"Prezbo" selectively enforces 0bamacare, so NO chance of a secure border on his watch

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MastaG8r, Jul 10, 2013.

  1. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,697
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +744
    Ah hyperbole. The art of not letting facts get in the way of a good argument. Did you know that as of last year, Obama was deporting immigrants at a rate of 1.5 times that of President W. Bush? Here's something sorely lacking in this thread, proof.

    And, as we have been down this road before, you should also know that if we increase enforcement of immigration without allowing for either new immigrants, or the ones here a way to stay legally, it will create labor shortages.


    You also know that it cost money to enforce our laws. ICE estimates an average of $12,500 per immigrant.

    So let's look at the economics of deporting all immigrants without giving them a way to stay legally. Total cost of deporting every one? according to the last link, over $285 billion. But that's not the only "cost", of course. It will also cost us more in terms of inflation, as the above labor shortages will mean less supply, which of course, means higher prices for goods and services. And it's not just crops, but in things like construction, and service industries. In short, increased enforcement alone is a double fiscal whammy, and with Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia providing recent case studies, no politician is going to touch enforcement only options as a serious answer. They may pay lip service to it, but it will never come up to a vote, because it's an economic time bomb of epic proportions.

    Last but not least, to the OP, the increased enforcement portion of the bill will partly take care of itself if it is passed. The overwhelming majority of border crossers do so to find work. If we created a way for these immigrants to pass through urban centers in a legal manner instead of crossing the open desert, that's exactly what the immigrants will do. The end result will be a much more organized way of tracking the crossers, plus increased enforcement of the desert, as there will be the same number of agents, but a lot less crossers! And those that are caught wouldn't be the ones who would come here to work, but the riff raff we want to keep out, like drug runners and other criminals.

    Unfortunately, I believe the right will ignore all the facts, and still push for increased enforcement only, and no increased guest worker program/system that allows those already here to stay. And the end result will be more of the status quo because between the three options, a Gang of 8 bill, increased enforcement, or the status quo, the increased enforcement only ship has already sunk, and is gone.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Emmitto
    Online

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,151
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,067
    On a positive note Mexico is now the fatassedness capital of the world, surpassing You Know Who. So I'm thinking Twinkies production should be moved to Mexico (it's just a matter of time anyway, isn't it?) They can make several quarters per hour making them and would never want to leave Twinxico!
  3. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    Uh huh. Care to address the topic of the thread?

    If the 0bama Administration can selectively enforce some provisions of 0bamacare but not others, what assurances do we have that he will enforce any border security mandate in an immigration reform bill?

    Sorry but "we don't really need a border security mandate anyway" is not an acceptable answer.
  4. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,697
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +744
    Because increasing border security on the mandate will be a lot easier, not to mentioned, will have funding built into it. Obamacare was sweeping changes that when passed, would take years to implement from the get-go. It's not a huge surprise that it's full implementation hasn't been as smooth as hoped, and things are being delayed. In short, it's brand new legislation with new funding sources.

    In contrast, the border provisions in the Gang of 8 bill tasks the existing ICE agents that already in place, already funding, and already doing much of the job. In addition, the G of 8 bill would put an additional funding source (fines and guest visas) into the pot. And again, the bill itself makes enforcement easier. In short, much of the enforcement provisions in the G of 8 bill are built in, as ICE will have an easier time enforcing the border once the majority of illegals stop crossing the open desert. Plus, all of the enforcing mechanisms and man power is already in place.

    It's apples and oranges. Obamacare huge changes, with little to no functionality built in resulting in delays of the application timeline that had already built in years for things to kick in. Gang of 8 provision doesn't change what ICE does much, if at all, plus gives them a new funding source.
  5. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    No it's not apples and oranges, it's apples and apples, and here's why: Your argument is predicated on the idea that the 0bama Admin's delay of implementing the employer mandate was done entirely in good faith because they are not logistically ready yet. If you are telling us you believe that, then in my opinion you are either being naive or "willfully ignorant," to steal a phrase Kid Carney used today.

    I, and I'm sure a great many others, believe that the implementation of the employer mandate was pushed back until after the 2014 elections for obvious political reasons.

    So this requires you to play devil's advocate, but just for the sake of argument, pretend I'm right and 0bama did delay the employer mandate for purposes of political benefit. IF that's the case then doesn't it stand to reason that proponents of a secured, locked-down border should be concerned that he might decline to enforce any mandate directed toward that end? Because for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the idea of a "secured, locked-down border" is not something that is politically popular on the Left, among 0bama's supporters.
  6. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    That was sarcasm, by the way. :bored:
  7. baygator1
    Offline

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    1,594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,233
    Government needs people who need government. Each one is another justification for an expenditure, a bureaucracy and a hand that's a little deeper in the pockets of those paying the bills.
  8. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,518
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +503
    I never expected him to enforce immigration laws. If he were going to he would not be bringing lawsuits against a State trying to enforce the laws already on the books.
  9. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Why would the employer mandate be such a big deal in 2014? It will only affect about 1% of all jobs in America and the political fall out from delaying it's implementation is already significant. Your speculation on the reasons for the delay doesn't add up.
  10. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    Which political fallout from delaying its implementation are you referring to? What's the basis for it?
  11. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,987
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,995
    McDonald's, Burger King, Wall Mart, Target, every single fast food chain across America will be affected, and they can't afford to pay that ridiculous TAX.
  12. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Critical news reports and opportunity for repubs to take shots. Surely you've noticed, since you've got the talking points down pat.
  13. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,822
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    And big business needs dirt cheap labor so they can make as much money as possible. You don't think Americans are going to pick lettuce or work in a slaughterhouse for minimum wage do you? Not to mention the needs of the common people such as lawn service, construction, nannies, house cleaning etc. I'm about as far from the Mexican border as an American can be (excepting Alaska and Hawaii) and virtually every laborer around here is Hispanic.

    Like I said, neither side really wants to enforce the borders.
  14. baygator1
    Offline

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    1,594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,233
    I'm pretty sure that's why I said government - not dems or pubs. And they've already won by getting most of us to pick a 'side'. A whole bunch are just too dumb, some willfully, to realize the mockery these politicians are making of the people.

    Government creates a lot of our problems, a big one of which is illegal immigration and millions of illegal aliens inside our borders. Then, government convinces the people that it is the solution for the problems it has created. And finally, government successfully divides the people into arguing amongst themselves about which politician has the right solution to the problems created by the politicians. Even better - you can bet your ass that the solution will involve taking more from you, the people.

    Some self-identify with a D, some with an R. And the sad truth is it matters not.
  15. OB1
    Online

    OB1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +38
    If it only affects 1% of all jobs, why delay it? Obviously it affects such a small portion of the employers and employees delay isn't needed.

    Row seriously, open your eyes, see what is there, think, then reply.

    Delay the implementation for 1%! As if it would be so hard for that 1%, so many confused employers, they need Uncle Obama to save them. This will really make it a smoother transition for the other 99%, it will free up extensive resources that would have been wasted on that 1%. See how that looks, don't be so naive.

    It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,987
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,995
    This.
  17. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    Tell me more about the critical news reports, since your extreme partisanship causes you to dismiss out of hand any argument raised by Republicans on grounds that....well, on grounds that it is an argument raised by Republicans.

    What was the basis of criticism for the critical news reports you've seen about the delay of the employer mandate?
  18. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,987
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,995

    Since when are facts relegated to talking points? And does it really matter?

Share This Page