GOP Senator Warns of Violence After Obama Immigration Order

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by InTheLight, Nov 19, 2014.

  1. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    WASHINGTON — Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama's executive order on immigration Thursday.

    "The country's going to go nuts, because they're going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it's going to be a very serious situation," Coburn said on Capital Download. "You're going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. ... You could see violence."

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ay-capital-download-with-tom-coburn/19263969/
     
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Why was there no protest or violence when Reagan and G. Bush, Sr. basically did the same thing?

     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Neither one of them basically did the same thing. You need to check your facts.
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Maybe he knows something I don't , but I don't look for that to happen. At least, not in any major way.

    But the uproar may grow when it really hits home that he thinks he's some kind of dictator, instead of an elected office holder.

    Congress can stop it. But I don't believe they will. Reading between the lines, you realize Boehner and McConnell have as much as said so.

    The real uproar will be between Republicans in Congress that want to stop it, and those that are afraid to do what it is going to take.
     
  5. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    They didn't do "basically the same thing". Reagan signed an immigration bill into law in November 1986. The law didn't extend enough protections against deportations to minors of immigrants covered by the law and efforts to amend it failed. The INS announced that minor children of immigrants covered by the law would not be deported but spouses that were not covered would be deported. So Crabby, do you think the U.S. government should take unnaturalized kids out of the hands of their parents and deport them?

    The Senate approved an amendment covering the children of legal immigrants in 1989 by a huge margin, but the House did not. In 1990 Bush extended the law to cover children (and others relatives).

    Key differences between now and then:

    1. Reagan signed a law passed by Congress. Obama is going to take unilateral action.

    2. The public mood was (mostly) in favor of changing the status of immigrants so they could be considered legal. The mood today is very divisive, with a majority of people opposing amnesty.

    3. The tally on the Senate amendment that was passed in 1989 was 81-17; the tally on the Senate law passed in 2013 was 68-32. In both cases the House did not act.

    4. Bush's action was an extension of a law already on the books. Obama will be making a new "law" all by himself.
     
  6. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,934
    Likes Received:
    45
    Guess the Blacks got their priority's wrong with the white cop.....should be focused on the Spanish speaking illegals who are gonna take them jobs and benefits without saying a word....in English that is.
     

Share This Page

Loading...