CDZ Illegal Immigration - are we a nation of laws or not?

[task0778]

There was a time, not long ago, when Democrats claimed they are for strong border security and immigration enforcement. After all, Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) and a number of other Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006. In fact, many complained the legislation wasn’t enough to properly secure the border with Mexico.

Not anymore. Now they want to decriminalize the deliberate act of breaking our immigration laws by sneaking this country and avoiding the legal points of entry OR not showing up for their court hearing or leaving the US when legally ordered to do so. Hence the question: why do people (primarily democrats) willfully choose to flagrantly ignore those laws?

During the first Democratic debate in Miami, candidates who were asked directly if entering the United States without permission should be decriminalized, answered yes.
.
.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J) has taken things further and vowed — if elected — to essentially eliminate any kind of border detention through an executive order. His campaign released an 11-page policy document explaining the details.

Guys - this is a de facto open borders policy. Give 'em free health care, education, driver's license, some places even want to let them vote. They get a court date to state their case for why they should be allowed to stay, and the court rules one way or another. If it's NO, the Dems want to let them stay anyway, and give 'em a pathway to citizenship. Well hell, why bother to have any immigration laws or enforcement in the 1st place then. And it ain't just the good people who would get to stay, but a lot of bad people too. Rapists, murderers, terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers, they get to stay too.

So, do we live in a nation of laws, or only those laws that we support? Look, if it's a bad law then let's change it according to the way things like that are supposed to be done. What I see right now is a Democratic Party that loves the laws and judges that agrees with their policies, but ignore or disobey the ones they don't.

 

[pismoe]

in reply to the Question , it sure doesn't look like it eh Task ??

 

[beautress]

There was a time, not long ago, when Democrats claimed they are for strong border security and immigration enforcement. After all, Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) and a number of other Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006. In fact, many complained the legislation wasn’t enough to properly secure the border with Mexico.

Not anymore. Now they want to decriminalize the deliberate act of breaking our immigration laws by sneaking this country and avoiding the legal points of entry OR not showing up for their court hearing or leaving the US when legally ordered to do so. Hence the question: why do people (primarily democrats) willfully choose to flagrantly ignore those laws?

During the first Democratic debate in Miami, candidates who were asked directly if entering the United States without permission should be decriminalized, answered yes.
.
.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J) has taken things further and vowed — if elected — to essentially eliminate any kind of border detention through an executive order. His campaign released an 11-page policy document explaining the details.

Guys - this is a de facto open borders policy. Give 'em free health care, education, driver's license, some places even want to let them vote. They get a court date to state their case for why they should be allowed to stay, and the court rules one way or another. If it's NO, the Dems want to let them stay anyway, and give 'em a pathway to citizenship. Well hell, why bother to have any immigration laws or enforcement in the 1st place then. And it ain't just the good people who would get to stay, but a lot of bad people too. Rapists, murderers, terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers, they get to stay too.

So, do we live in a nation of laws, or only those laws that we support? Look, if it's a bad law then let's change it according to the way things like that are supposed to be done. What I see right now is a Democratic Party that loves the laws and judges that agrees with their policies, but ignore or disobey the ones they don't.

The Democrats have been terminally bipolar since President Trump won. And each of them flew over the cuckoo's nest. Several times.

 

[FA_Q2]

Changing laws require taking a stance that you cannot lie about later. Handing the keys to the executive branch allows congress to blame the president and utterly ignore their duty.

The legislative branch has been doing this for decades. The founders were wrong, legislators do not jealously guard their power and this has created a serious imbalance in the checks and balances of our system.

 

[task0778]

Changing laws require taking a stance that you cannot lie about later. Handing the keys to the executive branch allows congress to blame the president and utterly ignore their duty.

The legislative branch has been doing this for decades. The founders were wrong, legislators do not jealously guard their power and this has created a serious imbalance in the checks and balances of our system.

You know what's really bad? It's the fact that the 1st 2 things a politician or party thinks about when it comes to immigration or any other issue is the impact on myself and my party if I say or do something to support or oppose any kind of policy change or idea. What will the people in my district think, or my party's political base? It's like, who gets the most benefit out of this policy, them or us? Who loses the most, politically. Whether or not the idea makes sense and is in the best interests of the country seems to come a distant 3rd, if that high. I dunno, maybe it's always been that way but we didn't realize it. So many people around the country want our pols in Washington to work on our problems constructively, and if you can't fix it then at least do something to improve the situation. But that requires cooperation between the 2 parties, and there's precious little of that these days.

 

[beautress]

Changing laws require taking a stance that you cannot lie about later. Handing the keys to the executive branch allows congress to blame the president and utterly ignore their duty.

The legislative branch has been doing this for decades. The founders were wrong, legislators do not jealously guard their power and this has created a serious imbalance in the checks and balances of our system.

The Democrats in Congress has changed the Congress into a multi-headed mad dog scenario that is so not in keeping with the founders' intentions.

 

[Richard-H]

We are first and foremost a nation of principals, and when laws violate those principals the people and their representatives have a responsibility to stop the enforcement of those laws.

 

[Hossfly]

We are first and foremost a nation of principals, and when laws violate those principals the people and their representatives have a responsibility to stop the enforcement of those laws.

 

[candycorn]

There was a time, not long ago, when Democrats claimed they are for strong border security and immigration enforcement. After all, Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) and a number of other Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006. In fact, many complained the legislation wasn’t enough to properly secure the border with Mexico.

Not anymore. Now they want to decriminalize the deliberate act of breaking our immigration laws by sneaking this country and avoiding the legal points of entry OR not showing up for their court hearing or leaving the US when legally ordered to do so. Hence the question: why do people (primarily democrats) willfully choose to flagrantly ignore those laws?

During the first Democratic debate in Miami, candidates who were asked directly if entering the United States without permission should be decriminalized, answered yes.
.
.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J) has taken things further and vowed — if elected — to essentially eliminate any kind of border detention through an executive order. His campaign released an 11-page policy document explaining the details.

Guys - this is a de facto open borders policy. Give 'em free health care, education, driver's license, some places even want to let them vote. They get a court date to state their case for why they should be allowed to stay, and the court rules one way or another. If it's NO, the Dems want to let them stay anyway, and give 'em a pathway to citizenship. Well hell, why bother to have any immigration laws or enforcement in the 1st place then. And it ain't just the good people who would get to stay, but a lot of bad people too. Rapists, murderers, terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers, they get to stay too.

So, do we live in a nation of laws, or only those laws that we support? Look, if it's a bad law then let's change it according to the way things like that are supposed to be done. What I see right now is a Democratic Party that loves the laws and judges that agrees with their policies, but ignore or disobey the ones they don't.

The ACA is a law.

 

[harmonica]

We are first and foremost a nation of principals, and when laws violate those principals the people and their representatives have a responsibility to stop the enforcement of those laws.

you mean the principle pf obeying common sense/legal/etc laws--yes?

 

[harmonica]

We are first and foremost a nation of principals, and when laws violate those principals the people and their representatives have a responsibility to stop the enforcement of those laws.

please specify/detail

 

[beautress]

We are first and foremost a nation of principals, and when laws violate those principals the people and their representatives have a responsibility to stop the enforcement of those laws.

please specify/detail

He has moral principles confused with high school principals. And if he meant principles, he has personal principles confused with laws based on the majority.

 

[task0778]

" We are first and foremost a nation of principles, and when laws violate those principles the people and their representatives have a responsibility to stop the enforcement of those laws ".

This is a load of crap. Gov'ts at every level have the authority and the power to create, repeal, or amend legislation (i.e., laws). Our duly elected representatives are supposed to adhere to those principles when they perform those duties, and if they don't it is on us as the electorate to throw the bastards out of office if and when those principles are violated. No citizen, representative, or group is above the law - NOBODY - we can't have people saying "well I don't like that law so I'm going to ignore it". Who is to say if and when any law violated any principle, that's the job of the Judicial Branch to make sure every law is Constitutional. Not any individual or group based on whatever their agenda is.

 

[Jets]

Congress does not want to fix the problem. It’s too easy to pander for votes and just keep hammering one another. Why resolve it, when keeping it hot serves a purpose.

 

[otto105]

There was a time, not long ago, when Democrats claimed they are for strong border security and immigration enforcement. After all, Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) and a number of other Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006. In fact, many complained the legislation wasn’t enough to properly secure the border with Mexico.

Not anymore. Now they want to decriminalize the deliberate act of breaking our immigration laws by sneaking this country and avoiding the legal points of entry OR not showing up for their court hearing or leaving the US when legally ordered to do so. Hence the question: why do people (primarily democrats) willfully choose to flagrantly ignore those laws?

During the first Democratic debate in Miami, candidates who were asked directly if entering the United States without permission should be decriminalized, answered yes.
.
.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J) has taken things further and vowed — if elected — to essentially eliminate any kind of border detention through an executive order. His campaign released an 11-page policy document explaining the details.

Guys - this is a de facto open borders policy. Give 'em free health care, education, driver's license, some places even want to let them vote. They get a court date to state their case for why they should be allowed to stay, and the court rules one way or another. If it's NO, the Dems want to let them stay anyway, and give 'em a pathway to citizenship. Well hell, why bother to have any immigration laws or enforcement in the 1st place then. And it ain't just the good people who would get to stay, but a lot of bad people too. Rapists, murderers, terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers, they get to stay too.

So, do we live in a nation of laws, or only those laws that we support? Look, if it's a bad law then let's change it according to the way things like that are supposed to be done. What I see right now is a Democratic Party that loves the laws and judges that agrees with their policies, but ignore or disobey the ones they don't.

Can you post the asylum law that you're tap dancing around.

 

[JoeMoma]

Bottom line: The democrats in congress want to use illegal immigration to change the demographics of America in their favor.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are first and foremost a nation of principals, and when laws violate those principals the people and their representatives have a responsibility to stop the enforcement of those laws.

And... that's related to our immigration laws... how?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There was a time, not long ago, when Democrats claimed they are for strong border security and immigration enforcement. After all, Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) and a number of other Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006. In fact, many complained the legislation wasn’t enough to properly secure the border with Mexico.

Not anymore. Now they want to decriminalize the deliberate act of breaking our immigration laws by sneaking this country and avoiding the legal points of entry OR not showing up for their court hearing or leaving the US when legally ordered to do so. Hence the question: why do people (primarily democrats) willfully choose to flagrantly ignore those laws?

During the first Democratic debate in Miami, candidates who were asked directly if entering the United States without permission should be decriminalized, answered yes.
.
.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J) has taken things further and vowed — if elected — to essentially eliminate any kind of border detention through an executive order. His campaign released an 11-page policy document explaining the details.

Guys - this is a de facto open borders policy. Give 'em free health care, education, driver's license, some places even want to let them vote. They get a court date to state their case for why they should be allowed to stay, and the court rules one way or another. If it's NO, the Dems want to let them stay anyway, and give 'em a pathway to citizenship. Well hell, why bother to have any immigration laws or enforcement in the 1st place then. And it ain't just the good people who would get to stay, but a lot of bad people too. Rapists, murderers, terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers, they get to stay too.

So, do we live in a nation of laws, or only those laws that we support? Look, if it's a bad law then let's change it according to the way things like that are supposed to be done. What I see right now is a Democratic Party that loves the laws and judges that agrees with their policies, but ignore or disobey the ones they don't.

The ACA is a law.

So...?

 

[FA_Q2]

There was a time, not long ago, when Democrats claimed they are for strong border security and immigration enforcement. After all, Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) and a number of other Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006. In fact, many complained the legislation wasn’t enough to properly secure the border with Mexico.

Not anymore. Now they want to decriminalize the deliberate act of breaking our immigration laws by sneaking this country and avoiding the legal points of entry OR not showing up for their court hearing or leaving the US when legally ordered to do so. Hence the question: why do people (primarily democrats) willfully choose to flagrantly ignore those laws?

During the first Democratic debate in Miami, candidates who were asked directly if entering the United States without permission should be decriminalized, answered yes.
.
.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J) has taken things further and vowed — if elected — to essentially eliminate any kind of border detention through an executive order. His campaign released an 11-page policy document explaining the details.

Guys - this is a de facto open borders policy. Give 'em free health care, education, driver's license, some places even want to let them vote. They get a court date to state their case for why they should be allowed to stay, and the court rules one way or another. If it's NO, the Dems want to let them stay anyway, and give 'em a pathway to citizenship. Well hell, why bother to have any immigration laws or enforcement in the 1st place then. And it ain't just the good people who would get to stay, but a lot of bad people too. Rapists, murderers, terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers, they get to stay too.

So, do we live in a nation of laws, or only those laws that we support? Look, if it's a bad law then let's change it according to the way things like that are supposed to be done. What I see right now is a Democratic Party that loves the laws and judges that agrees with their policies, but ignore or disobey the ones they don't.

The ACA is a law.

Has anyone advocated for dismantling it by ignoring the law?

 

[blackhawk]

It would appear we are a nation of laws unless it is politically expedient not to be.