Nikki Haley

Yes, because every American wants and deserves a prez who's batshit crazy.

 

Thought this was a Nikki Haley thread. Reads like another rehashing of old talking points.

 

@FutureGatorMom

“Not an answer. The topic was what law is out there that the president can follow to close the border. Answer: There isn't one. He can do an executive order, but the courts will make it unenforceable.”

Wish there was a nicer way of saying this, but you straight up don’t know what you’re talking about.

DHS has broad discretion in how they choose to enforce existing law, including border laws.

Statute says it’s illegal to cross the border “illegally.” How the Executive Branch goes about enforcing it is generally their business subject to federal statutory and Constitutional limitations. They certainly don’t need Congress’s permission for every little thing at the border.

It’s also laughable to suggest that limited agency/cabinet authority is what’s holding the same administration back that tried to unilaterally impose national vaccine mandates via OSHA.

They’ve made it perfectly clear that the Constitution is either a shield or an obstacle, and they’re more than willing to try and hurdle that obstacle if they either perceive that their cause is important enough or the threat which the policy is addressing is urgent enough. The fact that they’re dragging their feet and blaming Congress is telling. The White House doesn’t view securing the border as that important and they don’t consider a non-secure border to be a threat. Nobody worth any sort of credibility on this issue genuinely believes that the same White House of the OSHA vax mandates, student debt forgiveness, and great defenders of the administrative state that the Constitution is stopping this Administration from doing more to secure the border.

The fact that Democrats in Washington DC are pushing to give noncitizens voting rights in federal elections also make me skeptical with respect to the intentions of this Administration on this issue. The least they can do is discuss the issue honestly, but of course they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too, likely because they know it’s a losing policy issue for them.

Looks an awful lot like they want the political benefits of illegal immigration without the political blowback.

The game here is painfully obvious, and there’s no talking sense into anyone who doesn’t see it.

 

Can you link to that?
thanks

 

Majority of House Dems vote to allow noncitizen voting in DC | Fox News

 

That link says local elections?

 

Fair enough. Perhaps I misspoke.

That said, can you explain why Democrats would make a policy distinction between federal and local elections here? Why would it be so important to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, but so bad in federal elections?

I understand that actual support matters, but the fact that they’re pushing in one, but not the other in this case tells me that they’re not prepared to deal with the political consequences of allowing noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Nowhere to run when your name is actually on a bill supporting such a thing. It’s easier to point the finger when you “don’t” do something than when you go out on a limb supporting a bill. They can probably get away with supporting noncitizen voting rights in DC because it’s blue, but they can’t at the federal level, so they punt.

 

I mean, that’s technically correct. But I think Tilly meant the government funding that necessarily accompanied the shutdowns significantly contributed to inflation.

So if the shutdowns and spending spree that accompanied them were prolonged far longer than necessary, that turns this into a critical political judgment with real consequences going both ways.

Democrats would have you believe it’s all due to supply chain issues while ignoring the near year longer than necessary where people were being paid all over the country to sit on their couches.

 

Yes, perhaps you did.
There's a huge difference between local and federal. And that's why I asked for the link. I knew there was no big movement to allow noncitizens to vote in federal elections.
There are a dozen or two towns and cities across the country that allow it in local elections.
As far as the rest your response, you seem to be pretending that Democrats really want noncitizens to vote in federal elections, they're just playing it slow ... for now.
Like you're initial claim about federal elections, that's without any evidence other than an empty accusation about the other side.

 

A majority of Democrats in the House supported it for local elections, so why not federal?

What is the difference in this context? Federalism?
1) This is a federal issue regarding federal elections currently criminalized by federal law.
2) When has federalism ever stopped them from trying before?

 

Because federal elections are federal and local elections are local? I disagree with them, I think that voting for government should only available for citizens of that government. But I can see the reasoning behind it, everyone in the city is going to be impacted by the election, so everyone should be represented.

I disagree with them, but I wouldn't misrepresent what they are doing to try and score debate points

 

You just made that up I see. Nice.

 

First of all, maybe the Democrats were just allowing the city to make its own rules.
But, seriously, you got caught trying to pass a pretty significant falsehood and this is your rebound attempt? "OK,maybe they didn't do that. But I bet they wanted to!"
You really think that's an honest, rational argument?

 

No, I don't think voting for DC mayor and city council fits any definition of a federal election.

 

Immigration is good for the economy so they have moved on from brown people will take your jobs to now brown people will nullify your vote.

 

Do you get to vote in the DC elections on your ballot? I dont.

 

I made a mistake. That hardly debunks the point.