• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Boehner: No House vote on Senate immigration bill

if it was split into pieces, the Food stamp cuts would die a slow death of being pidgin holed in the senate. besides boehner would not dare separate the farm bill into peices, because he will draw the wrath of the conservatives for not including the draconian cuts they want and also draw the wrath of the agricultural buissness and their allies in congress who actually want a deal done.

3%? THREE PERCENT is draconian? Maybe you havent noticed but we are approaching $17,000,000,000,000.00 in the hole.

Secondly Ag subsidies need to be tamed as well. From ethanol to soil banking, it needs to stop being supported by government money.
 
It more shows that the Republicans are at least holding up the Liberal Agenda in destroying America.
If this were true, why not put it up for a vote? Republicans have more votes in the House than Democrats do. If it's truly about Republicans doing what you say, then the bill would not pass a vote. So why not put it up for a vote?
 
and Boehner continues to show how he is the most inept house speaker in recent memory. He is a prisoner to his caucus.

That's total bull****, he caves enough. When's the last time Reid gave in on something, hmmmm? I'll wait.
 
Same for the immigration bill Zyph, Obama wants it all passed together so he can give the carrots and burn the sticks.

See, that's the issue OC.

The "Carrots", other than simply being able to stya here, can't legally be enacted BY THIS LAW without the "Sticks" occuring. It would take an entirely new law amending this one to allow the end game "carrots" of a green card to occur without the sticks happening.
 
See, that's the issue OC.

The "Carrots", other than simply being able to stya here, can't legally be enacted BY THIS LAW without the "Sticks" occuring. It would take an entirely new law amending this one to allow the end game "carrots" of a green card to occur without the sticks happening.

If this bill contained the right security features, seems the conservatives would vote for it. So why aren't they?
 
If this bill contained the right security features, seems the conservatives would vote for it. So why aren't they?

Lots of reasons an individual POLITICIAN may not vote for a bill.

Fear of it being unpopular with their voting based regardless of what's in it.
Fear of being able to properly sell it to their voting base.
Adherance to what the party caucus majority desires.
Disagreement on one particuliar security feature not being included.
Disagreement with the presence of a a "pathway" to citizenship regardless of the security features.
Disagreement with something like E-Verify that is included due to privacy issues.
Belief that the party at large will benefit politically from not enacting the law.
Distrust that the triggers will be met and thus it will be one giant financial waste.

I could go on and on, but you can't seriously believe "If a Politician simply, on principle, agrees with a portion of a bill they will absolutely vote for it"
 
If this bill contained the right security features, seems the conservatives would vote for it. So why aren't they?

Because the bill only provided lip-service to those security features, and as has occurred in the past, and is really only an amnesty bill.

There is nothing to prohibit the President from selectively applying amnesty, while ignoring government's obligation to border security and policing, which by right of the Constitution does not even actually reside with the federal government itself, but with the various States.

In short, it is nothing but more of the same, but now validating the same corruption under law, while giving aliens far more benefits than even U.S. citizens have, and creating an enormous budget liability for no benefit -- despite the bullcrap that the GAO indicates.

And ultimately the enormous influx of nuevo citizens will totally skew the election process, making it impossible for our Republican system of governance to operate, exclusing those promoting this country's founding principles from being elected to anything above dog catcher, and ensuring our headlong plunge into not just Socialism, but Marxism and globalist dictate.

Not only should it not be voted for, but those promoting it should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. This is not just a differing political perspective, but rather is the difference between our government acting legitimately, or acting in disregard for the general welfare of the union, the sovereignty of the several States, and the citizens themselves. It is nothing short of deliberate, calculating Treason.
 
Last edited:
Because the bill only provided lip-service to those security features, and as has occurred in the past, and is really only an amnesty bill.

There is nothing to prohibit the President from selectively applying amnesty, while ignoring government's obligation to border security and policing, which by right of the Constitution does not even actually reside with the federal government itself, but with the various States.

In short, it is nothing but more of the same, but now validating the same corruption under law, while giving aliens far more benefits than even U.S. citizens have, and creating an enormous budget liability for no benefit -- despite the bullcrap that the GAO indicates.

And ultimately the enormous influx of nuevo citizens will totally skew the election process, making it impossible for our Republican system of governance to operate, exclusing those promoting this country's founding principles from being elected to anything above dog catcher, and ensuring our headlong plunge into not just Socialism, but Marxism and globalist dictate.

Not only should it not be voted for, but those promoting it should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. This is not just a differing political perspective, but rather is the difference between our government acting legitimately, or acting in disregard for the general welfare of the union, the sovereignty of the several States, and the citizens themselves. It is nothing short of deliberate, calculating Treason.

Why can't border security and immigration reform be done at the same time? What security issues are left to be addressed?
 
Why can't border security and immigration reform be done at the same time? What security issues are left to be addressed?


Because we have an established history of, not only this Oval Occupant, but previous Presidents having selectively applied the laws, under discretionary application, and not engaging what is stated under the law.

Because border security has long had an obligation to be fulfilled, has been unconstitutionally denied the authority of the various States with the real territory being invaded, but has not been exercised by the federal government for decades. There is no assurance, much less obligation, that the Congress and Executive will be compelled to fulfill the recognitions regarding establishing real border security

Because despite the repeated claim of needing urgent immigration reform, there is never any real indication of why this immigration reform is necessary, much less urgent.

Because this immigration de facto amnesty not only overwhelms our already overburdened infrastructure and social services, but also entirely corrupts our electoral process, further corrupts our corrupt health care usurpation, and doesn't do a damn thing to solve any real problems, but will rather only exacerbate those problems, inclusive of creating even more pathways of chain immigration uncontrolled alien entry into this country.

The only thing this immigration reform does is give illegal aliens a legal status in this country, along with entitlement to social services and benefits, even above and beyond longstanding U.S. citizens.

This immigration reform does not solve any problems at all but actually only worsens existing problems, while creating whole new problems, corruptions, and avenues of entry into the country while creating an enormous economic hazard and obligation.

THe fact is that illegal aliens not having any legal status in this country, is not a problem at all, but rather a necessary fact that is crucial to our national security and sovereignty.
 
Because we have an established history of, not only this Oval Occupant, but previous Presidents having selectively applied the laws, under discretionary application, and not engaging what is stated under the law.

Because border security has long had an obligation to be fulfilled, has been unconstitutionally denied the authority of the various States with the real territory being invaded, but has not been exercised by the federal government for decades. There is no assurance, much less obligation, that the Congress and Executive will be compelled to fulfill the recognitions regarding establishing real border security

Because despite the repeated claim of needing urgent immigration reform, there is never any real indication of why this immigration reform is necessary, much less urgent.

Because this immigration de facto amnesty not only overwhelms our already overburdened infrastructure and social services, but also entirely corrupts our electoral process, further corrupts our corrupt health care usurpation, and doesn't do a damn thing to solve any real problems, but will rather only exacerbate those problems, inclusive of creating even more pathways of chain immigration uncontrolled alien entry into this country.

The only thing this immigration reform does is give illegal aliens a legal status in this country, along with entitlement to social services and benefits, even above and beyond longstanding U.S. citizens.

This immigration reform does not solve any problems at all but actually only worsens existing problems, while creating whole new problems, corruptions, and avenues of entry into the country while creating an enormous economic hazard and obligation.

THe fact is that illegal aliens not having any legal status in this country, is not a problem at all, but rather a necessary fact that is crucial to our national security and sovereignty.

Well the problem is you can't humanely force them to leave, and just putting a fence up and guarding it is not a solution either.
 
There is nothing to prohibit the President from selectively applying amnesty, while ignoring government's obligation to border security and policing, which by right of the Constitution does not even actually reside with the federal government itself, but with the various States.

See, this is what I'm not getting.

The law CLEARLY indicates that amnesty is not possible unless those metrics are met. For Obama to just "selectively apply" it, he'd be acting outside of what the law actually allows. If he wanted to do that, he could just do that NOW. The law specifically limits amnesty from being available UNTIL those security triggers are met to my understanding.

Unless you're referring to Amnesty as the RPI status...the status that allows them to legally stay in the country but doesn't grant them citizenship or a green card. Is that what you're referring to as "amnesty" rather than the portion that allows them to become a citizen?

I would say that one of my issues with this bill is I believe if the triggers AREN'T met by a certain time, than the RPI status should no longer be applicable and we should be using the information we gathered through registering as an RPI to find and deport those that would now once again be illegal. The "Trigger" needs to have a "result" both for if it IS met (they can begin the process of citizenship) and if it is NOT met (we begin deporting)
 
See, this is what I'm not getting.

The law CLEARLY indicates that amnesty is not possible unless those metrics are met. For Obama to just "selectively apply" it, he'd be acting outside of what the law actually allows. If he wanted to do that, he could just do that NOW. The law specifically limits amnesty from being available UNTIL those security triggers are met to my understanding.

Unless you're referring to Amnesty as the RPI status...the status that allows them to legally stay in the country but doesn't grant them citizenship or a green card. Is that what you're referring to as "amnesty" rather than the portion that allows them to become a citizen?

I would say that one of my issues with this bill is I believe if the triggers AREN'T met by a certain time, than the RPI status should no longer be applicable and we should be using the information we gathered through registering as an RPI to find and deport those that would now once again be illegal. The "Trigger" needs to have a "result" both for if it IS met (they can begin the process of citizenship) and if it is NOT met (we begin deporting)

Ill put it this way. Hes already triggering what portions he wants to when it comes to the healthcare bill. There is precedent he will do what he wants on immigration.

They arent giving Obama the chance to bite them twice. Cant blame em.
 
What is the budget for the SNAP program.

Dont answer a question with another question. Is a 3% cut draconian?

Im asking you. So either you believe it is, which makes your rhetoric look silly, or it isnt and the cuts on the table arent draconian.

So answer the question and think instead of parroting a buzzword.
 
See, this is what I'm not getting.

The law CLEARLY indicates that amnesty is not possible unless those metrics are met. For Obama to just "selectively apply" it, he'd be acting outside of what the law actually allows. If he wanted to do that, he could just do that NOW. The law specifically limits amnesty from being available UNTIL those security triggers are met to my understanding.

Unless you're referring to Amnesty as the RPI status...the status that allows them to legally stay in the country but doesn't grant them citizenship or a green card. Is that what you're referring to as "amnesty" rather than the portion that allows them to become a citizen?

I would say that one of my issues with this bill is I believe if the triggers AREN'T met by a certain time, than the RPI status should no longer be applicable and we should be using the information we gathered through registering as an RPI to find and deport those that would now once again be illegal. The "Trigger" needs to have a "result" both for if it IS met (they can begin the process of citizenship) and if it is NOT met (we begin deporting)

The bill clearly and undeniably does not have any amnesty contingent upon any "metrics", ad repeatedly refused ANY and ALL amendments that required such security be met prior to acting on Amnesty.


Obama would be acting outside of the law, and Obama HAS DONE THAT NOW with creating his own selective deportation standards, and claiming it is his authority under discretionary enforcement.


Allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, is granting them legal status, ... to "legally stay in the country", as well as benefits. Amnesty is irrelevant to the actual reward of citizenship, but in fact eventually tied to that eventual reward, if you can call the wholesale application of citizenship to mass lawless persons that disregard our laws and sovereignty, as any sort of "reward".

What it is, is a wholesale abrogation of federal responsibility, where the federal government has no actual constitutional authority over immigration, but fails to exercise its falsely claimed authority, while denying that legitimate authority and real interest to the states, is a gross violation of the Constitution in and of itself.

Those "triggers" themselves are a joke, and each subject to discretion and corruption, and intentionally written to be corrupted.

We should commence deportation now, along with the wall construction and other border security implementation, and then, and only then, begin to discuss what adjustments immigration law might need. But it certainly would not involve any enormous thorough restructuring resulting in a 2,000 page bill.

The real underlying cause of all this insanity, utter perversion, from our federal government is the fact that the solvency of the dollar, and the American economy itself, involves an enormous Ponzi scheme due to the debt-based nature of the economy requiring the continual influx of more people and more debt.
 
Dont answer a question with another question. Is a 3% cut draconian?

Im asking you. So either you believe it is, which makes your rhetoric look silly, or it isnt and the cuts on the table arent draconian.

So answer the question and think instead of parroting a buzzword.

Yes it is draconiain considering the budget for the snap program.
 
Dont answer a question with another question. Is a 3% cut draconian?

Im asking you. So either you believe it is, which makes your rhetoric look silly, or it isnt and the cuts on the table arent draconian.

So answer the question and think instead of parroting a buzzword.


I'm not even sure it's an actual 3% cut from the existing expenditure, but rather a 3% cut from the projected growth.
 
The bill clearly and undeniably does not have any amnesty contingent upon any "metrics", ad repeatedly refused ANY and ALL amendments that required such security be met prior to acting on Amnesty.

Do you have a link for this? Every summary I've read on the passed bill suggests there are metrics. Namely 90% apprehension rate on the border, a plan created and being implimented for a border fence, full roll out of e-verify, etc.

Again, unless you're suggesting the RPI status = Amnesty. Though I wasn't aware there were any amendments that were proposed that altered that status.

As I said, I'm just researching what I can. If you have some kind of link to reference that there all aspects of the metrics have been removed I'd be glad to see it so I can better understand the bill that was passed.

Obama would be acting outside of the law, and Obama HAS DONE THAT NOW with creating his own selective deportation standards, and claiming it is his authority under discretionary enforcement.

That's I guess my point though. If the notion is that Obama will act outside the law regardless, then that part of the argument against the bill is kind of useless because it's suggesting he'd do what he wants REGARDLESS of hte bill being passed or not.

Allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, is granting them legal status, ... to "legally stay in the country", as well as benefits.

Gotcha, so you are equating the RPI status as "amnesty" despite it not giving them citizenship and hte rights associated with it.

Do we have anything indicating one way or another they will get things like benefits? This is something I've asked people on both sides for and have searched for but haven't found an answer. As I said initially, WHAT is allowable under the RPI status is a big factor in my mind of supporting Boehner or not.

Those "triggers" themselves are a joke, and each subject to discretion and corruption, and intentionally written to be corrupted.

Now I'm confused because earlier you said there were no triggers...

We should commence deportation now, along with the wall construction and other border security implementation, and then, and only then, begin to discuss what adjustments immigration law might need. But it certainly would not involve any enormous thorough restructuring resulting in a 2,000 page bill.

Understand that thought. But it's akin to saying "We should remove marriage from the law entirely". The reality is that unless an unprecedented electoral victory occurs in 2016, the likelihood of getting an immigration bill that is essentially "100% republican ideas and desires in every way" is about as likely as me walking out side and discovering the sky is permanently tie dyed.
 
Why can't border security and immigration reform be done at the same time?
Because the two are not mutually inclusive, as the 20 million thieving illegals who trespassed into America are not immigrants, because the only way to be an immigrant in America is to be granted that status by the INS ..

.. And, because we don't have a problem with our immigration policy but we do, obviously, have a problem with border security, as the presence of 20 million illegals in America does attest.


What security issues are left to be addressed?
In addition to securing the borders to keep trespassers from getting in ..

.. We need to get the 20 million thieving trespassers already here, out.


John Boehner is becoming a patriotic American folk hero, not only in his killing of this egregious amnesty and legalization bill, a bill which is an obvious gross injustice to all American citizens, but now in his request that if corportations don't have to provide Obamacare for a year's delay, then individuals shouldn't have to be penalized tax-wise if they can't afford to spend on health insurance.
 
Back
Top Bottom