Author Topic: So immigration...  (Read 60071 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #425 on: March 02, 2015, 11:32:31 AM »
Illegal aliens granted amnesty and a SSN under Obama's amesty will be eligible for three years of back tax "refunds" (or EICs). To think that this was actually schemed up by a twice-elected POTUS, and that he thinks he'll actually get away with it, and there's at least a 50/50 chance he will... we live in very strange times. "The Decline" is a sad thing to witness. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/2/irs-defends-refunds-illegals-never-filed-taxes/
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #426 on: May 26, 2015, 02:02:18 PM »
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/

The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.

So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 02:07:41 PM by K-S-U-Wildcats! »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20946
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #427 on: May 26, 2015, 02:22:42 PM »
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/

The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.

So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.

This one was going to SCOTUS, regardless.  The lower court actions (including this one) are a real snoozefest. 

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #428 on: May 26, 2015, 05:16:04 PM »
Who appointed the other two?
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20946
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #429 on: May 26, 2015, 07:12:47 PM »
Who appointed the other two?

Clinton, W. Bush

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #430 on: May 26, 2015, 07:13:41 PM »
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #431 on: May 26, 2015, 09:42:49 PM »
I think what he is doing is illegal. It's in the best interest of the country, though.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #432 on: May 26, 2015, 09:46:41 PM »
we should just send obama to counseling
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #433 on: May 27, 2015, 08:01:15 AM »

I think what he is doing is illegal. It's in the best interest of the country, though.
Objectively so? If its illegal and there is any grey area then it is a terrible precedent.
:adios:

Offline GregKSU1027

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3727
  • Cats, man
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #434 on: May 27, 2015, 09:23:34 AM »
Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.
“He plays for Kansas State. He doesn't play for Will Howard University." -Chris Klieman 10/14/2023

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #435 on: May 27, 2015, 01:47:33 PM »

I think what he is doing is illegal. It's in the best interest of the country, though.
Objectively so? If its illegal and there is any grey area then it is a terrible precedent.

Yeah, it's a tough spot to be in.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20946
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #436 on: May 27, 2015, 01:52:19 PM »
Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.

Killing Indians is illegal, though.  What are your thoughts on that, if you apply the same logic?

Offline GregKSU1027

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3727
  • Cats, man
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #437 on: May 27, 2015, 01:55:13 PM »
Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.

Killing Indians is illegal, though.  What are your thoughts on that, if you apply the same logic?
Not what i meant...
“He plays for Kansas State. He doesn't play for Will Howard University." -Chris Klieman 10/14/2023

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #438 on: May 27, 2015, 01:57:44 PM »
Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.

Killing Indians is illegal, though.  What are your thoughts on that, if you apply the same logic?

It's only illegal because they have already been conquered. If they had their own nation and we were to declare war on them, it would be perfectly legal to kill them. These colors don't run.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20946
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #439 on: May 27, 2015, 01:59:44 PM »
Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.

Killing Indians is illegal, though.  What are your thoughts on that, if you apply the same logic?
Not what i meant...

Oh, I thought you meant that if a thing is a thing that helped to create America, then it should not be illegal.  I just pointed out one example that refutes that rule, so now I think that rule is not valid.  How does it feel to make an invalid statement?

Offline GregKSU1027

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3727
  • Cats, man
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #440 on: May 27, 2015, 02:18:25 PM »
Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.

Killing Indians is illegal, though.  What are your thoughts on that, if you apply the same logic?
Not what i meant...

Oh, I thought you meant that if a thing is a thing that helped to create America, then it should not be illegal.  I just pointed out one example that refutes that rule, so now I think that rule is not valid.  How does it feel to make an invalid statement?
I see where you are coming from but people aren't gonna stop coming to this country anytime soon. Lines will be blurred and rules will change throughout this countries lifetime. 
“He plays for Kansas State. He doesn't play for Will Howard University." -Chris Klieman 10/14/2023

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20946
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #441 on: May 27, 2015, 02:27:24 PM »
Immigration is not illegal, though.  Only illegal immigration is illegal.  The instant question is not an issue of immigration policy, but rather the appropriate exercise of executive authority.  The facts raise a legitimate concern regarding the balance of power between the separate branches of government.  It's an important issue that needs to be resolved.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #442 on: May 27, 2015, 02:28:28 PM »
Immigration is not illegal, though.  Only illegal immigration is illegal.

The effect of this is that just about all of our immigration is illegal.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #443 on: May 27, 2015, 04:35:11 PM »
Immigration is not illegal, though.  Only illegal immigration is illegal.

The effect of this is that just about all of our immigration is illegal.

That's a pretty dumb thing to say.

Quote
As of January 2012, an estimated 13.3 million green-card holders lived in the United States, including an estimated 8.8 million eligible to become U.S. citizens.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents

And, we also currently grant about 100,000 H1B visas annually. These H1B visas are primarily utilized by companies to ship in cheap labor to replace American tech workers. Here's a delightful recent example from Di$ney World.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2915904/it-outsourcing/fury-rises-at-disney-over-use-of-foreign-workers.html

We have a functioning, legal immigration system, and it could definitely use an overhaul. But what we don't need is to completely disregard our immigration laws and open the flood gates to poor, unskilled migrants to a country that is hemorrhaging jobs during the "Obama recovery."
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 04:55:38 PM by K-S-U-Wildcats! »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #444 on: May 27, 2015, 06:38:55 PM »
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/

The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.

So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.

This one was going to SCOTUS, regardless.  The lower court actions (including this one) are a real snoozefest.

Obama will not take the case the Supremes. Because he has no case.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer=
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20946
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #445 on: May 27, 2015, 07:13:12 PM »
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/

The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.

So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.

This one was going to SCOTUS, regardless.  The lower court actions (including this one) are a real snoozefest.

Obama will not take the case the Supremes. Because he has no case.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer=

They think they have a stronger case if they choose not to appeal to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction.  This is not a forfeit, but rather a punt.  It would seem that they want this to peek during the run up to the 2016 elections.

Offline bubbles4ksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5488
  • Son of Pete
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #446 on: May 27, 2015, 07:29:39 PM »
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/

The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.

So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.

This one was going to SCOTUS, regardless.  The lower court actions (including this one) are a real snoozefest.

Obama will not take the case the Supremes. Because he has no case.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer=

They think they have a stronger case if they choose not to appeal to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction.  This is not a forfeit, but rather a punt.  It would seem that they want this to peek during the run up to the 2016 elections.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #447 on: May 27, 2015, 07:43:00 PM »
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/

The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.

So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.

This one was going to SCOTUS, regardless.  The lower court actions (including this one) are a real snoozefest.

Obama will not take the case the Supremes. Because he has no case.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer=

They think they have a stronger case if they choose not to appeal to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction.  This is not a forfeit, but rather a punt.  It would seem that they want this to peek during the run up to the 2016 elections.

They have no case. They're going to lose, and lose badly. Even if you were to stretch the meaning of "prosecutorial discretion" to a broad class of over 4 million illegal aliens, Obama wants to go further by conferring benefits on them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20946
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #448 on: May 27, 2015, 07:47:46 PM »
They obviously feel they have justification, but we don't even know what their "case" is since oral arguments in the 5th won't happen until June. This motion was only focused on a stay of the injunction, I thought.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: So immigration...
« Reply #449 on: May 27, 2015, 08:25:15 PM »
Immigration is not illegal, though.  Only illegal immigration is illegal.

The effect of this is that just about all of our immigration is illegal.

That's a pretty dumb thing to say.

Quote
As of January 2012, an estimated 13.3 million green-card holders lived in the United States, including an estimated 8.8 million eligible to become U.S. citizens.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents

And, we also currently grant about 100,000 H1B visas annually. These H1B visas are primarily utilized by companies to ship in cheap labor to replace American tech workers. Here's a delightful recent example from Di$ney World.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2915904/it-outsourcing/fury-rises-at-disney-over-use-of-foreign-workers.html

We have a functioning, legal immigration system, and it could definitely use an overhaul. But what we don't need is to completely disregard our immigration laws and open the flood gates to poor, unskilled migrants to a country that is hemorrhaging jobs during the "Obama recovery."

Well, maybe we should stop letting companies like Di$ney bring people in legally to work jobs Americans actually want to work and support the hard working salt-of-the earth people coming here illegally instead.