Pelosi: Dem Majority Will 'Reverse' Trump Efforts to Secure Border, Enforce Immigration Laws
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats will seek to undo President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure the border and enforce the nation’s immigration laws, House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised in a statement Saturday.
When her party assumes the House majority next term, it will pass a bill to allow illegal aliens to remain in the U.S., make it easier for illegal aliens to seek asylum in the U.S., and end separation of apprehended illegal alien families – all while thwarting the president’s efforts to build a border wall, Pelosi said:
“In the Majority, Democrats will work to reverse the Republicans’ destructive anti-immigrant agenda.
“Our House Democratic Majority will once again pass the Dream Act to end the uncertainty and fear inflicted on patriotic young men and women across the country. We will protect TPS [Temporary Protected Status] recipients and those fleeing unimaginable violence. And we will hold the Trump Administration accountable for their inhuman policy of separating families, and the trauma and anguish they have inflicted on vulnerable children and families at our border.
“Of course, we will meet our responsibility to provide strong, smart border security that serves our country’s needs, is consistent with our values, and doesn’t squander billions of dollars on a border wall.”
Pelosi’s statement does not explain how her party intends to “strong, smart border security” after reversing the Trump Administration’s efforts to do so.
"We will continue to work every day to ensure the American Dream remains in reach for everyone,” Pelosi concluded.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
While she casually uses the USAF aircraft to go home, she left her reasoning powers back in the 6th grade - when she was taught Civics.
Gads - how can this person survive as she has?????
Nancy - do you want to let all 3rd world people to just be able to walk into the U. S.??? Who is going to fund their "lifestyle"?? What's going to happen to the U. S. economy with such a wage drop as the 3rd worlders will create???
yeah well Ms Pelosi has a little problem...
It's called the US Senate.... Everything they pass there will have to be passed in the Senate also then reconciled...
Ms Pelosi?
Good Luck with that....
But it makes for good propaganda and besides, she's in a fight for the speakers seat.... I believe that 32 democrats have said they don't want her as speaker, she needs to convert 16 of them to win when the whole house votes.....
There isn't a republican there that is going to vote for her...... So the campaign for speaker of the House has started....
Lovely, that means Pelosi and company would do nothing at all just like they did in the 8 years of the Obama administration!
Prezactly.
I'm far more concerned with Maxine Waters chairing the House Financial Services Committee. Can you imagine? She will have the banks giving mortgages to people with no money...It will be the housing/financial crisis all over again.
Guess that means she can buy another house outside her district.
The woman is delusional and a raving lunatic.
No wonder Democrats will elect her to a position of leadership.
congress makes the laws. don't like it? try winning the next election. here's another reminder. Clinton was impeached for lying to congress. that makes Pelosi 2 republican lies away from the white house.
Who cares about Clinton? Yes, he was impeached, but he didn't get removed from office, so WTF is the point of pointing that out?
I am going to put this crazy idea that she will become President right up there on the shelf with all the hilarious Trump predictions.
LMFAO!
Senate will not pass any impeachment
In my way of thinking that means we are totally screwed. If Trump goes we get Pence. If Pence goes we get Pelosi. If Pelosi goes we get Grassley. So basically we need to go to third in the line of succession to even get in the ballpark of a PotUS.
The Congress of the Senate and the House write the laws. The Senate either approves/disapproves the laws the House presents and the President either approves or disapproves the laws presented from Congress/The Senate.
Learn your civics.
I believe it makes some people all fuzzy to think Pelosi has some magical power to remove Trump from office.
Unless you mean she will be delivering a fruit cake for Christmas, that's not how it works. If Trump were impeached and subsequently convicted in the Republican controlled Senate (so, it's not gonna happen unless he actually did something serious), then Mike Pence would become president and he would appoint a new Vice President. If Pence were then impeached and convicted, that new VP would become president and appoint his own VP, ad inifinitum.
There is no impeachment scenario that leads to the Speaker of the House becoming president.
It doesn't work that way. The only way that would happen would be if the president and VP were both killed in the same explosion or something. No process of impeachment leads to the Speaker of the House becoming president.
The line of succession (what I wrote) most definitely 'works that way'.
My comment did not limit succession to succession-by-impeachment. Nonetheless, if the VP assumes the presidency (VP office vacant) and is then impeached (and convicted), who assumes the presidency?
Okayyyy. Impeachment was literally the context and content of the comment you quoted and were replying to. Did you not understand that?
The new Vice President. If Pence ascended to the presidency, he would appoint a new VP.
When Richard Nixon was president, his VP was Spiro Agnew. Agnew resigned in 1973. Nixon then nominated - and the Senate approved - his replacement, Gerald Ford. When Nixon resigned, Ford became president and nominated - and the Senate approved - Nelson Rockefeller as the new VP.
It goes on and on that way. You never get to the Speaker of the House unless both the president and the VP are incapacitated or killed simultaneously.
So, trivia: Ford was VP and president, the only person to hold both offices having not been elected to either position.
Yes I did. But my comment was on succession. What is with the attitude? How about engaging in discussion without the adversarial nonsense?
No, Tacos! you just changed my scenario. I explicitly stated no VP slot. VP slot is empty.
Scenario = PotUS impeached and convicted with no VP. Who is next in line?
The VP slot would not be empty. The new president would immediately appoint a new VP. The Senate would confirm.
What is the point of this fantasy of yours?
And if s/he did not (there is no Constitutional requirement to do so) the next in succession is the speaker.
They haven't been able to get much done, have they? Congress figures to get even less done now. Have you noticed what has been happening to important issues that only Congress must solve? The Court has taken it on.
As for Clinton he was charged with perjury & obstruction. The Senate wouldn't convict and neither with this Senate.
The above was your claim. So all one need do is show how one process of impeachment could lead to the Speaker in the line of succession.
A PotUS is not Constitutionally obligated to fill an empty VP position. Thus an empty VP position is possible (and indeed has existed several times in history).
If a PotUS is impeached and there is no sitting VP, the Speaker of the House assumes the office of PotUS.
Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. ( A mere emoticon is not really much of an argument. )
Is it now? Neither Trump nor any Republican successor president would decline to name a Republican vice president to be easily approved by a Republican controlled senate and just leave the position open for the Democratic Speaker of the House. Nor would the Senate delay on the matter. It's not like the Supreme Court. The Court still functions with 8 or 9 justices. Key matters of national security and senate voting are wrapped up in the roles of president and Vice President.
It's there because you're inventing a scenario that is not going to happen. You know that but you will not admit that you simply got wrapped up in partisan bloodlust and said something silly. I've had my fill of it. Don't expect me to respond again.
Yes. Highly unlikely with Pelosi (or any D) as Speaker but constitutionally this is absolutely possible. That is my point.
My comment is a constitutional comment about the line of succession and in response to this statement by you:
That declaration is constitutionally wrong. As I noted; several times. Arguing that the current R VP slot would not be filled to avoid a D in the line of succession misses the constitutional point. Just like your comment on limiting this strictly to impeachment misses my constitutional point of line-of-succession. Even after I explained it. In both cases I was speaking constitutionally and my comments clearly show this.
It is a constitutional scenario. Hello? You cannot possibly claim that an empty VP slot will always be filled. That has happened several times in the past (as I noted) and is thus likely to happen in the future.
I emphasized the word 'constitutional' this time because apparently you have missed that in my prior comments.
What partisan position are you claiming I hold?
You don't mind if I take a shot at this?
From Wiki....
So the way I see it, Taco's is 100% correct.
AND, there is a constitutional obligation to fill the VP's office upon vacancy...
The only way a Speaker becomes acting president, is when both offices are for all practical purposes, vacant, will never happen any other way.
The 25th amendment says so.
I see the House Democrats trying to attempt a legislative coup using the 25th amendment by not confirming Pence's VP nominee and by any means necessary removing Pence.
I stand corrected. The 25th does require the PotUS nominate a VP. Not also that the nominee must be confirmed by both houses of Congress and the office is vacant until that process is over.
Proves the old saying .
"Birds of a feather... "
So see just wants to give America away?
She didn't always feel that way. She used to endorse border security, merit-based immigration, and protecting American workers from being disadvantaged by immigration.
See also:
She probably still actually feels that way, at this time they are all playing political football. And Not much is out of bounds. trump verse anti-trump. Tickets available at the door.
No, at the time, she and Hairless Reid were the two top dawgs and Obama had just come on the scene. Obama was also on their side 'til he hit 2012.
maybe then, not now, maybe later and again...and again?
That's what I think of the modern politician, They seem to think whatever is the thing that gets them power.
I dont trust any of them to tell us WTF they honestly believe about much of anything. That cost votes and power.
"We will continue to work every day to ensure the American Dream remains in reach for everyone,” Pelosi concluded.
I'm confused, I thought the american dream was for Americans.
Good Point...
You're not confused; you're 100% correct. If I may, I'd like to add something to your comment: The American Dream is for US citizens and legal immigrants.
Pelosi and her ilk work very hard to blur the definitions of legal immigrants and illegal aliens by calling all of them "immigrants".
True, part of what already made America a great country. It brought me here and my grand parents, and their grandparents ...
.... and most of us.
I guess "Liberals" in congress really do want "Open" borders.
TRUMP......was actually right AGAIN !
Trump doesn't understand immigration laws or border security. If he did he would have never made the statement that, "Mexico will pay for the wall."
The border debate is a distraction from something else.
OMG - "The sky is falling - the sky is falling".
Yeah, I know. When you don't have facts or information to discuss the thread - just throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks, eh?
Man, have you got that all wrong. Trump, contrary to the Dem's quandary, has a much better and stronger grasp on immigration laws and border security. He is continually pushing for FOLLOWING THE LAW while the Dems are continually pushing for BREAKING THE LAW.
H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E difference.
Gawd. Trump U graduate?
Obviously you don't understand how the law work. If is sez don't do it - then you don't do it. That's not the way the Dems are proposing to act.
The Trump is a distraction onto himself. [deleted]
Get real. Or not.
Just like Bill Clinton was a distraction to himself by chasing interns in the White House?
If you didn't care about Bill Clinton lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky to the Whitewater Grand Jury, while President, then you need to be quiet about Trump's affairs when he WASN'T President. If Clinton's actions regarding sex while President were not high crimes and misdemeanors, then Trump's actions when he wasn't President are really nothing to be complaining about. This is what the Democrats gave us: A society where sex and lying about sex while under oath are not considered severe enough to remove someone from office.
And when Trump lies under oath the right had better have a shit fit and demand multiple investigations and impeachment hearings. And of course Stormy must testify.
Impeachment hearings?
Okay, but the GOP won't vote to convict, just like the Dem Senate refused to in Clinton's case.
And it could backfire on Dems, just like the Kavanaugh shenanigans did.
Why would Stormy testify in impeachment proceedings? Does she have any knowledge of an alleged crime during Trump's Presidency?
That's their problem, they have nothing that Trump has done as President that can be considered impeachable. Everything they have and point to all occurred BEFORE Trump took the oath and, even if you believe the Russian collusion story, BEFORE he was elected. So, in reality, they actually have nothing that they can impeach Trump for. He wasn't in office during any of the Stormy Daniels affair or the Russian Collusion story that was floated by the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign to explain how Hillary lost the election.
Anyone with a brain would and does realize that Hillary was the one candidate that the Russians would have preferred to be in office with all of her documented "Pay-to-play" schemes using the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation as the cash cows for her deals as Secretary of State. They could have gotten whatever they wanted from her by blackmailing her with the evidence. They, like every political pundit out there, believed she would win regardless of the chaos they were trying to create by playing both sides. And, that is what the evidence says happened, the Russians played both sides against each other, which means that the Russians washed out their own influence over the election.
WTF is going on here tonight? Are we having a 'gaslight night'? You might want to sit down. The Russians wanted Trump to win. That is a fact. Stop lying for Trump, the Russians wanted him to win, they took actions to help him win, they are currently holding Trump by the short and curlies, and they did NOT want Hillary to win.
Nope, the only meddling actually uncovered had to do with Facebook ads that were evenly split between Trump and Hillary. That is the only so-called evidence of collusion. All of the guilty pleas, except for Flynn's were about things that happened YEARS before Trump ran for President. And, Flynn's guilty plea was for lying to investigators despite the agents that interviewed him not believing he lied. One of the things the Russians have against Hillary and in fact involved Mueller is Uranium One and how that deal came about. There is more evidence that Mueller is colluding with the Russians than there is that Trump is colluding with the Russians. Mueller was the mule in the Uranium One deal.
And, as usual, you have absolutely all the facts that Mueller and company just can't find, eh?
This thread is about Nancy and the Dems refusing to perform their Constitutional duties of defending the Constitution and the laws precipitated by the Congress.