Post New

Donald Trump received more “due process” than anyone I’ve ever seen since OJ Simpson- pleading the fifth, pleading the fifth, delay delay, appeal, appeal, He was afforded the right to delay accountability long past the time when any court could hold him accountable (with a couple of notable exceptions)

But now that he’s president, there’s no due process for those he wishes to deport.

Just whisk them off the street, and send them off to a Salvadoran slave prison., even if they’re here legally and have committed no crime.

Just whisk them off the street, and send them off to a Salvadoran slave prison., even if they’re here legally and have committed no crime. - Bill

---------------

Then why doesn't your side do something about it. Trump is doing what needs to be done but no doubt it could be done faster and better if the effort was bipartisan. Instead all we get from Dems is criticism for what is being done.

You appear to be quite satisfied with using the courts to stop the deportations and then leaving it at that rather than providing the resources to do it with more due process. But your side won't because <reasons>, so game on.

You appear to be quite satisfied with using the courts to stop the deportations and then leaving it at that rather than providing the resources to do it with more due process.

Are there any specific examples of this taking place? So far…it’s been a lot of whining and few specifics.

Then why doesn't your side do something about it. Trump is doing what needs to be done but no doubt it could be done faster and better if the effort was bipartisan. Instead all we get from Dems is criticism for what is being done.

We did do something about it and y'all shot it down. If you agreed to the Immigration Bill, you'd have the momey and gearing up for mass deportation with adequate due process would be well underway. And you deserve to have this drawn to your attention and roundly criticized for your beyond the law maneuvers depriving people of due process and imprisoning them in a foreign country when they have committed no known crimes.


You appear to be quite satisfied with using the courts to stop the deportations and then leaving it at that rather than providing the resources to do it with more due process. But your side won't because <reasons>, so game on.

No. We aren't even close to being satisfied having to correct people who know that what they are saying is not true. It gets old.

You had your chance at the money and increased Presidential powers and flubbed it because King Don wanted to run on immigration. Now I hope you get the money because otherwise this whining of yours will continue for 3+ more years.

We did do something about it and y'all shot it down.

That bill gave us nothing. We've talked about this. We wanted border security; that bill was all about letting even more people in.

There could be a "clean" immigration bill today to add more judges but...who wouldn't vote for it right now? That's right...the democrats. Even though they wanted it before.

You had your chance at the money and increased Presidential powers and flubbed it because King Don wanted to run on immigration. Now I hope you get the money because otherwise this whining of yours will continue for 3+ more years.

Fail. You haven't figured out what Schumer's vote on the CR meant, do you?

Then why doesn't your side do something about it. Trump is doing what needs to be done but no doubt it could be done faster and better if the effort was bipartisan. Instead all we get from Dems is criticism for what is being done.

We did do something about it, or at least tried to.

That bipartisanwritten bill that Republicans were set to help pass before Trump told Republicans to vote against, because, as he said, he wanted to run on the issue as a campaign message?

THAT Bill actually provided funds for expanding immigration courts and hiring more ICE agents, even though you guys are now saying itvwas a bad bill. Of course you are saying it was a bad bill because who wants to admit they were dead wrong?

As far as the number of people whisked off the street and shoved into detention camps even though they were here legally and committed no crimes…. It now appears that they were specifically targeted because they had written or spoken in defense of Palestinian rights in Gaza, so these people would not have been helped by expanded immigration courts. It was malice and not any desire to follow the law that drove their removal by Trump.

“Thought crimes”: the new category of prosecutable violations. But because they violate no law, they will not be deported through any legal means. So… of course the were snatched from the street and disappeared, because there is no legal process Trump could follow in order to do what he wanted to do.

These few snatch and grabs were TARGETED. Here’s how sneaky they were- just prior to their abductions (forget “arrests”. These weren’t arrests) their visas were secretly cancelled. I say “secretly” because they were not notified that the government was cancelling their visa. Hence, they were given no chance to appeal or selfq-deport. They were simply whisked away by masked agents, shoved into unmarked cars and disappeared.


Before they take the next step in this dystopian nightmare, which is doing the same to anyone they choose, they’re going to see if they can get away with these “test cases”. After all, they are immigrants…..LEGAL immigrants, but still immigrants, and who cares about immigrants, legal or otherwise?

If not enough people care about them and simply say “too bad, so sad”, they will have their answer.

And their green light.

"Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It"
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/

Are there any specific examples of this taking place? So far…it’s been a lot of whining and few specifics. - Dope

---------------------

I haven't seen anything besides whining from the dems so I would say whining and zero specifics.

If they engage at all, they offer a reminder of rejecting the 2024 last minute Biden border bill. Since Repubs rejected that bill, the Dems feel they can righteously focus on preventing deportations and remain silent on the horrible consequences beyond that.

Fail. You haven't figured out what Schumer's vote on the CR meant, do you? - Dope

-----------------------

Even if the repubs rejected a perfect bill, why should that excuse the Dems from caring (oops I mean doing something) about protecting our citizens from the consequences of criminal illegals? How on earth does a sanctuary city justify releasing criminal aliens right back on to the streets of their cities? It makes no sense at all.

The mayor of Chicago has a 6% approval rating and he seems fine with it. So much for serving your community.

How on earth does a sanctuary city justify releasing criminal aliens right back on to the streets of their cities?

Initially, for the same reason we justify releasing criminal native-born people right back onto the streets of their cities. Either because they do not qualify for pre-trial detention (ie. they have been accused of a crime but not yet convicted) or because they have finished their sentences. IOW, there is no state law reason to hold them any further.

Now, there is a counter-argument to this: although the local LEO's no longer have a state law reason to hold these folks, they are (or can be) aware that there may be a federal reason for detaining them based on their immigration status. State government (which includes municipal government in this context) cannot be forced to enforce a federal rule - but they can certainly choose to.

The main reason that sanctuary cities or states choose not to voluntarily do that is because they don't want to discourage people in the communities that have a non-trivial number of people here illegally to stop using the police. A lot of your residents will be more loathe to call the police to report most non-critical crimes (theft and property damage, a drunken bar fight, etc.) if it makes it likely that it will resort in someone being deported, rather than getting a modest criminal penalty. Those who are victims of crimes will also stop reporting as much, because a police department that cooperates with ICE is not likely to be one that a victim can count on not to turn them over.

So if the local police are willing to voluntarily assume the function of helping ICE discover and deport people here unlawfully, then portions of the community will reduce interacting with the police. If a large-ish segment of the community are people here unlawfully, that can have a really big impact on how well the police can do their jobs. It can make a community markedly less safe both for those here unlawfully and those who are not.

Conservatives lament the fact that many (most) folks here illegally have formed far-reaching and lasting ties in their communities - they are husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, friends and neighbors, employees and colleagues. It might not be fair that people who are able to evade enforcement for a decade or two have established connections that make it really damaging to start trying to find and remove them. But that's what's happened, so there can be some very negative effects that local governments have to deal with if their police are actively involved in helping the federal government out.

The main reason that sanctuary cities or states choose not to voluntarily do that is because they don't want to discourage people in the communities that have a non-trivial number of people here illegally to stop using the police. A lot of your residents will be more loathe to call the police to report most non-critical crimes (theft and property damage, a drunken bar fight, etc.) if it makes it likely that it will resort in someone being deported, rather than getting a modest criminal penalty. Those who are victims of crimes will also stop reporting as much, because a police department that cooperates with ICE is not likely to be one that a victim can count on not to turn them over. - albaby

------------------

Don't care. If the illegals or their victims choose to avoid law enforcement for that reason, then that is on them. And in no way does that avoidance justify concealing criminals aliens in our country forever if I read you correctly.

That bill gave us nothing. We've talked about this. We wanted border security; that bill was all about letting even more people in.

This is where you seem to not understand even if Albaby explains it to you. IT GAVE YOU THE MONEY to increase the throughput of deportees. IT STREAMLINED THE PROCESS and allowed the use of trained administrators instead of judges. IT ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT TO SHUT DOWN THE BORDER IN EMERGENCIES.

I can't decide if you are deliberately not understanding just to argue or if you actually don't understand. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying you are arguing this just to argue because the idea that you can't understand it is unsettling.

Now, Trump declares emergencies on a whim, so it would be no problem for him to pretend the criteria for shutting down the border was met, and to have another emergency or two as backup on other code sections/law, test that in the courts and delay, delay, delay - in the meantime the border is shut down. And you would have less of this disappearing people, disobeying judges orders, and Trump could find a way to get into trouble in other ways.

With many laws, you pass the imperfect and then go back and see if you can get the changes you like. Trump just wanted the issue to get into office, which was the right call, but now the eternal question - Where's the money?

Conservatives lament ..."

Please everyone, stop using the word conservative to describe the supporters of Trump. They do not want to conserve anything unless it is pre-Civil War America.

Even if the repubs rejected a perfect bill, why should that excuse the Dems from caring (oops I mean doing something) about protecting our citizens from the consequences of criminal illegals? How on earth does a sanctuary city justify releasing criminal aliens right back on to the streets of their cities? It makes no sense at all.

The mayor of Chicago has a 6% approval rating and he seems fine with it. So much for serving your community.

The best part is that if I recall correctly…when the GOP does the next spending bill they only need 51 votes. They fund or not fund whatever they want…and the d’s can’t do anything about it.

So we might just get more $$$ for immigration judges and detention centers…not to mention more wall.

With many laws, you pass the imperfect and then go back and see if you can get the changes you like. Trump just wanted the issue to get into office, which was the right call, but now the eternal question - Where's the money? - Lapsody


---------------

Starve DHS of the necessary resources to provide higher levels of due process and then complain about lack of due process. That's not doing the country any good.

This is where you seem to not understand even if Albaby explains it to you. IT GAVE YOU THE MONEY to increase the throughput of deportees.

Density level: iron.
“Throughput” INTO the country.

You really do believe that the border was secure under Biden, don’t you?

Starve DHS of the necessary resources to provide higher levels of due process and then complain about lack of due process. That's not doing the country any good.

It’s rare that an entire population of message board posters Fails so hard on one issue like our libs did on border security…and then keep doubling down on it. But there they go.

With many laws, you pass the imperfect and then go back and see if you can get the changes you like. Trump just wanted the issue to get into office, which was the right call, but now the eternal question - Where's the money? - Dope

------------------

That is a good point, Dope. If we do get, thru reconciliation, DHS the resources it needs to protect all of us, then I will not consider that victory over the Dems, but rather a victory for OUR country.

With sufficient resources, the level of due process can scale to whatever size is needed as long as we are careful to prevent logjams. I think most reasonable people would prefer sorting as much out on the front-end as possible. Just think of how much crime could be deported in just a few years with the right level of bipartisan support.

Don't care. If the illegals or their victims choose to avoid law enforcement for that reason, then that is on them. And in no way does that avoidance justify concealing criminals aliens in our country forever if I read you correctly.

I don't think you read him correctly. They aren't concealing anything. If the crime goes unreported in the immigrant areas, crime goes up for everybody - including the nearby American communities. This will happen if dealing with the police on certain things leads to deportation.

Me: Until you get the throughput ramped up on your deporting machine, why not leave those cities alone, and badger them when it matters. Get That vacuum cleaner going - show us what ya got.

Me: Until you get the throughput ramped up on your deporting machine, why not leave those cities alone, and badger them when it matters. Get That vacuum cleaner going - show us what ya got. - Lapsody

---------------


Sure. Lets get some bipartisan spending going, the sooner the better.

Don't care. If the illegals or their victims choose to avoid law enforcement for that reason, then that is on them.

You don't have to care, but the people who runs these cities do. Especially since the consequences of lack of cooperation with law enforcement aren't limited just to the "illegals or their victims." Everyone's worse off if law enforcement is less able to do their job.

You were struggling to think of a reason why communities choose to be sanctuary cities (or states). This is one of the main ones. If a large portion of the population isn't here legally, and you drive them underground away from legitimate law enforcement, everyone's less safe.

And in no way does that avoidance justify concealing criminals aliens in our country forever if I read you correctly.

As was pointed out upthread, you don't read me correctly. Sanctuary city policies don't involve concealing criminal aliens - they typically involve local government refusing to undertake any voluntary efforts to help ICE across the board. Many (most?) sanctuary policies will draw a line somewhere between helping ICE deport people who have been convicted of serious crimes and avoiding having someone deported when they're pulled over for a traffic violation, to give the two extremes.

I'm not trying to convince you of this perspective, but there are many people who don't think it's a just outcome for someone to get deported if they've spent decades living here as an upright member of the community, working hard and raising a family and just trying to live their life. That's not a popular position at this very moment, but historically Americans have generally favored a "path to citizenship" for such longtime residents rather than mass deportation.

I get that's not your perspective....but there's a reason why Javert was not the hero of Les Mis. Showing forbearance to someone who's lived a good life, despite an early violation of the law, is a popular position. It's not your position (or LM or Dope), and I understand where you're coming from. But there's a fair number of people who disagree with you that the best thing to do with an undocumented person who's lived here for decades and shown themselves to be a decent person just trying to lead a better life is to deport them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrn57340xlo.amp

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/3/27/who-a...

but there are many people who don't think it's a just outcome for someone to get deported if they've spent decades living here as an upright member of the community, working hard and raising a family and just trying to live their life.

And I'm one of those people. I see people as people. If they've shown themselves to be good people, let them become citizens. You can make the border and immigration requirements more stringent, I've no problem with that, but don't shut off immigration completely or slow it to a trickle. Don't split up families, and if you are going to err, err on the side of being humane.

Starve DHS of the necessary resources to provide higher levels of due process and then complain about lack of due process.

If I was a woodpecker, I’d go beat my head against a wall right now:

The bipartisan immigration bill would have increased funding for immigration courts/judges and detention cells. In other words, it would have provided funding for due process.

But noooooo! Donnie wanted to run on the issue of kicking all of those Venezuelan gang members ( who weren’t all Venezuelan gang members… or even criminals).

The bipartisan immigration bill would have increased funding for immigration courts/judges and detention cells. In other words, it would have provided funding for due process.

Again, democrat Presidents would have done no such thing. Detention? Lol. Biden was just passing as many people into the country as he could. The judges’ jobs would have been to wave a red cape in front of the border.

And the best part? A democrat could say, “Welp, we have to wait until the daily average of a zillion people has been hit before I can do anything!”

Again. Stop it. The bil was defeated because the whole thing was a poison pill.

"Then why doesn't your side do something about it. Trump is doing what needs to be done but no doubt it could be done faster and better if the effort was bipartisan. Instead all we get from Dems is criticism for what is being done.
"

LOL that you think Democrats are not trying to do something about it.....

Get better sources of information and stop looking like an idiot and destroying the country with your ignorance.

Mike,

One question for you:

A 25-year-old illegal alien who works as a dishwasher/barback at a local restaurant. He has led an honorable life. The only thing illegal he has ever done in his life was walking with his mother across the U.S. Mexican border 21 years ago when he was 4 years old. Since then he has been an upstanding citizen and has always stayed out of trouble. He is hard working, clean living, upstanding person. No drugs, no violence, never has gotten as much as a speeding ticket.

One day at work while taking out the garbage to the dumpster out back, he witnesses a major crime. Maybe a man raping a woman, maybe one person stab another person, maybe a drug deal. Whatever.

In a sanctuary city he is free to interact with the police and tell them what he witnessed which could help them solve the major crime.

In a notably non-sanctuary city where police would be forced to turn him over to ICE the moment they talked to him, he probably will avoid talking to the police. He knows he will be deported to a country he can't even remember living in. So the police lose access to a witness of a major crime which means they have a much harder time solving it which also could mean a major criminal goes free.

So my question is, how exactly does that make non-sanctuary cities safer?

I think you are under the delusion fed to you by the information sources you use that take advantage of you that it is mostly criminals and bad people crossing over the border. That isn't true. Most illegal aliens are generally hardworking, upstanding people whose only illegal act is to cross the border (or overstay their visa) looking for a better life for themselves and their family.

In general, there is less crime where generally hardworking, upstanding citizens are not afraid to interact with the police. It is good for society when upstanding people go to the police for help or to give help.

disagree with you that the best thing to do with an undocumented person who's lived here for decades and shown themselves to be a decent person just trying to lead a better life is to deport them. - albaby

--------------------

I am not advocating for deporting illegal immigrants such as the ones you describe. I have posted about this before, that illegals such as you describe could apply for some sort of legal status that allows them to remain here unless and until they commit a serious crime.

LOL that you think Democrats are not trying to do something about it..... - Umm</>

-------------------

You forgot to mention what you think the dems are doing about it. BTW, whining and obstructing doesn't count.

In a notably non-sanctuary city where police would be forced to turn him over to ICE the moment they talked to him, - Umm

-----------------

Unless the dishwasher had committed a crime, the above is a made up boogeyman.

I am not advocating for deporting illegal immigrants such as the ones you describe. I have posted about this before, that illegals such as you describe could apply for some sort of legal status that allows them to remain here unless and until they commit a serious crime.

Fair enough, but that's not what the federal law is today. Past administrations have tried to create a de facto system like that, by de-prioritizing the deportation of anyone who's been here a while and hasn't committed any crimes (apart from those related to their immigration status) - but even that was imperfect, and it's mostly been stripped away by the current Administration.

That's why sanctuary policies exist - as a way for local governments to try to create the policy you describe above. If everyone coming into contact with the police (or government agencies in general) gets turned over to ICE, then they all face the risk (or likelihood) of deportation. So local governments set limits on how much they will cooperate with ICE, so that the illegal immigrants that you agree should not be deported won't be. Because the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are the sort that you agree should be allowed to stay, sanctuary policies are typically set so that most government folks don't voluntarily enforce the federal immigration laws.

It's a kludge. Sanctuary cities and states don't control federal immigration policy, so they adopt a flawed and imperfect mechanism to try to keep the ones I described from being deported. Since the GOP fiercely rejects your position (that the immigrants I described should be allowed to obtain some sort of legal status), it's unlikely that anything better will get adopted at the federal level. So local governments that adjudge that widespread deportation of the immigrants I describe would be terrible for their communities end up implementing sanctuary policies.

Unless the dishwasher had committed a crime, the above is a made up boogeyman.

Yup. What he described isn't how it works.

Fair enough, but that's not what the federal law is today.

Then...wait for it...change the law. Spend the political capital on a bill called "A pathway to citizenship for undocumented aliens who otherwise haven't done anything wrong" (Editor's note: I split the difference between 'illegal aliens' and the left's more obfuscatory term 'undocumented persons'). Spend the political capital on the debate and get it done.

That's why sanctuary policies exist - as a way for local governments to try to create the policy you describe above.

No they don't. As a resident of one of the more out and proud sanctuary cities I can tell you those policies are there to virtue signal and make the policy's supporters feel good about themselves. Nothing more.

Spend the political capital on a bill called "A pathway to citizenship for undocumented aliens who otherwise haven't done anything wrong" (Editor's note: I split the difference between 'illegal aliens' and the left's more obfuscatory term 'undocumented persons'). Spend the political capital on the debate and get it done.

They have. Proposals to do that have been frequently proffered, from time to time. But all have failed. Every effort at what has been called "comprehensive immigration reform" has foundered. Typically these proposals involve a path to citizenship for aliens who otherwise haven't done anything wrong combined with strengthening border security. But invariably, they generate a ton of political opposition from immigration hardliners in the GOP, who fundamentally oppose the idea of a path to citizenship being included in such a bill.

See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Eco...

....which garnered 14 Republican votes in the Senate, but died without getting a vote in the House. And that wasn't a "clean" pathway to citizenship bill - it had provisions to strengthen border security and ratchet up internal enforcement, but it wasn't enough to overcome fierce opposition from the GOP base against providing any pathway to citizenship.

So you end up with a patchwork of local regulations that seek to protect those who otherwise haven't done anything wrong - ie, sanctuary policies. They try to minimize the degree to which state and local governments (especially LEO's) collect immigration status information and/or voluntarily perform functions at the request of the federal government.

No they don't. As a resident of one of the more out and proud sanctuary cities I can tell you those policies are there to virtue signal and make the policy's supporters feel good about themselves. Nothing more.

Consider that you're wrong and misreading... just joking, I know you can't possibly consider that.

BTW, Alababy wrote this: Since the GOP fiercely rejects your position (that the immigrants I described should be allowed to obtain some sort of legal status), it's unlikely that anything better will get adopted at the federal level.

Did you not read that? It's a board crime that you failed to read an Albaby post, so we are holding a meeting tomorrow and the recommended approach is that you be deported to another board for three LM weeks and a Mike day. A Jedi is just far too long.

They have. Proposals to do that have been frequently proffered, from time to time. But all have failed.

Have they every REALLY put any ooomph behind it? They typically wait for a Republican to get into office and then try to guilt that guy into taking this on. They nearly were able to get Bush43 on board if memory serves.

But invariably, they generate a ton of political opposition from immigration hardliners in the GOP, who fundamentally oppose the idea of a path to citizenship being included in such a bill.

That's why I say they're going to have to spend political capital and do some dealing.

So you end up with a patchwork of local regulations that seek to protect those who otherwise haven't done anything wrong - ie, sanctuary policies. They try to minimize the degree to which state and local governments (especially LEO's) collect immigration status information and/or voluntarily perform functions at the request of the federal government.

LOL. 1, it isn't up to these local jurisdictions to dictate federal policy. Every time they do, a judge reminds them to stay in their lanes:

https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/k...

SEATTLE — Boeing Field, officially known as King County International Airport (KCIA), has been court-ordered to allow the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to resume deportation flights following a years-long court battle over an executive order issued in 2019.

In April 2019, King County Executive Dow Constantine issued an executive order that placed a ban on all deportation flights of immigration detainees out of KCIA, a publicly owned airport, to combat “troubling immigration practices” that “could lead to human rights abuses and violations”

Consider that you're wrong and misreading... just joking, I know you can't possibly consider that.

Consider that adults are talking and the kids table is over there *points over there*

BTW, Alababy wrote this: Since the GOP fiercely rejects your position (that the immigrants I described should be allowed to obtain some sort of legal status),

1. Your fangirling of al is cute. I'm sure he loves it, too.
2. I said the dems could try to spend some political capital - that means, you know, make a deal - to get this done.

I took no position other than to suggest a course of action the democrats could pursue.

Have they every REALLY put any ooomph behind it?

Yes. This was a priority of the Obama Administration, and Schumer put a lot of political capital behind it. Because the filibuster exists, these proposals always have to start with Republicans being on board. That's why none of the serious proposals start off as an "everything that Democrats want and nothing else" bill - it's a waste of everyone's time, since the Democrats invariably need at least a handful of GOP votes.

That's why I say they're going to have to spend political capital and do some dealing.

Again, they have done so in the past. But sometimes there's no deal to be had. A very large chunk of the GOP base has been unequivocally opposed to a pathway to citizenship, so there's no "deal space" for such a proposal. That's even more the case today, and it would be impossible to get a bill that included a pathway for citizenship through the Senate today, no matter what else it contained.

LOL. 1, it isn't up to these local jurisdictions to dictate federal policy. Every time they do, a judge reminds them to stay in their lanes:

Not every time. Sanctuary policies in general aren't new, and they've held up in court. State and local governments can't be "commandeered" into enforcing or administering federal law. So while they can't take any steps to prevent the federal agencies from doing their jobs, they are perfectly free to refrain from doing anything to help.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amd...

Yes. This was a priority of the Obama Administration, and Schumer put a lot of political capital behind it. Because the filibuster exists, these proposals always have to start with Republicans being on board.

They could have rammed this through in Obama's first couple of years when they had as many as 58 Senators. Would have been easy to flip a McCain, a Susan Collins or a Lisa Murkowski.

So while they can't take any steps to prevent the federal agencies from doing their jobs, they are perfectly free to refrain from doing anything to help.

Sure, not that I made that claim.

They could have rammed this through in Obama's first couple of years when they had as many as 58 Senators. Would have been easy to flip a McCain, a Susan Collins or a Lisa Murkowski.

They didn't need more Senators. The 2013 passed the Senate with 68 votes and 14 GOP Senators voting in favor. It died in the House.

Sure, not that I made that claim.

Just responding to your suggesting that when local governments adopt sanctuary policies, it's not true that "every time" a judge tells them to stay in their lane. States have the plenary power to refrain from enforcing or administering federal laws, and nearly all sanctuary policies take that form. Judges don't overturn these policies, because the States (or local governments) are staying in their lane. No doubt there are adverse rulings here and there at the margins, but for the most part the core policies of "sanctuary" jurisdictions have been allowed to remain in place.

They didn't need more Senators. The 2013 passed the Senate with 68 votes and 14 GOP Senators voting in favor. It died in the House.


Then they could have had this easily in from 2009-2011.

Then they could have had this easily in from 2009-2011.

Perhaps, but they got tied up with the health care bill. It ended up taking way more time and legislative calendar than they ever anticipated. There were manifold reasons for that, but the upshot is that they ended up running out of time for most of their legislative priorities - including comprehensive immigration reform.

<Perhaps, but they got tied up with the health care bill.

Walking and chewing gum at the same time are a thing, you know.

Walking and chewing gum at the same time are a thing, you know.

I do. But I also know that you can't simultaneously be pushing your Senators and House members on tough votes on lots of different issues at once. There's only so much that can be pushed into the legislative calendar. They were trying to do economic policies to respond to the Great Recession, the health care bill, and climate legislation during that first two years.

"Comprehensive immigration reform" has been tried several times, but it fails for the same basic reason - there is a large enough portion of the Republican base that fundamentally rejects it that it cannot pass. And at least for the last twenty years, that's also been the position of the most important media voices of the right - Limbaugh and Fox.

But I also know that you can't simultaneously be pushing your Senators and House members on tough votes on lots of different issues at once.

What tough votes? Obama won an overwhelming mandate in 2008. Would have been easy peasy to ram through.

And at least for the last twenty years, that's also been the position of the most important media voices of the right - Limbaugh and Fox.

They were irrelevant in 2009.

Dope1: Then they could have had this easily in from 2009-2011.

How? Democrats only had a supermajority for about 60 legislative days.

First, Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

In May, Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and his vote was unavailable.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy died and it wasn't until February 4, 2010 that Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Kennedy held.

The suggestion that Democrats had a veto-proof supermajority from 2009-2011 is another of those rightwing fairy tales.

What tough votes? Obama won an overwhelming mandate in 2008. Would have been easy peasy to ram through.

Nope. You may recall that his climate bill died, the financial reform bill struggled and had to be trimmed back significantly, and the health care bill very nearly died - and it was a massive struggle to get that through. There was a ton of arm-twisting that had to happen just to get what they were able to pass through, and very little of it was "easy peasy."

Congresscritters don't like taking too many tough votes in a single election cycle. You can't go to that well too often. The Obama Administration barely squeaked the health care law through - they never could have also gotten an immigration bill through as well.

Nope. You may recall that his climate bill died, the financial reform bill struggled and had to be trimmed back significantly, and the health care bill very nearly died - and it was a massive struggle to get that through. There was a ton of arm-twisting that had to happen just to get what they were able to pass through, and very little of it was "easy peasy."

Hmmm. Maybe he didn't have as big of a mandate as was thought.

"disagree with you that the best thing to do with an undocumented person who's lived here for decades and shown themselves to be a decent person just trying to lead a better life is to deport them. - albaby

"I am not advocating for deporting illegal immigrants such as the ones you describe. I have posted about this before, that illegals such as you describe could apply for some sort of legal status that allows them to remain here unless and until they commit a serious crime." - BHM

So you support sanctuary cities but you just do not realize it because you watch to much Fox News and let them take advantage of you by feeding your fears.

Hmmm. Maybe he didn't have as big of a mandate as was thought.

Or maybe the U.S. government divides power among the different branches, and the results of all the "smaller" elections for Representatives and Senators also matter and confer democratic legitimacy, not just the election for President. So even when the President wins a mandate, Congress still has a role in the government - and if Congress' preferences diverge from those of the President, it's not an anti-democratic result for the President's preferences to be thwarted by his inability to get Congress to act.

Either way, it's wrong to argue that the Democrats don't want a path to citizenship for unlawful immigrants who have led upright lives simply because they didn't pass an immigration bill, any more than one could argue that they don't care about climate change because they couldn't pass a climate bill in 2009.

Or maybe the U.S. government divides power among the different branches, and the results of all the "smaller" elections for Representatives and Senators also matter and confer democratic legitimacy, not just the election for President.

And yet, in the Hopey|Changey moment, Obama had a massive wave not seen since Reagan. And all we got were Obamacare and some t-shirts.

And yet, in the Hopey|Changey moment, Obama had a massive wave not seen since Reagan. And all we got were Obamacare and some t-shirts.

Again, nope. In addition to the ACA, they also passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus bill), the UIRJCA tax bill, the expansion of S-CHIP, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulation act, and a few others.

Again, nope.

No? He wasn't hailed as the next great wave, of fulfilling the left's destiny? Ushering in a new wave of progressive policies driving American Awesomeness the likes of which we've never seen before?

they also passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus bill), the UIRJCA tax bill, the expansion of S-CHIP, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulation act, and a few others.

Ahhh, yes. The stimulus. The $780 or so billion seems like couch cushion money now.

No? He wasn't hailed as the next great wave, of fulfilling the left's destiny? Ushering in a new wave of progressive policies driving American Awesomeness the likes of which we've never seen before?

Sure, there were people who thought that, especially at the beginning of his term. Lots of people don't understand how the government works, and didn't appreciate: i) that the Democratic coalition extended into more conservative members (like Bart Stupak or Joe Manchin) that weren't especially progressive; and ii) although the Presidential election draws the most focus, the President only has so much power to effectuate legislative change. Which is why so many progressives were disappointed (and disillusioned) that the ACA didn't have a public option, to say nothing of the other compromises and limits that ended up in the final bill. Or the complete demise of the climate change bill. They thought that electing Obama would mean that they would be completely ascendant, but that's not how American politics works.

Winning a Presidential election doesn't give you the power to make all the changes you want, no matter how big the win.

Sure, there were people who thought that, ...including Obama himself, the media, and his party.

Lots of people don't understand how the government works, and didn't appreciate: i) that the Democratic coalition extended into more conservative members (like Bart Stupak or Joe Manchin) that weren't especially progressive; and ii) although the Presidential election draws the most focus, the President only has so much power to effectuate legislative change. Which is why so many progressives were disappointed (and disillusioned) that the ACA didn't have a public option, to say nothing of the other compromises and limits that ended up in the final bill. Or the complete demise of the climate change bill. They thought that electing Obama would mean that they would be completely ascendant, but that's not how American politics works.

It's more like those specific proposals collapsed while bearing the weight of a lot of bad policy. So bad they couldn't ram them through. There's a reason why no on really talks about the 'public option' any more...because it's not and never was a real option.

Winning a Presidential election doesn't give you the power to make all the changes you want, no matter how big the win.

Depends on the changes you want. If what you want, well, sucks, and is obviously measurable to be sucky, then you're not getting it.

There was a ton of arm-twisting that had to happen just to get what they were able to pass through, and very little of it was "easy peasy."

Wow. It was so recent, and the revisionism is already in-place on the right.

As I recall, the Senate vote was strictly on party lines. Not one Rep voted for it, even after getting a LOT of concessions. Dems probably should have voted on a bill that didn't have concessions, as the end result would have been the same.

In fact, it might have been better since there were several Dems who defected in the House, making that vote closer than it otherwise might have been. A quick check says 34 Dems voted against it. I know at least one Dem (whose name I forget) was in the pocket of insurance companies, so he was a "nay". Probably some of the others, too. I wonder how many voted against it because there was no public option.

Winning a Presidential election doesn't give you the power to make all the changes you want, no matter how big the win.

Tell that to the Felon. And his win wasn't particularly large.

You're speaking of the past, when norms were respected. I'm thinking the next Dem that wins should start a rampage of his/her own, and let Reps try to stop them. That seems to be the new norm.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.