PDA

View Full Version : Obongolo's Catch and Release Program



gman0046
09-09-2010, 01:19 PM
The latest insanity out of the Obongolo administration is the catch and release program for illegal aliens. The Department of Homeland Security has instructed police who pull over illegals for a traffic infraction to release them unless they have committed a previous felony. This is in direct contradiction of federal law. In spite of nearly 70% of Americans support the deportation of illegals Obongolo comes up with this ridiculous initiative. We shouldn't be surprised with anything the kenyan clown comes up with.

aandw
09-09-2010, 01:35 PM
The latest insanity out of the Obongolo administration is the catch and release program for illegal aliens. The Department of Homeland Security has instructed police who pull over illegals for a traffic infraction to release them unless they have committed a previous felony. This is in direct contradiction of federal law. In spite of nearly 70% of Americans support the deportation of illegals Obongolo comes up with this ridiculous initiative. We shouldn't be surprised with anything the kenyan clown comes up with.

would it not be illegal to order subordinates to ignore or break the law?

gman0046
09-09-2010, 01:40 PM
The sad fact is Obongolo doesn't care wether its illegal or not, he thinks he can do anything. I'd like to know why the fools at Homeland Security and ICE continue to get paid by taxpayers dollars when they won't do the job their being paid for.

dnf777
09-09-2010, 01:43 PM
The latest insanity out of the Obongolo administration is the catch and release program for illegal aliens. The Department of Homeland Security has instructed police who pull over illegals for a traffic infraction to release them unless they have committed a previous felony. This is in direct contradiction of federal law. In spite of nearly 70% of Americans support the deportation of illegals Obongolo comes up with this ridiculous initiative. We shouldn't be surprised with anything the kenyan clown comes up with.


Is there a creel limit?

ducknwork
09-09-2010, 02:31 PM
Is there a creel limit?

More importantly, how do they taste when fried with slaw and hushpuppies on the side?

YardleyLabs
09-09-2010, 02:32 PM
Historically, deportations have averaged around 1/4 of arrests and detentions, with the balance being freed because of a lack of space and the resources to process the removal. Thus, "catch and release" has been the norm under all administrations, and not something invented by Obama. Deportations are now running at a rate of about 400,000 per year, which represents the highest levels ever. The total number of illegals has been declining over the last few years according to Pew estimates as a result of a mix of enforcement activities and our bad economy. One of the efforts that may prove more effective than most has been the implementation of more frequent and intense audits of employers during which employees with inadequate documentation of visa status are flagged. Employers must then correct the problem or terminate the employees. This helps in stimulating self removals, which are much cheaper for taxpayers.

road kill
09-09-2010, 02:51 PM
Historically, deportations have averaged around 1/4 of arrests and detentions, with the balance being freed because of a lack of space and the resources to process the removal. Thus, "catch and release" has been the norm under all administrations, and not something invented by Obama. Deportations are now running at a rate of about 400,000 per year, which represents the highest levels ever. The total number of illegals has been declining over the last few years according to Pew estimates as a result of a mix of enforcement activities and our bad economy. One of the efforts that may prove more effective than most has been the implementation of more frequent and intense audits of employers during which employees with inadequate documentation of visa status are flagged. Employers must then correct the problem or terminate the employees. This helps in stimulating self removals, which are much cheaper for taxpayers.

For once Yardley is right on.
By demolishing the American economy, Obama has done more to slow illegal immigration than any President in recent memory.

The illegals no longer are coming in the numbers they once did due to the lack of opportunity.


Good call Yardley!!:D


RK

YardleyLabs
09-09-2010, 02:56 PM
For once Yardley is right on.
By demolishing the American economy, Obama has done more to slow illegal immigration than any President in recent memory.

The illegals no longer are coming in the numbers they once did due to the lack of opportunity.


Good call Yardley!!:D


RK
The destruction of the US economy has been a direct product of Republican policies. But of course you already know that.

Roger Perry
09-09-2010, 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by road kill http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=674053#post674053)
For once Yardley is right on.
By demolishing the American economy, Obama has done more to slow illegal immigration than any President in recent memory.

The illegals no longer are coming in the numbers they once did due to the lack of opportunity.


Good call Yardley!!:grin:


RK

The destruction of the US economy has been a direct product of Republican policies. But of course you already know that.
__________________
Jeff Goodwin
http://jeffgoodwin.com (http://jeffgoodwin.com/)
http://yardleylabs.com




RK knows that but will not admit it.

WaterDogRem
09-09-2010, 05:52 PM
The destruction of the US economy has been a direct product of Republican policies. But of course you already know that.

Although this is going off topic, please enlighten us to which Republican policies you refer to?
I find it hard to believe anyone can, truly, fully blame just the Republicans while using two open eyes.

YardleyLabs
09-09-2010, 06:12 PM
Although this is going off topic, please enlighten us to which Republican policies you refer to?
I find it hard to believe anyone can, truly, fully blame just the Republicans while using two open eyes.
Bankrupting the country and our economy by implementing massive tax cuts while dramatically increasing government spending. That's the "short form" answer. Add to that expansion of policies making it easier to move jobs overseas and a continuation and acceleration of deregulation of the financial services industry,

gman0046
09-09-2010, 07:04 PM
Obongol's "catch and release" program is just another example of what he will do for the hispanic vote. What a clown. A disgrace to this great country. Even Dems have to be asking WTF?

K G
09-09-2010, 07:39 PM
The destruction of the US economy has been a direct product of Republican policies. But of course you already know that.

Let's "play like" for a moment and assume this is a singular truth: the FACT is that the President, the House, and the Senate (the Democrat's "trifecta") have been totally ineffective in reversing it. Where's that "Change" we were all promised?


Bankrupting the country and our economy by implementing massive tax cuts while dramatically increasing government spending. That's the "short form" answer. Add to that expansion of policies making it easier to move jobs overseas and a continuation and acceleration of deregulation of the financial services industry,

"Dramatically increasing government" spending? Please, Jeff...do us the honor of comparing the state of the Bush economy ON THIS POINT ONLY with how the Obama administration has dealt with government spending during its two and a half year run.

And the only thing you left off of your last sentence after the comma (was that Freudian?) was " begun by the Clinton administration."

Looking forward to your spin on this regards,

k g

YardleyLabs
09-09-2010, 08:17 PM
Let's "play like" for a moment and assume this is a singular truth: the FACT is that the President, the House, and the Senate (the Democrat's "trifecta") have been totally ineffective in reversing it. Where's that "Change" we were all promised?



"Dramatically increasing government" spending? Please, Jeff...do us the honor of comparing the state of the Bush economy ON THIS POINT ONLY with how the Obama administration has dealt with government spending during its two and a half year run.

And the only thing you left off of your last sentence after the comma (was that Freudian?) was " begun by the Clinton administration."

Looking forward to your spin on this regards,

k g
Obama has been ineffective in reversing the damage caused by the policies of the Bush years, and that is his responsibility. I actually don't fault him for the stimulus program. I think it fulfilled a necessary need to prevent an all out depression. However, I also think that the administration has been warped into thinking that deficits are not really a problem, and that is very dangerous. A measure of that is that polls being conducted to evaluate the priorities of the Democratic "base" do not even list the deficit as an option when asking respondents to indicate their concerns. What does the Republican Party offer as an alternative? Even more of the same.

The deregulation was not started by Clinton. It was started by Reagan. Some of what was done then made sense. However, the excesses implemented then directly caused the collapse of the S&L industry and a tax payer financed bankruptcy of pension plans to feed investment speculation. Clinton added to the problem and Bush shoved it into high gear.

The problem with "deregulation" is that it becomes the same type of ideology as tax cuts. Any rational person understands that both policies are finite. Unfortunately, it all sounds so ideologically pure that real logic goes out the window. The Bush collapse should have been a wake up call for both parties. The Democrats haven't taken it far enough, and the Republicans want to use the collapse as an excuse for making things even worse.

EDIT: The rate of increase in Federal government expenditures more than doubled under Bush as compared with Clinton, In addition, Federal revenues grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush, whichis why we see a constant reduction in deficits under Clinton followed by dramatic increases under Bush.

david gibson
09-09-2010, 08:47 PM
The destruction of the US economy has been a direct product of Republican policies. But of course you already know that.

man! darn those republican programs or entitlement! what were they thinking?

oh yeah, lincoln was a republican, and back then they enacted the baby anchor amendment.....gosh, its all our own fault....:rolleyes:

K G
09-09-2010, 09:28 PM
EDIT: The rate of increase in Federal government expenditures more than doubled under Bush as compared with Clinton, In addition, Federal revenues grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush, which is why we see a constant reduction in deficits under Clinton followed by dramatic increases under Bush.

So you're avoiding the direct comparison of "dramatically increased government spending" between Bush's 8 years and Obama's 2 1/2?

As for Clinton, all I'll say is that the "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac" floodgates were opened....and Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape. We don't need to use too much imagination to figure out how these two ditties affect us still today...

k g

YardleyLabs
09-10-2010, 06:06 AM
So you're avoiding the direct comparison of "dramatically increased government spending" between Bush's 8 years and Obama's 2 1/2?

As for Clinton, all I'll say is that the "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac" floodgates were opened....and Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape. We don't need to use too much imagination to figure out how these two ditties affect us still today...

k g
I believe I addressed that in the first paragraph of my post.

Clay Rogers
09-10-2010, 06:14 AM
Bankrupting the country and our economy by implementing massive tax cuts while dramatically increasing government spending. That's the "short form" answer. Add to that expansion of policies making it easier to move jobs overseas and a continuation and acceleration of deregulation of the financial services industry,

Yardley, correct me if I am wrong(and I am sure you will), but didn't Clinton push for and pass the NAFTA and GATT programs? Seems like the textile industry in my town, which probably employed 60% of the population started leaving town in the early to mid '90's.

dnf777
09-10-2010, 10:16 AM
Yardley, correct me if I am wrong(and I am sure you will), but didn't Clinton push for and pass the NAFTA and GATT programs? Seems like the textile industry in my town, which probably employed 60% of the population started leaving town in the early to mid '90's.

NAFTA was drafted under Bush I, and has been supported by every president since.

troy schwab
09-10-2010, 10:25 AM
NAFTA was drafted under Bush I, and has been supported by every president since.

Unfortunately...... this is correct.

dnf777
09-10-2010, 10:32 AM
Unfortunately...... this is correct.

A good source of info (and opinion) is Thomas Friedmans's best-seller, The World is Flat. While many may strongly disagree with his politics and economics, he does make some irrufutable observations.

Most notably, the ease of information exchange and transport of goods around the world. (and services, as anyone who's spoken with cust service knows) This levels the global markets, and along with that, global standards of living. China and India want cars, air-conditioning, and electricity 24 hours a day now too. Those who had is poor, are getting it better now. Those who had it better, (us) will inevitably decline in our SOL, if we want to remain competitive.

Didn't someone just post an article about US wages being too high? Fits right into his observations. NAFTA has accelerated the flattening of the world.

Clay Rogers
09-10-2010, 10:38 AM
A good source of info (and opinion) is Thomas Friedmans's best-seller, The World is Flat. While many may strongly disagree with his politics and economics, he does make some irrufutable observations.

Most notably, the ease of information exchange and transport of goods around the world. (and services, as anyone who's spoken with cust service knows) This levels the global markets, and along with that, global standards of living. China and India want cars, air-conditioning, and electricity 24 hours a day now too. Those who had is poor, are getting it better now. Those who had it better, (us) will inevitably decline in our SOL, if we want to remain competitive.

Didn't someone just post an article about US wages being too high? Fits right into his observations. NAFTA has accelerated the flattening of the world.


That entire post is depressing.

Buzz
09-10-2010, 10:44 AM
A good source of info (and opinion) is Thomas Friedmans's best-seller, The World is Flat. While many may strongly disagree with his politics and economics, he does make some irrufutable observations.

Most notably, the ease of information exchange and transport of goods around the world. (and services, as anyone who's spoken with cust service knows) This levels the global markets, and along with that, global standards of living. China and India want cars, air-conditioning, and electricity 24 hours a day now too. Those who had is poor, are getting it better now. Those who had it better, (us) will inevitably decline in our SOL, if we want to remain competitive.

Didn't someone just post an article about US wages being too high? Fits right into his observations. NAFTA has accelerated the flattening of the world.

I posted the article. Unfortunately the two who commented on it missed my point completely. I was thinking along the lines of our inevitable decline in a flat world. Maybe I should add more commentary to my posts instead of assuming that my point is obvious... :rolleyes:

dnf777
09-10-2010, 11:17 AM
Maybe I should add more commentary to my posts instead of assuming that my point is obvious... :rolleyes:


Ah, but then you run the risk of being accused of "bloviating" or just saying "blah blah blah" and typing until you cover the subject. :rolleyes:

ducknwork
09-10-2010, 11:54 AM
NAFTA was drafted under Bush I, and has been supported by every president since.

Clinton signed it into law. He had the chance to veto it if he disagreed.

ducknwork
09-10-2010, 11:59 AM
I posted the article. Unfortunately the two who commented on it missed my point completely. I was thinking along the lines of our inevitable decline in a flat world. Maybe I should add more commentary to my posts instead of assuming that my point is obvious... :rolleyes:

I understood what you were getting at. (Yes, JDog, I got it!) My point that I was trying to add on to yours is that if wages declined, (which makes perfect sense) people wouldn't be able to afford to live unless prices declined first. That's just what we need is more people that have to rely on someone else (the govt) to help buy groceries because the electric company is bending them over every month and continues to do so, even though everyone's wages are lower than they once were.

WaterDogRem
09-10-2010, 12:18 PM
Bankrupting the country and our economy by implementing massive tax cuts while dramatically increasing government spending. That's the "short form" answer. Add to that expansion of policies making it easier to move jobs overseas and a continuation and acceleration of deregulation of the financial services industry,

How about the housing market and those subprime loans, which really broke the banks & market?

road kill
09-10-2010, 12:37 PM
Ah, but then you run the risk of being accused of "bloviating" or just saying "blah blah blah" and typing until you cover the subject. :rolleyes:

Often imitated, never duplicated...........;-)



RK

Buzz
09-10-2010, 12:52 PM
I understood what you were getting at. (Yes, JDog, I got it!) My point that I was trying to add on to yours is that if wages declined, (which makes perfect sense) people wouldn't be able to afford to live unless prices declined first. That's just what we need is more people that have to rely on someone else (the govt) to help buy groceries because the electric company is bending them over every month and continues to do so, even though everyone's wages are lower than they once were.


The thing is, the only thing that will bring prices down is people struggling and being unable to buy stuff. Then the prices of stuff will go down because of a lack of demand. Unfortunately, lots of us are in houses that have mortgages on them. So when the price of that stuff goes down, you're really screwed. I fear that this is not going to end well for anyone, except those who make money off of exploiting cheap labor and putting Americans with their fat paychecks and lifestyles in their place.

dnf777
09-11-2010, 02:12 PM
Clinton signed it into law. He had the chance to veto it if he disagreed.

from Wiki:

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.


We can quibble over "who started it", but I firmly believe that any president since Bush I, if given the chance would ratify it just the same. Its driven by multinational corporations who give billions to any and all parties who may have anything to do with legislation that will favorably impact their bottom line!

And if you think its bad now.....with the new SCOTUS ruling.........you ain't seen nothin' yet!

depittydawg
09-11-2010, 02:49 PM
Clinton signed it into law. He had the chance to veto it if he disagreed.

Clinton collaborated with the Republican congress and signed a lot of laws that have proven to have been bad for America. In hindsight, Clinton was the biggest de-regulator in Modern History.