• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

The 90s were great. I got so much poontang and there were some good bands and Jerry was still alive.

And I had hair still:

140xgu9.jpg
 
Last edited:
BobStackFan4Life said:
I'd say around 1984. Neoliberal trade agreements and immigration have really taken a toll on the American standard of living.
Click to expand...

Yes, the mid 80s were great for gay people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I love that a dude who thinks Lena Dunham is hot constantly brags about the women he's been with. Congrats on the sex bud
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Nope. Just someone who is rooting for President Trump and hopes he is successful, so America can be great again. You people have shown you are going to oppose him every step of the way, on everything, no matter if it hurts America or not.
Click to expand...
[h=3][/h]About as believable as everything else you post.
 
JManslow said:
Yes, the mid 80s were great for gay people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Gay people do not constitute the whole of America, but yes, AIDS did put a crimp in all their sucking and fucking. That was certainly not great.
 
WakeandBake said:
lighten up, francis

dont hate the player, hate the game.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you say, you did say Lena Dunham was hot and weren't joking. You then tried to play it off by claiming you'd only seen a flattering pic of her. I wanna see that pic!
 
It's all schtick, boys. You people take me way too seriously. I'm much funnier in person I reckon.

I don't know I saw her on a magazine cover once IDFK. I never said hot, I said that sometimes an average chick is a better lay.
 
Except in 1984 "illegal" immigration was growing so much that Reagan passed a true amnesty bill in 1986 (7?). It was a much bigger "problem" than it is today.

EDIT: Reagan was so anti-gay that thousands of US hemophiliacs needlessly died of HIV/AIDS. As did people like Arthur Ashe and others.
 
RJKarl said:
Except in 1984 "illegal" immigration was growing so much that Reagan passed a true amnesty bill in 1986 (7?). It was a much bigger "problem" than it is today.

EDIT: Reagan was so anti-gay that thousands of US hemophiliacs needlessly died of HIV/AIDS. As did people like Arthur Ashe and others.
Click to expand...

It's cumulative. Immigration, both legal and illegal, has averaged around a million people per year since 1965. The impact in '84 was not nearly as great on the country as it is 33 years later.
 
I read the order and looked at which parts it blocked.

1- Blocked the part about immigrants and nonimmigrants. Kind of agree with this. If Trump had narrowed his focus and excluded those who were already here or had already been here, I think he'd be fine. Just banning new visa issuance overseas and at home would have been well within his purview.

2 - The rest of it seems like nonsense to me. His administration can prioritize however it seems fit. Obama sure as shit did. If he wants to prioritize on the basis of religious discrimination, fine. If he wants to suspend the USRAP program for 120 days, he can do that too. Now if you go beyond that into what becomes an extended ban that becomes a de facto BAN ban, then I think there are issues there that may require congressional approval. This notion, however, that immigration is cool so long as the POTUS makes it permissive as fuck within the scope of his authority but not cool if he cracks down within the scope of his authority is absurd.

3 - Interestingly enough, the judge did not address capping the program at 50k. It would be somewhat amusing if Trump, in light of this judge's decision, capped the number at 0 and effectively suspended it for this year.

4 - It's also interesting how the state can claim harm in this case (which I agree with), but the Feds hid behind preemption in Arizona vs. U.S. Might be time to throw that decision back in their face.
 
RJKarl said:
Except in 1984 "illegal" immigration was growing so much that Reagan passed a true amnesty bill in 1986 (7?). It was a much bigger "problem" than it is today.
Click to expand...

I'm tired of hearing about this nonsense. Reagan's approach was pragmatic, meant to be a one-time affair, and meant to also be met with an increase of enforcement so we didn't have to relive another amnesty discussion. Guess what didn't happen now that we've had several amnesties in the subsequent years? Tip O'Neal wasn't very much interested in the enforcement element, but rather in the permanent underclass of voters that would benefit his party. The same holds true today. It's as big, if not bigger, problem now than it was back then.
 
Nobody was talking about amnesty since 2001. To say the W or Obama plans were the same as Reagan's is simply false.
 
Fuck, RJ lies a lot. He just constantly makes up shit. For example, claiming thousands of hemophiliacs died because Reagan hated gay people. Lie. Claiming nobody has been talking about amnesty since 2001. Lie. Quit lying.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I read the order and looked at which parts it blocked.

1- Blocked the part about immigrants and nonimmigrants. Kind of agree with this. If Trump had narrowed his focus and excluded those who were already here or had already been here, I think he'd be fine. Just banning new visa issuance overseas and at home would have been well within his purview.

2 - The rest of it seems like nonsense to me. His administration can prioritize however it seems fit. Obama sure as shit did. If he wants to prioritize on the basis of religious discrimination, fine. If he wants to suspend the USRAP program for 120 days, he can do that too. Now if you go beyond that into what becomes an extended ban that becomes a de facto BAN ban, then I think there are issues there that may require congressional approval. This notion, however, that immigration is cool so long as the POTUS makes it permissive as fuck within the scope of his authority but not cool if he cracks down within the scope of his authority is absurd.

3 - Interestingly enough, the judge did not address capping the program at 50k. It would be somewhat amusing if Trump, in light of this judge's decision, capped the number at 0 and effectively suspended it for this year.

4 - It's also interesting how the state can claim harm in this case (which I agree with), but the Feds hid behind preemption in Arizona vs. U.S. Might be time to throw that decision back in their face.
Click to expand...

1. It's far from settled that it would be constitutional to make any decision in the immigration context based on religious discrimination. I'm inclined to think that courts would find it impermissible.

2. 50k is the statutory minimum I believe. He doesn't have authority to go below that.

3. State is claiming harm based on lost revenue from these students now being unable to attend its public universities. Certainly seems more concrete than the harm the Fifth Circuit held to be sufficient in the DACA II/DAPA case.
 
RJKarl said:
Nobody was talking about amnesty since 2001. To say the W or Obama plans were the same as Reagan's is simply false.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? There has been a ton of discussion about amnesty since 2001 and it began pretty much right after the LIFE Act, which granted amnesty to millions, expired. It went on the backburner for a few years after 9/11 and Bush never made it a priority afterwards, but it was always on his agenda. Obama wanted immigration "reform" from his first day until his last and took a lot of executive actions to sidestep Congress and create benefits out of whole cloth.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Are you kidding me? There has been a ton of discussion about amnesty since 2001 and it began pretty much right after the LIFE Act, which granted amnesty to millions, expired. It went on the backburner for a few years after 9/11 and Bush never made it a priority afterwards, but it was always on his agenda. Obama wanted immigration "reform" from his first day until his last and took a lot of executive actions to sidestep Congress and create benefits out of whole cloth.
Click to expand...

Neither W's nor Obama's comprehensive immigration plans were amnesty regardless of what RWers want to call them. Amnesty means no penalties or requirements to stay.
 
MysteryMen said:
1. It's far from settled that it would be constitutional to make any decision in the immigration context based on religious discrimination. I'm inclined to think that courts would find it impermissible.

2. 50k is the statutory minimum I believe. He doesn't have authority to go below that.

3. State is claiming harm based on lost revenue from these students now being unable to attend its public universities. Certainly seems more concrete than the harm the Fifth Circuit held to be sufficient in the DACA II/DAPA case.
Click to expand...

1 - Religious persecution has been a longstanding basis for asylum and refugee claims over the years. If they find it impermissible, they would be undoing years of precedent all for the sake of undermining Trump.

2 - You're probably right here. You definitely are if it's the statutory cap.

3 - I'm not disagreeing with the state claim to harm, which is sufficient to order an injunction in itself. The larger question is at what point do the feds have an interest that supersedes that of the states, and at what point does the state interest preempt the federal ability to enforce immigration law? We know in the case of the latter that it doesn't, so does that render the former moot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top