Credo

I am happy it has been vetoed. It reminds me of the Garrison Diversion program which was going to bring water to all kinds of places. The Mandan, Arikara and Hidatsa Indian tribes lost much of their land, a large portion of a lucrative oil field was put under water and the promised irrigation waters were never diverted to anywhere useful.

A hazardous pipeline has been averted.

The folly of youth. When I was young, kids went off to join things like the Hippie movement. The motto was 'make love, not war'. They seem to have went for the other option.

The top 16 most dangerous cities. What a weird number. Why not the top 10? Top 15?

Jeb's first foreign policy speech was a complete disaster. He made Sarah Palin look worldly wise

Yes, but can he see Cuba from where he lives?

I have no sympathy for any religious ritual or cultural practice that causes harm or suffering. I would however point out that there are practices which cause a far greater toll, which are more worthy of our focus. I'm referring to practices such as female circumcision, child brides and honor killings to name but three.

The NYC police probably attend to problems of female circumcision and honor killings with the same vigor that this is being pursued. I don't know that they are a big problem in NYC, however.

No, I didn't miss the point, but thanks for the clarification.

Here, I found a quote that places the cost issue into context, which NeverSure first brought into the discussion:

"Judge Hanen’s opinion was certainly skeptical of the administration’s approach. “The court finds that the government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country,” he wrote. “Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with this country’s high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states’ resources.”"

See, Publicus, how your earlier comments have absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed here?

This is not about Texas incurring the cost of adhering to federal law, but the costs incurred by the state because the feds aren't upholding the law themselves, when they're the ones responsible for enforcing it.

The suit brought by the 26 states only has to do with the costs they would incur due to the executive action.

Number one, that is speculative.

Number two, the states always bear the costs of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive actions, orders, decisions, and judicial ones too.

Number three, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters in any way whatsoever to include fiduciary or fiscal impact.

These matters are firmly anchored in the Constitution and in the body of case law established by the SCOTUS.

"Number two, the states always bear the costs of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive actions, orders, decisions, and judicial ones too."

This is simply not true. The US Constitution gives the Feds the right to tax and spend (Federal money.) It doesn't give it the right to spend state money or to force or cause a state to spend money.

When the Department of Education was formed in the 60's and made a Cabinet Level Department in the 80's it developed new regulations and then funded those regulations for the states. It can't make a regulation and force the state to pay for it. It's a back and forth issue because the money is also the carrot, but it comes from the feds.

"Number three, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters in any way whatsoever to include fiduciary or fiscal impact."

See above. Indirectly the states have say in immigration matters if those matters are federal policy but would require the state to pay for it. The Feds can't make a law which requires a state to spend state money.

The Constitution gives the feds the right to tax and spend with certain restrictions, but only to spend federal money.

You are going to lose on this one. The strongest cause of action that the State of Texas has against Obama here is MONEY.

Not exactly true. The states opt for certain programs and in return they get funding. If they don't want the federal funds then they can opt out of the programs, but this has huge financial costs to the states. Examples are highway funds and welfare costs. In the case of welfare costs, all participating states agree to have the services available to all citizens in all counties (or parishes). If you deny it in one place the state loses all funding -- and that's a lot of money.

You might remember when the 55 MPH speed limit was put into effect, some states said no, until they realized the amount of money they would lose.

The States aren't all that different from a Patpong hooker; they start selling themselves when they realize how much they will lose if they don't.

The problem is that no matter what is done to solve this problem, other than some sort of amnesty, it is going to cost A LOT of money. We can tighten up the borders, but in all honesty, I doubt we can tighten them up enough to keep large numbers out. People smugglers are pretty ingenious about getting people across borders. The smugglers also aren't too concerned about the welfare of their charges.

There is the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico for alternate routes. When you look at Australia, which is a very large island, they have a fair amount of trouble keeping illegals out.

The process of getting a lot of illegals out of the US is very expensive, time consuming and subject to failure and endless judicial review.

In the past some of the more conservative presidents have allowed them to stay not because they wanted them to stay, but because they knew it was not going to work to try to get them deported.

You have families with one or more members who are citizens and a member who is eligible for immigration but is currently in the US. There are lots of situations where deportation is simply not a feasible option.

Why would I want to integrate into a country where I can't stay in for long term?

There's not much choice but to kick the can down the road.

Before Americas tough foreign policy,Iraq was a stable country,as was Libya,albeit under brutal dictators,please some one tell me in what way are they better now?

They were far from stable countries. These were tightly controlled countries and little information was available to the outside world. To give you an example, the Anfal campaign, which resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Kurds, was not reported on in the media.

The illusion of peace and the lack of headlines does not equate to stability.

I knew an 80 year old that tried to have sex. He got arrested for assault with a dead weapon.

Finally, free and fair elections!

Taxes paid in a foreign country are deductible on your US taxes.

Round them up all over Europe and send them one way ticket to the caliphate where they will die soon.

Tattoo them with a Charlie Hebdo cartoon on their foreheads before putting them on the plane.

I think a tattoo of Mohammad would work better.

6 weeks? That should give ISIS enough time to move in and get settled.

If the Jews leave Europe, then there is more room for the Muslim immigrants.

Well that's Egypt firmly in the fray now, not a good move by ISIS as they are the 3rd largest force in the area.

Do you really think the muslim Egyptian army is going to risk spilling a drop of blood for some dead Chrsitians?

They may not be anxious to risk spilling blood for Christians, but they may be willing to do so for Egyptians.