing them in is following that stupid Bush law.
Yeah, ok.
-
So in your mind, redefining what a refugee is and then busing them in is following that stupid Bush law.
Yeah, ok.
based on what you sent... you gave me nothing....
What about you Beach...what do you think of this
-
Yeah. In fact, I have great-grandkids. I'm really 90 years old.
Ah, OK. That answers my question about your military service, then.
(You were drafted during WW2, apparently, lol.)
Now tell me which one of us is constantly asking people for personal information? (That would be you.)
Constantly? Naw, that's an exaggeration.
Maybe there is some unwritten internet rule about asking for personal info but I see nothing wrong with asking about whether someone has personally been in the service when they seem to fetishize the whole thing, though. Like I've alluded to before, a lot of guys who've never served seem to do this.
And, Simpleton Simon, what I did was save you the trouble of asking me to prove that you keep trying to use your alleged service to demean others. You like to ask for proof, and I've embarrassed you with it in the past. So I just saved you the trouble.
This is a slow news day and I have too much time on my hands. lol
Really? I guess that could be true but it doesn't make much sense (not even when you lamely throw in, "but I was bored"):
You're saying you did a search of my post history (ya creepy stalker, lol) solely because you anticipated that I was going to challenge your statement that I've referenced my military service multiple times in the past? That doesn't seem likely because why would I challenge that correct statement?
The answer is, I wouldn't. For 3 reasons:
1. It's true.
2. There's nothing clearly wrong with referencing one's military service.
3. It would be beyond easy for you to prove me wrong if I'd challenged you.
So, it's not provable one way or the other but I conclude that you're lying. I think you were hoping to bust me for having made inconsistent statements about my service but that didn't work out. I can't say how bothered you were by that. Probably not much since you ARE a veteran of internet pissing matches if not a veteran of actual military service, after all.
BTW, "A slow news day"? Yeah, I agree; Nothing going on in the world right now, is there? LOL
(Man, when you're not careful the lies just roll right off your tongue, don't they?)
You should try being a little more honest, BB. Intellectually and otherwise.
-
based on what you sent... you gave me nothing....
What about you Beach...what do you think of this
I actually think this proposal sounds better than what is happening now. Based on the info dario posted, the kids would be screened in a foreign country before reaching U.S. soil. I like that better than letting all of them in and then trying sort things out after the fact.
My understanding is a lot of kids who show up now never appear for their hearings, which tells me they are simply illegal aliens flooding our borders and disappearing to go start their lives as pseudo-American citizens.
-
Ah, OK. That answers my question about your military service, then.
(You were drafted during WW2, apparently, lol.)
Constantly? Naw, that's an exaggeration.
Maybe there is some unwritten internet rule about asking for personal info but I see nothing wrong with asking about whether someone has personally been in the service when they seem to fetishize the whole thing, though. Like I've alluded to before, a lot of guys who've never served seem to do this.
Really? I guess that could be true but it doesn't make much sense (not even when you lamely throw in, "but I was bored"):
You're saying you did a search of my post history (ya creepy stalker, lol) solely because you anticipated that I was going to challenge your statement that I've referenced my military service multiple times in the past? That doesn't seem likely because why would I challenge that correct statement?
The answer is, I wouldn't. For 3 reasons:
1. It's true.
2. There's nothing clearly wrong with referencing one's military service.
3. It would be beyond easy for you to prove me wrong if I'd challenged you.
So, it's not provable one way or the other but I conclude that you're lying. I think you were hoping to bust me for having made inconsistent statements about my service but that didn't work out. I can't say how bothered you were by that. Probably not much since you ARE a veteran of internet pissing matches if not a veteran of actual military service, after all.
BTW, "A slow news day"? Yeah, I agree; Nothing going on in the world right now, is there? LOL
(Man, when you're not careful the lies just roll right off your tongue, don't they?)
You should try being a little more honest, BB. Intellectually and otherwise.
Listen Simpleton Simon, if you want me to read your posts, shorten them up.
-
Listen Simpleton Simon, if you want me to read your posts, shorten them up.
No prob, Coach.