The problem with the "Congress should do something" argument is that Obama and the Senate leaders have poisoned the water at every turn, and have basically been as non-conciliatory are humanly possible. Boehner, for all his flaws, has no reason to trust Obama or Reid, and until President Obama demonstrates that he can be trusted, there's no way in hell Boehner is going to negotiate with him - nor should he.
It looks like the feds knew the immigration crisis was on us in January
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
I can't agree completely. I'm not sure what any president would be able to do to stem the flood the law is causing. The root of the problem is the law itself. The people south of the border really have the facts down right - you don't get sent back immediately, if you're an unaccompanied minor. These are people with no hope at all, so even a glimmer will keep them coming. As soon as the law is changed back, the tide will dry up like a spigot was turned off. As I pointed out before you did, it was a human trafficking law, anyway...
Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil. Clinton worked with Newt. Boehner's not innocent (I'll be happy when he's gone!), but when you're the President - it's on you to bring people together, and that's been the last thing on this guy's mind.
Oh, okay now I see (and I thought this might be your point).
Btw (and I'm NOT applying this to the subject at hand fwiw) - Boehner IS right about one thing even though on this subject it's a side issue: this President more than any one I've ever seen has spent more time blaming more people for more crap than any President in my lifetime. I pay close attention and ALL OF THEM do this to their predecessors, particularly the first two years or so. Virtually everyone else I've seen (I recall back to Carter pretty well) pretty much drops the "it's the last guy's fault" stuff after the midterms, whatever the result. My thing with the current clown (who I used to like even though I disagree with his ideas) is he is STILL blaming folks left and right for everything. And that's the kind of thing that eventually gets you to the point everyone just wants you to go away. Reagan, for all that some think the guy was a "buck stops here" kind of guy, spent the entire 1982 midterms blaming the Democrats for the economy and the deficit and the need to save Social Security........and the moment it was over he put together a bipartisan commission that changed and supposedly preserved it. He didn't spend the 1984 election telling everyone how things were awful because Carter had left him a bad situation (although he did suggest electing Carter's VP would bring back the woe, which is classic political strategy). He didn't blame the Democrats for Iran-Contra even at the early stage (though he did blame the press). Bush Sr never really did that, which may be why he is the most highly esteemed former Prez we have (though he did suggest electing Dukakis would bring back Carter's misery). Clinton blamed the Republicans for four years, but he got a lease extension because Newt made a fool of himself. Clinton's blaming would not have been nearly so effective if Newt hadn't helped him out. Yet after he got re-elected, Clinton became pretty good at responsibility and a decent leader with one very notable exception. Bush Jr subtly suggested all his problems were caused by our vulnerability that preceded him - but he dodged most of his chances. Note that whatever one thinks of Bush's handling of Katrina, he bit the bullet and went on, saving his finger-pointing at Blanco for closed doors.
This idiot keeps playing the "it ain't my fault" game. Maybe that's because unlike the others I listed other than Pappy Bush, they were all governors who actually had to accept some responsibility for something BEFORE getting to DC rather than just voting "present" and not making any waves.
Okay, rant over, thanks for your guidance there. Thought that might be what you meant.
Reagan and Clinton were governors who actually had opponents on the ballot against them in their state elections, too.
Might have a lot to do with it.
I think some of it has to do with the political atmosphere today where compromise is viewed as weakness and Boehner is uncomfortable with it for fear of being primaried.
I agree and wonder why this situation has developed.
For one thing, I believe the unlimited nature of the Federal government means every issue has a potential Federal solution and thus becomes a is a political football to be kicked around.
Second, this attracts money into politics like never before. Since there are no real substantive limits on Federal power, every public actor with money feels it is legitimate to get into the game in an effort to get the Federal government to assist/sponsor his industry or his particular business, or, failing that, to hinder his competition.
Thirdly, politicians stand to make a ton of money if they get into (and stay in) office. John Glenn, a retired Marine Colonel, left the Senate worth something like $70 million. How'd that happen? Really shrewd investments?
These are, in my view, the unavoidable (albeit unintended) consequences of removing the limits on Federal authority.
Actually, my point was that I wanted to talk about the immigration problem. That's impossible here. The present act, which Obama had nothing to do with in the sense of being a moving force, has created an irresistible prize carrot for desperate people. Until it's changed, perhaps in a very cruel-seeming way, this problem will continue, and it doesn't make a damn who may be in office as president or speaker of the house. However, here, all discussions funnel back into Obama vs "X," "X" to be defined in the particular poster's opinion. I'm not interested in that. I'm a pragmatist. I'm interested in trying to solve problems. As a result, I don't come here for substantive discussion over national problems, because every problem is met here with a braying chorus with no thought behind it. It's really a damned shame. With that, I'm out of the thread...
Tell Mexico that if one more refugee train is allowed through their country, then we will cut off all aid, militarize the border and completely stop drug trafficking across the border with our military. I guarantee it would work in 1hr. Those narco terrorists will choose money over children every single time.
As TIDE-HSV has attempted to point out numerous times in this thread, the root of this problem is the 08 law. This needs to be addressed and corrected by congress ASAP. Mexico is complicit in the problem and needs to be pressured to stop this migration across their country.
Meanwhile, some people contort themselves into pretzels to absolve Obama of any blame, all because the current Congress doesn't behave like those mythical Congresses of days gone by.
Ya, it does. The influx of kids rose dramatically around the times minor deportations were low and the Administrations policy of granting deferrals to illegal minors previously in the country. Seems to me there's more in play than just that one law.
lol. I just heard someone say, "How in the hell did America become Mexico's toilet?"
The truth hurts.
The truth hurts.
Are you referring to any Obama policies other than the "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals"? This Obama policy wasn't instituted until 2012 and does not explain the significant drop in child deportations beginning in 2009 and continuing in 2010 and 2011. Moreover, the significant drop in child deportations was occurring at the same time that the Obama administration began inflating its number of overall deportations by counting individuals being turned away at the border. It seems unlikely that child deportation numbers would be decreasing while the Obama administration was trying to look tough on illegal immigration by liberalizing the method of counting deportations.
Last edited:
As far as the actual problem solving, I think Earle's right fwiw.
In fact, I think most folks here probably do.
Dissenters?
In fact, I think most folks here probably do.
Dissenters?
Latest threads
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 14
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm Declaring the Emperor has no clothes (NCAA rules implosion)
- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 26
-
Home-and-Home Series Wraps Up as Alabama Welcomes UAB on Tuesday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1
-