The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: thundley4 on June 19, 2012, 11:32:57 AM
-
Obama decided to implement portions of the Dream Act by imperial fiat, but will it really do anything? Let's say that those 800,000 illegals that affected by Obama's decree all come forward and register themselves. They give their information such as names and addresses and are given some sort of official ID.
What happens when some conservative is elected and reverses Obama's Illegal Law? We now have the names and addresses of 800,000 illegal immigrants , so it would be easy to find them and deport their asses and probably some of their relatives.
Not likely to happen, but it would be so ironic if Obama inadvertently provided the means for deporting so many illegals just because he pandered for a few votes.
-
The law of unintended consequences. Libs can revise history, they can't revise natural laws.
-
I would offer amnesty to anyone who rat's out another verifiable illegal.
-
In all honesty, I just don't see any Republicans actually attempting to overturn Barry's ruling by executive fiat, regardless what happens in November.
I think this is one of those things that will remain long after Barry does the duffle bag drag out of the WH.
In fact, I can see Congress actually using portions of this executive plan and legitimizing it by enacting parts of it into law.
On illegal immigration, I have absolutely no faith in Congress whatsoever, irrespective of party. The sheer numbers of illegals have made it a moot point. They'll get their amnesty and their free ticket.
This, despite reports that claim that the flood of illegals has subsided to a trickle. :whatever: That may speak to those who aren't yet here, but what about the 11.1 million that ARE here?
-
In all honesty, I just don't see any Republicans actually attempting to overturn Barry's ruling by executive fiat, regardless what happens in November.
I think this is one of those things that will remain long after Barry does the duffle bag drag out of the WH.
In fact, I can see Congress actually using portions of this executive plan and legitimizing it by enacting parts of it into law.
On illegal immigration, I have absolutely no faith in Congress whatsoever, irrespective of party. The sheer numbers of illegals have made it a moot point. They'll get their amnesty and their free ticket.
This, despite reports that claim that the flood of illegals has subsided to a trickle. :whatever: That may speak to those who aren't yet here, but what about the 11.1 million that ARE here?
I think you're on to something. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-wont-say-hell-overturn-immigration-order/)
-
I think this is his way of making up to the hispanics for his stance on gay marriage. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
I think you're on to something. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-wont-say-hell-overturn-immigration-order/)
My comment had more to do with a laughably inept Congress, but yeah, you're on target with good ol' Mitt -- the best Republican the Democrats have.
-
I heard an illegal immigrant woman affiliated with an illegal immigrant group make some brief statements on KSFO this morning - she said she was advising people to wait until after November to start the process - they don't want to start unless Obama wins. Sensibly, they fear it will simply be reversed if Romney wins.
Another reason to vote Romney in November. They are stacking up. No, I am not a big Romney supporter.
Her statements illustrate the bad ramifications of government by decree. If we elect a new "king" every four years, no laws will be reasonably permanent. While I do hope Romney reverses Obama's lawless orders, we can't go on like this. We have a law making process in the U.S. that is orderly and reasonable and dependable. It is being hijacked, and the chaos that results puts us on the road to third world status.
-
I was thinking about this myself this week. It would indeed be taking a pretty big chance to take Obozo at his word on this one, since he hasn't changed the law, he has just made a completely-roevocable decision not to enforce it.
-
I was thinking about this myself this week. It would indeed be taking a pretty big chance to take Obozo at his word on this one, since he hasn't changed the law, he has just made a completely-roevocable decision not to enforce it.
Which violates his oath of office.
-
Which violates his oath of office.
Almost always what owebuma says he will do, and what he does are opposites.
-
Which violates his oath of office.
It's OK he had his fingers crossed.
-
It's OK he had his fingers crossed.
Well......There was that whole bit of the effed up Oath at his inauguration. Do we have any proof that he really took the Oath later on as claimed? :fuelfire:
-
Well......There was that whole bit of the effed up Oath at his inauguration. Do we have any proof that he really took the Oath later on as claimed? :fuelfire:
Chief Justice John Roberts went to the Oval Office and administered the Oath, according to the photo.
If the Chief Justice says he did it, that's enough for me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103685.html
-
Chief Justice John Roberts went to the Oval Office and administered the Oath, according to the photo.
If the Chief Justice says he did it, that's enough for me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103685.html
Had his fingers crossed that time too.