Online Now 4208

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2388
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 4415
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

obama trying to sneak in illegal aliens

  • F'ing pathetic. This idiot makes me sick

    This post was edited by USMCAG on 6/18/2012 at 4:42 PM

    Secret report: Catch and release for low-priority illegals proposed - Washington Times

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency charged with guarding the U.S. borders, has written a secret draft policy that would let its agents catch and release low-priority illegal immigrants rather than bring them in for processing and prosecution.

    m.washingtontimes.com
    signature image signature image signature image

    SEC SEC SEC!!!

    USMCAG

  • Questionable constitutionally and legally. And a clear attempt to pander to Hispanics...I think it is going to backfire.

    www.neoavatara.com/blog

    neoavatara

  • So he wants to focus on the illegals causing problems versus the ones who are coming here to contribute and make a better life?

    Completely fine with that.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • Good god, it's like you see the name "Obama" and immediately start seeing red and frothing at the mouth.

    1. This isn't an "illegal" immigration policy. This would be a change in policy to existing Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) regulations. There's nothing illegal about such a change.

    2. All this does is give CBP prosecutorial discretion. This doesn't force CBP to let a single illegal immigrant walk free with amnesty - it simply gives the agency the option to decline to prosecute illegals.

    3. The Department of Homeland Security already has this policy in place for Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE), so this is nothing new, it just brings CBP's policies in line with the already existing ICE policy.

    Read the damn article and do some research before spouting off like an idiot.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • CMXI said...

    Good god, it's like you see the name "Obama" and immediately start seeing red and frothing at the mouth.

    1. This isn't an "illegal" immigration policy. This would be a change in policy to existing Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) regulations. There's nothing illegal about such a change.

    2. All this does is give CBP prosecutorial discretion. This doesn't force CBP to let a single illegal immigrant walk free with amnesty - it simply gives the agency the option to decline to prosecute illegals.

    3. The Department of Homeland Security already has this policy in place for Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE), so this is nothing new, it just brings CBP's policies in line with the already existing ICE policy.

    Read the damn article and do some research before spouting off like an idiot.

    1. Yes there is, its against the constitution. If there's nothing rong with it, then why is he trying to sneak it in.
    2. Wrong, its opening a door that shouldn't be opened.
    3. Your rationalization sucks.

    signature image signature image signature image

    SEC SEC SEC!!!

    USMCAG

  • USMCAG said...

    1. Yes there is, its against the constitution. If there's nothing rong with it, then why is he trying to sneak it in.
    2. Wrong, its opening a door that shouldn't be opened.
    3. Your rationalization sucks.

    Aren't all these angencies part of the executive branch beauracracy? Because if so, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • USMCAG said...

    1. Yes there is, its against the constitution. If there's nothing rong with it, then why is he trying to sneak it in. 2. Wrong, its opening a door that shouldn't be opened. 3. Your rationalization sucks.

    1. Please enlighten me as to how this is against the Constitution.

    2. The door was already opened, and the country hasn't collapsed in on itself.

    3. Your powers of argument are truly astonishing. I refer back to point 1 though - please explain how this is unconstitutional? The Obama administration is trying to bring consistency to Homeland Security agencies because our wonderfully deadlocked and inefficient Congress stonewalls any attempt at progress proposed by the Executive Branch.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • rms02d said...

    Lol thats the same thing I think every time I see a post from USCMAG.

    Its always a 7 word sentence of anger, without any deeper understanding or willingness to research the topic at hand.

    biggrin

    He's going to be super butthurt come November with his team and with the election.

    BetterOff

  • Isn't immigration policy a function of Congress, and not the POTUS? Why is Homeland Security making any policies in the the of run of the mill immigration, that isn't a security issue? Therefore, this is a Constitutional issue.

    viningsnole

  • BetterOff said...

    biggrin

    He's going to be super butthurt come November with his team and with the election.

    He has singlehandedly made me want the entire SEC to use TAMU for a punching bag. Sooo...get on that. But don't commence the wholesale a**-whupping until after the first game of the season, please.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • By the way Lamar Smith is an idiot douche who panders to other idiots to keep his cushy job in Washington. He fails at everything that comes out of his mouth.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • viningsnole said...

    Isn't immigration policy a function of Congress, and not the POTUS? Why is Homeland Security making any policies in the the of run of the mill immigration, that isn't a security issue? Therefore, this is a Constitutional issue.

    All immigration services were absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 when DHS enveloped Immigration and Naturalization Services. DHS is a cabinet department established by President George W. Bush, under the control of the executive branch, for the purpose of organizing numerous different executive branch agencies into one department. Included in this department are Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), among others. There's no constitutional issue, because Congress has no claim on any part of DHS or the executive branch's decision-making here.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    By the way Lamar Smith is an idiot douche who panders to other idiots to keep his cushy job in Washington. He fails at everything that comes out of his mouth.

    FFS, Lamar Smith sponsored SOPA. If he had his way, half (if not more) of what we post on this website would be actionable.

    Also, USMCAG, I'm still waiting on an explanation as to why you think this is unconstitutional.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • CMXI said...

    All immigration services were absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 when DHS enveloped Immigration and Naturalization Services. DHS is a cabinet department established by President George W. Bush, under the control of the executive branch, for the purpose of organizing numerous different executive branch agencies into one department. Included in this department are Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), among others. There's no constitutional issue, because Congress has no claim on any part of DHS or the executive branch's decision-making here.

    No.

    signature image signature image signature image

    SEC SEC SEC!!!

    USMCAG

  • CMXI said...

    He has singlehandedly made me want the entire SEC to use TAMU for a punching bag. Sooo...get on that.

    he's just the tip of the iceberg. there's thousands more just like him goosestepping their way through collie station and out into the real world, embarrassing my state.

    if you ever feel like feeling dumber, hit up http://texags.com/main/forum.topic.asp?forum_id=5 for football, or http://texags.com/main/forum.topic.asp?forum_id=16, which is where usmcag gets all of his political posts he brings over here.

    if you want to see what the rest of texas already knows about aggy, hit up this thread: http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/94931-Tell-me-about-Texas-A-amp-M

    roger huerta

  • USMCAG said...

    No.

    Brilliant argument there, Einstein, you're truly the genius voice of a generation.

    Seriously, every part of what I just said is correct, and if the only thing you can say in response is "No", then I think we all can see just how little you really understand about what's going on here.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • USMCAG said...

    F'ing pathetic. This idiot makes me sick

    So when he is taping a video for the County Music awards or filling out a tournament bracket he is "trying to be a celebrity" and should be "doing his job"

    But when he drafts or promotes legislation (his job) you think he needs to be quiet and shut up.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • Overbearing regulations that are okay with cons

    Virginia Poised to Impose Country's "Most Restrictive" Abortion Rules | Mother Jones

    http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/virginia-most-restrictive-abortion-regulation

    m.motherjones.com
    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Overbearing regulations that are okay with cons

    Regulation is the biggest thing holding America back.

    Unless it involves vaginas. Then its ok

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Overbearing regulations that are okay with cons

    Hurts women? A-Okay! Helps immigrants? BOOOOO.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • joetheogre said...

    Regulation is the biggest thing holding America back.

    Unless it involves vaginas. Then its ok

    Haven't you heard? You can't even say "vagina" any more.

    Michigan lawmaker banned from speaking after saying 'vagina' during an abortion debate - Lean Forward

    A Michigan lawmaker has been banned from speaking on the House floor after referencing her private parts while debating a bill that would restrict abortion rights in the state.

    leanforward.msnbc.msn.com
    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • CMXI said...

    Haven't you heard? You can't even say "vagina" any more.

    Wow.

    Might as well ban every word that is involved in sex. I guess penis, pelvis, crouch, hips, and thrust are all out the window too.

    I mean what will happen to our kids if they hear these words? They are better off learning ding-a-ling and hoo ha

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • bhiley77 said...

    I don't care if people have abortions, but good luck with the "hurts women" argument.

    If only every republican thought like you do.

    They have made their name the last 20 years by decrying any attempt by the government to regulate anything and maintaining that the government has no right to tell them what do. Then they turn around and try and impose their value system on everyone else. Does no one else find the hypocrisy in this?

    This post was edited by joetheogre on 6/15/2012 at 2:24 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • bhiley77 said...

    I don't care if people have abortions, but good luck with the "hurts women" argument.

    Setting aside the health implications, I think it's fair to say that restricting a woman's choice as to whether or not she has an abortion constitutes "hurting" her.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • USMCAG said...

    1. Yes there is, its against the constitution. If there's nothing rong with it, then why is he trying to sneak it in.
    2. Wrong, its opening a door that shouldn't be opened.
    3. Your rationalization sucks.

    Should rong be added to the list of words people spell wrong along with turrets?
    Good luck in college, you're gonna need it.

    signature image

    "As far as the downvotes. It's a gnat biting an lion" -- A member of tRCMB Justice League, taking the internet WAY WAY too seriously.

    Rocket_Play