goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 10, 2014, 07:29:15 PM

Title: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 10, 2014, 07:29:15 PM
Sounds like our southern border has entered meltdown. Hundreds of thousands surging across in anticipation of amnesty. Thousands of unaccompanied minors being housed in temporary detention centers. A fine mess.

And pro-amnesty Eric Cantor just lost his primary.  :sdeek:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on June 10, 2014, 09:35:49 PM
Hillary is picking out curtains for the Lincoln bedroom
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on June 10, 2014, 09:39:28 PM
Where does it sound like that?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 10, 2014, 09:41:06 PM
omg this pic is the headline on drudge report right now  :lol:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSM7wcVcoOCSIDoZQvf0S-cvYy5FCpoW6B0SMz-Cnt9p4cgcPU3Kw)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Tobias on June 10, 2014, 09:41:58 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on June 10, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/11/ezybegez.jpg)

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 0.42 on June 10, 2014, 10:03:40 PM
Really wish K-S-U would walk into the HEB Grocery store I shop at in south Austin just so I could see his head explode.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Tobias on June 10, 2014, 10:07:10 PM

Really wish K-S-U would walk into the HEB Grocery store I shop at in south Austin just so I could see his head explode.

like it's ever open
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on June 10, 2014, 10:09:41 PM
Brown people  :runaway:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 0.42 on June 10, 2014, 10:09:56 PM

Really wish K-S-U would walk into the HEB Grocery store I shop at in south Austin just so I could see his head explode.

like it's ever open

(http://the-mainboard.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/banana.png)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2014, 11:04:26 PM
I heard on the news they were putting children in military barracks. That's goEhilarious

  :flush:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2014, 11:15:09 PM
Why bother to spend trillions to blow up people in far off lands if you're not even going to properly control the borders?

It's not about racism, it's about national security.   If they want to relax immigration laws to make it easier to properly get through the system than so be it, but if you care about national security you don't fling the gates open.

Entire sections of Mexico and other parts of Latin America are controlled by bad people doing business with people only the Spaghetti Monster knows.

You do it for votes in the next election. Which is basically how we end up with all terrible and incoherent policy
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Tobias on June 10, 2014, 11:17:20 PM
leti is in florida, dax
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 0.42 on June 10, 2014, 11:30:20 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 0.42 on June 10, 2014, 11:44:44 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on June 11, 2014, 01:13:46 AM
 :D
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2014, 06:55:45 AM
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/11/ezybegez.jpg)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

omg  :lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 27, 2014, 01:42:44 PM
Is she coming to take her kids home?

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/first-lady-of-honduras-to-tour-south-texas-immigration-shelters/ (http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/first-lady-of-honduras-to-tour-south-texas-immigration-shelters/)

Quote
MCALLEN, Texas (AP) — The first lady of Honduras is to tour South Texas immigration shelters to learn the plight of thousands of Hondurans who entered the United States illegally.

Ana Garcia de Hernandez already has met Thursday morning with McAllen Mayor Jim Darling. Starting Friday, she is scheduled to visit several Border Patrol stations in the Rio Grande Valley and plans to remain in the area through Saturday.

The Border Patrol has been overwhelmed in the region by the number of immigrants entering the country illegally. About three-quarters of them are from Central America, with the most coming from Honduras. More than 15,000 unaccompanied children from Honduras have been apprehended since October.

Many of the immigrants say they are fleeing widespread gang violence and lack of job opportunities.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2014, 02:19:04 PM
Is she coming to take her kids home?

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/first-lady-of-honduras-to-tour-south-texas-immigration-shelters/ (http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/first-lady-of-honduras-to-tour-south-texas-immigration-shelters/)

Quote
Many of the immigrants say they are fleeing widespread gang violence and lack of job opportunities.

So, in other words, they're fleeing the same poverty that's existed for decades, the same reason nearly all illegal immigrants (except the drug mules) are headed to the U.S. The real reason for the current tsunami is because they know (we all know) that they'll be allowed to stay. This is what the liberals want. Whether the status quo or "comprehensive immigration reform" - either way, they win. The only thing they oppose is actual enforcement of the laws on the books. Nancy Pelosi and other Dems are literally headed to the "border" to welcome the illegal aliens to the U.S. I'm sure they'll pass out Obamacare enrollment and voter registration forms while they're there.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: puniraptor on June 27, 2014, 02:23:02 PM
what happens when there are more mexicans in america than mexico? we just get mexico at that point, right?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 27, 2014, 02:30:51 PM
i've changed my stance on immigration. i used to support immigrant amnesty for moral reasons and because we are a nation of immigrants and stuff. now i favor the browning of america because i'm so tired of old, scared white men.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on June 27, 2014, 02:36:41 PM
I love Mexican food.  The spread in popularity, and therefore availability, of chorizo over the last 15yrs is reason enough to be pro-amnesty, imo.  I mean, before you know it, we will have good churros and stuff available at Price Chopper and SportingKC games.

 :drool:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 27, 2014, 02:38:27 PM
I support amnesty because I think a healthy US economy benefits all citizens. Plus, it is just the right thing to do.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2014, 02:59:09 PM
I support amnesty because I think a healthy US economy benefits all citizens. Plus, it is just the right thing to do.

Adding millions of poor people to our already maxed-out welfare system is not the right thing to do. I don't understand why people cannot understand this. We are nearly 18 trillion in debt.

Housing, foodstamps, education (and school meals), hospitals, prisons, etc. - we're paying for all of it, and these immigrants rely heavily upon it. That's a big part of why they can send so much cash to family back south of the border despite earning low wages - we pick up the tab here.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2014, 03:08:19 PM
I support amnesty because I think a healthy US economy benefits all citizens. Plus, it is just the right thing to do.

Adding millions of poor people to our already maxed-out welfare system is not the right thing to do. I don't understand why people cannot understand this. We are nearly 18 trillion in debt.

Housing, foodstamps, education (and school meals), hospitals, prisons, etc. - we're paying for all of it, and these immigrants rely heavily upon it. That's a big part of why they can send so much cash to family back south of the border despite earning low wages - we pick up the tab here.

You may have missed this chart of the DJIA I pulled off Yahoo Finance the other day, but basically, we can afford it!  Plus, it's the right thing to do.

(http://mychinaconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/off-the-charts.gif)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on June 27, 2014, 03:12:54 PM
The ppl in that chart are cheering for churros, FWIW.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2014, 03:17:58 PM
I think they're actually cheering for Kimchi.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 27, 2014, 03:19:39 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/14/former-bush-official-says-u-s-needs-one-million-more-immigrants-to-fill-labor-force/
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on June 27, 2014, 03:30:30 PM
i've changed my stance on immigration. i used to support immigrant amnesty for moral reasons and because we are a nation of immigrants and stuff. now i favor the browning of america because i'm so tired of old, scared white men.

 :shy:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 27, 2014, 03:41:44 PM
http://business.time.com/2013/01/30/the-economics-of-immigration-who-wins-who-loses-and-why/ (http://business.time.com/2013/01/30/the-economics-of-immigration-who-wins-who-loses-and-why/)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: ben ji on June 27, 2014, 08:00:36 PM
Every time ben ji gets super hammered and jumps in a cab he is always super nice to the cab drivers, talks to them about where they are from(usually east africa here in KC) and asks them to play some music from from their homeland.

Then I welcome them to america and tell them everyone here is immigrants* and that if they work hard and be a good person everything will work out.

*native americans  :frown:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on June 27, 2014, 08:34:24 PM
How Long before we have a ukraine/Balkan/Iraq scenario in the south west?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Asteriskhead on June 28, 2014, 12:12:32 AM
such a great thread.  :lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: nicname on June 28, 2014, 12:48:13 AM
Not a big fan of illegal immigration. Can't really fault those who come over though. I'd probably do the same. I think a good start would be to heavily penalize anyone caught not properly vetting, and hiring illegals. I mean, really bring the hammer down on these people.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on June 28, 2014, 10:03:12 AM
I support amnesty because I think a healthy US economy benefits all citizens. Plus, it is just the right thing to do.

Adding millions of poor people to our already maxed-out welfare system is not the right thing to do. I don't understand why people cannot understand this. We are nearly 18 trillion in debt.

Housing, foodstamps, education (and school meals), hospitals, prisons, etc. - we're paying for all of it, and these immigrants rely heavily upon it. That's a big part of why they can send so much cash to family back south of the border despite earning low wages - we pick up the tab here.


I live in Wichita and there are some wealthy Mexican families here who have illegal immigrant lineage. They created the American dream for themselves just like your European ancestors who probably got some free land with an easier entry. 

Quit being a scared dope!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on June 28, 2014, 10:40:32 AM
so then they are wealthy american families now
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: ChiCat on June 28, 2014, 11:57:57 AM
I don't believe for a second that immigrants get more out of the system than they pay in.  Most are terrified that having any interaction with the government will result in deportation. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 0.42 on June 28, 2014, 03:57:56 PM
i've changed my stance on immigration. i used to support immigrant amnesty for moral reasons and because we are a nation of immigrants and stuff. now i favor the browning of america because i'm so tired of old, scared white men.

It really is the best thing that could happen to the US of A.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on June 28, 2014, 10:13:13 PM
so then they are wealthy american families now

Yes!!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 29, 2014, 09:11:28 AM
This thread is really pushing the boundaries of trolling and unbridled ignorance.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 0.42 on June 29, 2014, 07:29:36 PM
This thread is really pushing the boundaries of trolling and unbridled ignorance.

It must suck to go through life scared of everybody that isn't like you.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 29, 2014, 07:34:20 PM
This thread is really pushing the boundaries of trolling and unbridled ignorance.

It must suck to go through life scared of everybody that isn't like you.

You're scared of white people.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 0.42 on June 29, 2014, 07:35:42 PM
Why would I be scared of myself and many of my friends?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 29, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
Which "brown" country should we model our government after?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 0.42 on June 29, 2014, 07:44:53 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on June 29, 2014, 07:46:32 PM
some of my best friends are white
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 29, 2014, 07:52:22 PM
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on June 29, 2014, 08:27:53 PM
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?

About $2.50/hr?  :dunno: 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Asteriskhead on June 30, 2014, 08:31:41 AM
some of my best friends are white

 :ohno:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 30, 2014, 08:45:47 AM
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?

Immigrants come here because they want to work for a much better wage than they could ever get back home and provide for their family. Refugees come because they don't want to get shot in the face execution-style.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on June 30, 2014, 09:28:46 AM
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?

Immigrants come here because they want to work for a much better wage than they could ever get back home and provide for their family. Refugees come because they don't want to get shot in the face execution-style.

Wyclef, tho.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 30, 2014, 10:37:32 AM
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?

Immigrants come here because they want to work for a much better wage than they could ever get back home and provide for their family. Refugees come because they don't want to get shot in the face execution-style.

What if it's both? What if they don't work?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: slucat on June 30, 2014, 01:02:06 PM
you have to be pretty effed up in the head to think its ok to send children back to their war torn countries after making the journey to America (land of free, home of the chiefs).  their parents sent them on a long, scary trip just to get to the US; which they figured was safer and better for them then staying in their homeland...i mean maybe you guise are parents, but my god, you'd have to be pretty worried about your child's welfare to put them in those circumstances, now we're going to send them back?

land of gtfo and scared of little kids is more like it.

have a heart, fsd.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on June 30, 2014, 01:18:25 PM
you have to be pretty effed up in the head to think its ok to send children back to their war torn countries after making the journey to America (land of free, home of the chiefs).  their parents sent them on a long, scary trip just to get to the US; which they figured was safer and better for them then staying in their homeland...i mean maybe you guise are parents, but my god, you'd have to be pretty worried about your child's welfare to put them in those circumstances, now we're going to send them back?

land of gtfo and scared of little kids is more like it.

have a heart, fsd.

I'm all for keeping them but sending the bill to their home countries
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 30, 2014, 01:23:08 PM
you have to be pretty effed up in the head to think its ok to send children back to their war torn countries after making the journey to America (land of free, home of the chiefs).  their parents sent them on a long, scary trip just to get to the US; which they figured was safer and better for them then staying in their homeland...i mean maybe you guise are parents, but my god, you'd have to be pretty worried about your child's welfare to put them in those circumstances, now we're going to send them back?

land of gtfo and scared of little kids is more like it.

have a heart, fsd.

I'm all for keeping them but sending the bill to their home countries

I think we should just keep them and foot the bill.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 30, 2014, 02:56:20 PM
you have to be pretty effed up in the head to think its ok to send children back to their war torn countries after making the journey to America (land of free, home of the chiefs).  their parents sent them on a long, scary trip just to get to the US; which they figured was safer and better for them then staying in their homeland...i mean maybe you guise are parents, but my god, you'd have to be pretty worried about your child's welfare to put them in those circumstances, now we're going to send them back?

land of gtfo and scared of little kids is more like it.

have a heart, fsd.

I didn't say to do that, dipshit. Also, I don't think throwing them in tent farms on the boarder is very humane either.

You have to be pretty mumped up in the head to look at the existing problem on the boarder and thin amnesty is a solution.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: nicname on June 30, 2014, 03:53:14 PM
I think you have to find a way to give these kids amnesty and find a way to take care of them, but at the same time make it obviously and extremely unattractive for anyone to decide to come to the U.S. illegally.  The first part would probably be pretty hard and expensive, the second part would be pretty easy.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 30, 2014, 03:55:06 PM
I think you have to find a way to give these kids amnesty and find a way to take care of them, but at the same time make it obviously and extremely unattractive for anyone to decide to come to the U.S. illegally.  The first part would probably be pretty hard and expensive, the second part would be pretty easy.

It is very easy to make illegal immigration unattractive. It's just not easy to do that without losing millions of dollars from the economy, as Alabama learned a few years ago.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: nicname on June 30, 2014, 04:06:51 PM
I think you have to find a way to give these kids amnesty and find a way to take care of them, but at the same time make it obviously and extremely unattractive for anyone to decide to come to the U.S. illegally.  The first part would probably be pretty hard and expensive, the second part would be pretty easy.

It is very easy to make illegal immigration unattractive. It's just not easy to do that without losing millions of dollars from the economy, as Alabama learned a few years ago.

It's hard to find enough Americans and legal immigrants or temporary workers to replace those who are no longer allowed to work, but I think after time it would level out.

I'm certainly no expert, but isn't/ shouldn't there be a way to streamline processes to allow for easier access to longer work visas and smoother legal immigrations?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 30, 2014, 04:22:12 PM
I think you have to find a way to give these kids amnesty and find a way to take care of them, but at the same time make it obviously and extremely unattractive for anyone to decide to come to the U.S. illegally.  The first part would probably be pretty hard and expensive, the second part would be pretty easy.

It is very easy to make illegal immigration unattractive. It's just not easy to do that without losing millions of dollars from the economy, as Alabama learned a few years ago.

It's hard to find enough Americans and legal immigrants or temporary workers to replace those who are no longer allowed to work, but I think after time it would level out.

I'm certainly no expert, but isn't/ shouldn't there be a way to streamline processes to allow for easier access to longer work visas and smoother legal immigrations?

It is actually very hard for an uneducated person to immigrate to the US legally. In most cases, they literally have to win a lottery to get here, and the number we select is only a fraction of what the economy demands. I agree with you that it should be a whole lot easier than it is, but under the current system, working with what we have, I think getting the illegal immigration is a whole lot better than the alternative. I certainly can't fault somebody for wanting to come take a shot at living the American dream.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on June 30, 2014, 07:18:21 PM
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?

Immigrants come here because they want to work for a much better wage than they could ever get back home and provide for their family. Refugees come because they don't want to get shot in the face execution-style.

Wyclef, tho.

:lol:

ooo la la la, its the way that we rock when we doing our thing...
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on June 30, 2014, 07:26:51 PM
It is actually very hard for an uneducated person to immigrate to the US legally. In most cases, they literally have to win a lottery to get here.

the people that speak against illegal immigrants using the trope "they should wait their place in line and immigrate legally, like everyone else" are contemptible.  if they want to argue that those people should have no path to immigrate to the us, that's fine, argue that.  but pretending that other options exist beyond not immigrating and immigrating illegally is dishonest.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 30, 2014, 07:47:33 PM
Do other countries make refugees citizens upon arrival?  If not, are those countries construed as inhumane?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 30, 2014, 11:25:48 PM
It is actually very hard for an uneducated person to immigrate to the US legally. In most cases, they literally have to win a lottery to get here.

the people that speak against illegal immigrants using the trope "they should wait their place in line and immigrate legally, like everyone else" are contemptible.  if they want to argue that those people should have no path to immigrate to the us, that's fine, argue that.  but pretending that other options exist beyond not immigrating and immigrating illegally is dishonest.

I think most people who say that sort of thing are more ignorant than contemptible. I really do think a lot of people believe it is just a matter of waiting your turn and getting into the US through patience and hard work. Politicians and members of the media who make statements like that absolutely are contemptible, though.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: the_ugly_clown on July 01, 2014, 07:12:57 AM
Lock up the border. Save us a ton of $$$ in the long run. Create a dead zone, think North Korea/South Korea. Rotate National Guard units down there every 2 weeks for patrol enforcement. Make it a HUGE deterrence to try and illegally get in. We waste sooooooooo much money on this thru welfare/free education/medical/etc.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 01, 2014, 07:34:26 AM
Lock up the border. Save us a ton of $$$ in the long run. Create a dead zone, think North Korea/South Korea. Rotate National Guard units down there every 2 weeks for patrol enforcement. Make it a HUGE deterrence to try and illegally get in. We waste sooooooooo much money on this thru welfare/free education/medical/etc.

Tunnels tho
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 01, 2014, 08:15:35 AM
The US-Mexico boarder is way more dangerous than the DMZ between North and South Korea. Think about that for a second.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: the_ugly_clown on July 01, 2014, 08:19:26 AM
The US-Mexico boarder is way more dangerous than the DMZ between North and South Korea. Think about that for a second.

Exactly. Start dropping some bodies in that "DMZ" area and you'll have less illegals trying to cross.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 01, 2014, 09:08:23 AM
Lock up the border. Save us a ton of $$$ in the long run. Create a dead zone, think North Korea/South Korea. Rotate National Guard units down there every 2 weeks for patrol enforcement. Make it a HUGE deterrence to try and illegally get in. We waste sooooooooo much money on this thru welfare/free education/medical/etc.

We waste much less than the tax revenue generated by illegal immigration.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Panjandrum on July 01, 2014, 10:31:33 AM
The US-Mexico boarder is way more dangerous than the DMZ between North and South Korea. Think about that for a second.

Exactly. Start dropping some bodies in that "DMZ" area and you'll have less illegals trying to cross.

No you won't.  I don't believe there has ever been a border, in the recorded history of mankind, where the difference in affluence between one country and another is so great (and with a largely land-based border to boot).

People will still flood into America because of the opportunity.  It will just be a riskier venture.

For God's sakes, tons of migrant workers from Nepal SIGN UP to be human slaves in Qatar because of the potential chance to send money back home, even though it rarely works out alright.

Adding more violence will beget violence because you'll just make them more desperate to cross.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on July 01, 2014, 11:52:33 AM
Yup, lets just start killing people looking for work and a better life so we can each save 10 dollars a year in taxes. Jfc
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 01, 2014, 12:00:32 PM
Yup, lets just start killing people looking for work and a better life so we can each save 10 dollars a year in taxes. Jfc

We would actually end up paying more in taxes, though. We really are going to start killing them because we just don't like their kind.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 01, 2014, 12:01:41 PM
Yup, lets just start killing people looking for work and a better life so we can each save 10 dollars a year in taxes. Jfc

Why not? We kill unborn children because irresponsibility.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 01, 2014, 12:03:40 PM
Yup, lets just start killing people looking for work and a better life so we can each save 10 dollars a year in taxes. Jfc

We would actually end up paying more in taxes, though. We really are going to start killing them because we just don't like their kind.

I don't think comparing impact on GDP to tax expenditures is a very honest analysis
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 01, 2014, 12:11:32 PM
Quote
The New Colossus a sonnet for American Exceptionalism by Fake Sugar Dick

"...Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your whites, your Protestant,
Your blue-eyed masses yearning to pay a flat(fair) income tax,
The english speakers of your Northern European shore.
Send these, plus maybe some Asians, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 01, 2014, 12:12:24 PM
If the liberals were serious about immigration reform (code for amnesty), they would agree to real border security first, like a physical barrier of some kind. 
There will be no amnesty until the flow can be stopped. You can't claim it would cost too much while the president asked for $2 billon to take care of  kids that just arrived. How much do you think we're spending taking care of the millions already here?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: slucat on July 01, 2014, 12:38:25 PM
Yes, physical barriers, totally!


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Baarle-Nassau_fronti%C3%A8re_caf%C3%A9.jpg)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 01, 2014, 01:13:37 PM
If the liberals were serious about immigration reform (code for amnesty), they would agree to real border security first, like a physical barrier of some kind. 
There will be no amnesty until the flow can be stopped. You can't claim it would cost too much while the president asked for $2 billon to take care of  kids that just arrived. How much do you think we're spending taking care of the millions already here?

Seems like the flow will stop when the free market dictates that all of the demand is met.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 01, 2014, 01:16:44 PM
Amnesty(path to citizenship) and the Border are two separate but related issues. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: nicname on July 01, 2014, 04:13:21 PM
Another thing to consider is that it's not just folks in Mexico looking for a better life. Many who come illegally come from Central American countries and make their way around/ through Mexico (which has extremely tough anti-immigration laws) to get here.

I'm sure it's out there, but I'd be interested in learning more about the immigration process in the U.S. and how it's changed (for the better or worse) over the years.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 02, 2014, 01:17:36 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 02, 2014, 08:20:54 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/)

Why are these doctors more concerned about these kids bringing diseases like strep throat, measles, and scabies into America than they are about treating the kids? It's not like any of those diseases are a big deal.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 02, 2014, 11:18:44 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/)

Why are these doctors more concerned about these kids bringing diseases like strep throat, measles, and scabies into America than they are about treating the kids? It's not like any of those diseases are a big deal.

The story is about the secrecy of non-classified government actions and the children not being properly screened for other infectious diseases, like tuberculous, before traveling to other parts of the country.

It's being reported that approx 8 of the kids brought to San Diego last night on a commercial airliner were taken to hospitals and quarantined with undisclosed contagious diseases. The media was detained and not allowed to follow the bus as it left the border patrol station.

Regardless of your position, these are reckless actions taken by the government and they are attempting to cover up what they are doing.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 02, 2014, 11:56:34 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/)

Why are these doctors more concerned about these kids bringing diseases like strep throat, measles, and scabies into America than they are about treating the kids? It's not like any of those diseases are a big deal.

Are you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: puniraptor on July 02, 2014, 12:24:28 PM
is this possibly a conspiracy to eugenicize the children of the vaccine-birthers?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 02, 2014, 12:25:53 PM
is this possibly a conspiracy to eugenicize the children of the vaccine-birthers?

Maybe. Obama probably would do that if he thought he could get away with it.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SPEmaw on July 02, 2014, 12:29:51 PM
If the liberals were serious about immigration reform (code for amnesty), they would agree to real border security first, like a physical barrier of some kind. 
There will be no amnesty until the flow can be stopped. You can't claim it would cost too much while the president asked for $2 billon to take care of  kids that just arrived. How much do you think we're spending taking care of the millions already here?

Seems like the flow will stop when the free market dictates that all of the demand is met.

A free flow of people isn't how the modern world works. A secure border must be achieved before the next step...whether that includes amnesty or not (hopefully not).
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 02, 2014, 03:56:50 PM
Yes, physical barriers, totally!


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Baarle-Nassau_fronti%C3%A8re_caf%C3%A9.jpg)

that doesn't look anything like the fence around the White House.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 03, 2014, 03:56:54 PM

http://www.krgv.com/news/smugglers-threaten-landowners-in-cameron-county/ (http://www.krgv.com/news/smugglers-threaten-landowners-in-cameron-county/)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 08:30:15 AM
Newly-arrived illegal immigrants being bussed to Walmarts with EBT cards (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/shock-video-illegals-arrive-in-bus-and-shop-at-walmart-with-ebt-cards/)

Harry Reid: The Border is Secure (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/212328-reid-southern-border-is-secure)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on July 16, 2014, 11:58:41 AM
Newly-arrived illegal immigrants being bussed to Walmarts with EBT cards (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/shock-video-illegals-arrive-in-bus-and-shop-at-walmart-with-ebt-cards/)

:lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on July 16, 2014, 12:22:27 PM
So they don't speak English and just got here so they are illegal?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on July 16, 2014, 12:25:03 PM
Newly-arrived illegal immigrants being bussed to Walmarts with EBT cards (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/shock-video-illegals-arrive-in-bus-and-shop-at-walmart-with-ebt-cards/)

:lol:

Share this on Facebook
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on July 16, 2014, 12:43:57 PM
Newly-arrived illegal immigrants being bussed to Walmarts with EBT cards (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/shock-video-illegals-arrive-in-bus-and-shop-at-walmart-with-ebt-cards/)

:lol:

Share this on Facebook

Man the comments are great.

Quote
It is time to organize and fight. Obama will shoot us. No doubt about that. This a fight for our freedom and the next generations freedom.

Quote
The human trafficking is being done by the federal govt. They're coyotes now.

Quote
but it has to be "en masse"; a few hundred wouldn't do anything. tens of thousands would barely make a dent. A million people, armed to the teeth, might just do the trick but only if they are properly trained.

Quote
comment deleted

:lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: illBisonYourdele on July 16, 2014, 01:01:10 PM
The Government Is Using Subliminal Songs To Scare Immigrants
 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/12/how-the-government-is-using-subliminal-songs-to-scare-central-american-immigrants.html)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Matt Mckee on July 16, 2014, 01:27:18 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-protesters-mistake-busload-of-ymca-campers-for-immigrant-children/
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 01:40:39 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-protesters-mistake-busload-of-ymca-campers-for-immigrant-children/

People are really upset about the federal government importing busloads of poverty into their communities because they refuse to control the border. I can't say I blame them.

Also, pretty funny that this is the headline CBS chose to run with. Instead of headlining the protest itself, they headline the protestors briefly misidentifying the wrong bus. No bias here. No crisis here - just angry white people.  :whistle1:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Tobias on July 16, 2014, 01:44:22 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-protesters-mistake-busload-of-ymca-campers-for-immigrant-children/

lol
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Tobias on July 16, 2014, 01:44:40 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-protesters-mistake-busload-of-ymca-campers-for-immigrant-children/

lol

i mean, sad, but also lol
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 16, 2014, 01:49:17 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-protesters-mistake-busload-of-ymca-campers-for-immigrant-children/

People are really upset about the federal government importing busloads of poverty into their communities because they refuse to control the border. I can't say I blame them.

Also, pretty funny that this is the headline CBS chose to run with. Instead of headlining the protest itself, they headline the protestors briefly misidentifying the wrong bus. No bias here. No crisis here - just angry white people.  :whistle1:

It's the headline I would have chose to run with. It's hilarious.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 16, 2014, 01:50:33 PM
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity.  We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 01:53:16 PM
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity.  We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.

People are demanding that the government retain custody of the children until they are returned to their families, rather than releasing them into the United States. At this point, our border patrol has been transformed into nothing more than taxpayer subsidized coyotes. What would you do? How long should this go on?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on July 16, 2014, 01:53:35 PM
can't say I blame them.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 16, 2014, 01:54:06 PM
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity.  We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.

I agree. I don't like the idea of just putting them into camps and busing them around, but the protesters that follow the buses full of kids around are just pathetic.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on July 16, 2014, 01:54:56 PM
Wrong brown people - classic mix up!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 01:55:55 PM
can't say I blame them.

Glad we agree. I don't see as much sympathy for the dead children washing up in the Rio Grande. The whole situation is disgusting, and Obama's policies are to blame.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 16, 2014, 01:56:10 PM
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity.  We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.

People are demanding that the government retain custody of the children until they are returned to their families, rather than releasing them into the United States. At this point, our border patrol has been transformed into nothing more than taxpayer subsidized coyotes. What would you do? How long should this go on?

Let them live here.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on July 16, 2014, 01:57:11 PM
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity.  We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.

People are demanding that the government retain custody of the children until they are returned to their families, rather than releasing them into the United States. At this point, our border patrol has been transformed into nothing more than taxpayer subsidized coyotes. What would you do? How long should this go on?

Let them live here.

I like my idea better.  Invite Mexicans to come build a Great Wall of Mexico, and then when it's done, let them and their families stay in America.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 16, 2014, 01:57:44 PM
can't say I blame them.

Glad we agree. I don't see as much sympathy for the dead children washing up in the Rio Grande. The whole situation is disgusting, and Obama's policies are to blame.

Dude, I'm no Obama fan but come on.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 02:00:38 PM
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity.  We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.

People are demanding that the government retain custody of the children until they are returned to their families, rather than releasing them into the United States. At this point, our border patrol has been transformed into nothing more than taxpayer subsidized coyotes. What would you do? How long should this go on?

Let them live here.

Ok, so open border policy, then? And how many billions more should we spend on welfare to support them? Hell, Obama wants 4 billion just to hire more attorneys and judges to more quickly "process" them (read, release them for a court date they'll never make).

I guess when you're running a deficit of nearly $1 trillion annually, another 10-20 billion (for starters) just looks like chump change.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 16, 2014, 02:02:17 PM
Why not just put them into the foster care system?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 02:02:40 PM
can't say I blame them.

Glad we agree. I don't see as much sympathy for the dead children washing up in the Rio Grande. The whole situation is disgusting, and Obama's policies are to blame.

Dude, I'm no Obama fan but come on.

You don't agree that Obama's public pronouncements of DREAMer amnesty aren't to blame for this? So you think the immigrants themselves are lying?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 16, 2014, 02:04:30 PM
If we had any sort of an immigration policy that made sense, these kids would already be living in America legally with their parents.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: illBisonYourdele on July 16, 2014, 02:09:32 PM
Bodies are exhumed from their graves and left propped up in Guatemala if relatives fail to pay cemetery fees
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Be2iEPMIEAA4aoO.jpg)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on July 16, 2014, 02:18:45 PM
It could be said that the absolute unwillingness of congress to actually do something one way or the other regarding immigration is causing situations like this.  After all, the $4B and the detention is all due to the current law dictating how these kids have to be handled before being deported.  This is a Red and Blue issue.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 16, 2014, 02:30:26 PM
can't say I blame them.

Glad we agree. I don't see as much sympathy for the dead children washing up in the Rio Grande. The whole situation is disgusting, and Obama's policies are to blame.

Dude, I'm no Obama fan but come on.

You don't agree that Obama's public pronouncements of DREAMer amnesty aren't to blame for this? So you think the immigrants themselves are lying?

No. People are poor and see prosperity in the United States and want to come here.

Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity.  We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.

People are demanding that the government retain custody of the children until they are returned to their families, rather than releasing them into the United States. At this point, our border patrol has been transformed into nothing more than taxpayer subsidized coyotes. What would you do? How long should this go on?

Let them live here.

Ok, so open border policy, then? And how many billions more should we spend on welfare to support them? Hell, Obama wants 4 billion just to hire more attorneys and judges to more quickly "process" them (read, release them for a court date they'll never make).

I guess when you're running a deficit of nearly $1 trillion annually, another 10-20 billion (for starters) just looks like chump change.

There are plenty of Stevesies.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 02:35:45 PM
It could be said that the absolute unwillingness of congress to actually do something one way or the other regarding immigration is causing situations like this.  After all, the $4B and the detention is all due to the current law dictating how these kids have to be handled before being deported.  This is a Red and Blue issue.

That's a cop out. The "red" have "done" plenty on immigration in the past - we've had several amnesties, including under Ronald Reagan. Each time, real border enforcement was promised, and never delivered.

This time, Republicans had one non-negotiable demand: border enforcement first. But because the Democrats won't agree to that, and because Democrats still hold the WH and Senate, the whole process has been stymied. You would think that "border enforcement first" is a reasonable demand - a majority of Americans agree with that - but Democrats insist on nothing less than "comprehensive immigration reform," which is just another amnesty wrapped in a broken promise.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 02:40:22 PM
can't say I blame them.

Glad we agree. I don't see as much sympathy for the dead children washing up in the Rio Grande. The whole situation is disgusting, and Obama's policies are to blame.

Dude, I'm no Obama fan but come on.

You don't agree that Obama's public pronouncements of DREAMer amnesty aren't to blame for this? So you think the immigrants themselves are lying?

No. People are poor and see prosperity in the United States and want to come here.

And it's just a coincidence that the recent flood of illegal immigration happens to coincide with Obama's announcements concerning deferred deportation and "amnesty" for DREAMers? Golly, I guess all these Central American countries suddenly got a lot poorer.

Quote
Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have flocked to the U.S. in recent months, believing the Dream Act, as well as a 2008 law that grants an asylum hearing to any child not from a border nation, and the White House policy known as “prosecutorial discretion” means once they arrive, they’ll never have to go back.
...
Many of the illegal immigrants tell Border Patrol and Texas state authorities they learned from the media in their home countries that if they crossed the border to the U.S. right now, they’d be given papers and allowed to stay, border sources who interview the immigrants told FoxNews.com.

Quote
President Obama and his aides have repeatedly sought to dispel the rumors driving thousands of children and teens from Central America to cross the U.S. border each month with the expectation they will be given a permiso and allowed to stay..

But under the Obama administration, those reports have proved increasingly true.

The number of immigrants under 18 who were deported or turned away at ports of entry fell from 8,143 in 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration, to 1,669 last year, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement data released under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Similarly, about 600 minors were ordered deported each year from nonborder states a decade ago. Ninety-five were deported last year, records show, even as a flood of unaccompanied minors from Central America — five times more than two years earlier — began pouring across the Southwest border.

...

"Word of mouth gets back, and now people are calling and saying, 'This is what I said'" in court, said a senior U.S. law enforcement official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "Whether it is true or not, the perception is that they are successfully entering the United States.... That is what is driving up the landings."
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on July 16, 2014, 02:41:15 PM
Its not a cop out.  Name an issue and there will be ppl telling you they are willing to negotiate as long as you do everything I want first.  Thats just dumb and you know it. 

Demanding border enforcement first, not negotiating anything, and then doing nothing just makes sure the issue is as bad or worse later. 

Middle of the road has to be an option on all issues this big or nothing ever gets done.  So, making intial demands that must be met before continuing forward at all is a very quick way of making sure exactly nothing happens.  Again, you know that.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Matt Mckee on July 16, 2014, 02:41:53 PM
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: steve dave on July 16, 2014, 02:46:49 PM
It could be said that the absolute unwillingness of congress to actually do something one way or the other regarding immigration is causing situations like this.  After all, the $4B and the detention is all due to the current law dictating how these kids have to be handled before being deported.  This is a Red and Blue issue.

That's a cop out. The "red" have "done" plenty on immigration in the past - we've had several amnesties, including under Ronald Reagan. Each time, real border enforcement was promised, and never delivered.

This time, Republicans had one non-negotiable demand: border enforcement first. But because the Democrats won't agree to that, and because Democrats still hold the WH and Senate, the whole process has been stymied. You would think that "border enforcement first" is a reasonable demand - a majority of Americans agree with that - but Democrats insist on nothing less than "comprehensive immigration reform," which is just another amnesty wrapped in a broken promise.

fun read
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 02:47:52 PM
Its not a cop out.  Name an issue and there will be ppl telling you they are willing to negotiate as long as you do everything I want first.  Thats just dumb and you know it. 

Demanding border enforcement first, not negotiating anything, and then doing nothing just makes sure the issue is as bad or worse later. 

Middle of the road has to be an option on all issues this big or nothing ever gets done.  So, making intial demands that must be met before continuing forward at all is a very quick way of making sure exactly nothing happens.  Again, you know that.

You might have a point if we hadn't already tried amnesty, multiple times, and the promised border security never materialized. Sealing the border to illegal immigration and "doing nothing else" would be a good start. The fact that Democrats won't allow this just proves that they will never support border security.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 16, 2014, 02:48:37 PM
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?

Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on July 16, 2014, 02:50:14 PM
Ok, so open border policy, then? And how many billions more should we spend on welfare to support them?

0, same as now.  amazing how stupid people get hung up on borders.  borders are retards.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on July 16, 2014, 02:53:34 PM
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?

Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human.

Disagreeing on a political issue doesn't necessarily make him a terrible human, but it definitely could, depending on the issue and his stance.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 16, 2014, 02:54:24 PM
Cong. Tim Huelskamp @CongHuelskamp  ·  5h
[email protected] is opening a $50 million resort for illegal immigrants. Complete with a pool and tennis courts. http://goo.gl/Dkxglo
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 02:55:52 PM
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?

Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.

I'll concede that Republicans blew a golden opportunity to pass real immigration reform in the early 2000s when they controlled the WH and Congress. Does that make me less partisan? I'm still right that demanding real border security as a precondition is perfectly reasonable, and the Democrat's refusal to agree to it is the reason for the current impass.

As for "cold," I recognize that these are children and they need to be treated humanely, but we can do that by returning them to their families. This uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration is not good for America.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 16, 2014, 02:57:23 PM
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?

Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.

I'll concede that Republicans blew a golden opportunity to pass real immigration reform in the early 2000s when they controlled the WH and Congress. Does that make me less partisan? I'm still right that demanding real border security as a precondition is perfectly reasonable, and the Democrat's refusal to agree to it is the reason for the current impass.

As for "cold," I recognize that these are children and they need to be treated humanely, but we can do that by returning them to their families. This uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration is not good for America.

What would you like to see out of immigration reform? What should the standard for entry be?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Matt Mckee on July 16, 2014, 02:59:28 PM
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?

Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.

No, he's a terrible human.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: illBisonYourdele on July 16, 2014, 02:59:55 PM
maybe none of this is about immigration. 

maybe the US is creating a false conflict to put an end to the China-Nicaragua canal project
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on July 16, 2014, 03:01:00 PM
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 03:06:27 PM
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.

Great idea. How many more do you think we should take? Maybe an even million? Two million? Ten? At what point does a country that's already 18 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion per year, say "eff, we can't afford this"?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on July 16, 2014, 03:13:14 PM
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?

Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.

I'll concede that Republicans blew a golden opportunity to pass real immigration reform in the early 2000s when they controlled the WH and Congress. Does that make me less partisan? I'm still right that demanding real border security as a precondition is perfectly reasonable, and the Democrat's refusal to agree to it is the reason for the current impass.

As for "cold," I recognize that these are children and they need to be treated humanely, but we can do that by returning them to their families. This uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration is not good for America.

As posted above, they are being processed how our law states they need to be processed.  The mass quantity of kids is why the extra funding is needed, to process that number of kids as legislated.  If you want them immediately dumped south of the border the same day they are picked up, write your congress rep and ask them to stop being such babies on the non-negotiable stances and get something passed as far as immigration goes.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 03:19:19 PM
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?

Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.

I'll concede that Republicans blew a golden opportunity to pass real immigration reform in the early 2000s when they controlled the WH and Congress. Does that make me less partisan? I'm still right that demanding real border security as a precondition is perfectly reasonable, and the Democrat's refusal to agree to it is the reason for the current impass.

As for "cold," I recognize that these are children and they need to be treated humanely, but we can do that by returning them to their families. This uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration is not good for America.

What would you like to see out of immigration reform? What should the standard for entry be?

Step 1: Seal the border to illegal immigration with a combination of drone surveillance, beefed up border security, and no release between aprehension and deportation.

Step 2: Require implementation of national e-verify system, with steeper consequencies for hiring illigal immigrants.

Step 3: Pass law reversing birthright citizenship (yes, it likely can be done by statute as opposed to Consitutional amendment).

Step 4: Issue guest worker permits, five years in length, renewable up to 10 years, to immigrants (both those that are presently here illegally and those that wish to immigrate to the U.S., upon completion of background check (no felonies) and payment of fee. Fees are allocated between the federal government (to pay for Steps 1, 2, and 3) and the states (to pay for social services, etc.)

Step 5: Expand U.S. Citizenship eligibility, but shift preference to higher skilled workers (reversing the Kennedy trend). The line for U.S. Citizenship starts at the border. Guest workers who were formerly illegal immigrants are not eligible until they return home.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on July 16, 2014, 03:25:49 PM
steps 2-5 make step 1 irrelevant and unnecessary.  it would be nothing more than a waste of money.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: RickRampus on July 16, 2014, 03:29:06 PM
wouldn't it just be easier/cheaper to carpet bomb the border with napalm (surely we have some of that laying around from 'nam) daily at random intervals?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on July 16, 2014, 03:30:38 PM
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.

Great idea. How many more do you think we should take? Maybe an even million? Two million? Ten? At what point does a country that's already 18 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion per year, say "eff, we can't afford this"?

How much are you willing to spend on border security?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 03:32:12 PM
steps 2-5 make step 1 irrelevant and unnecessary.  it would be nothing more than a waste of money.

Step 1 is definitely necessary. Even if Step 2 were to halt all illegal immigration for jobs (and it won't), it still doesn't solve the problem of drug trafficking and other illegal activity. The border must be surveilled and secured.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 16, 2014, 03:32:58 PM
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.

Great idea. How many more do you think we should take? Maybe an even million? Two million? Ten? At what point does a country that's already 18 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion per year, say "eff, we can't afford this"?

How much are you willing to spend on border security?

Plenty, especially is we ultimately pay for at least some of it with a guest worker program. See my 5 Step Program.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on July 16, 2014, 03:37:39 PM
Would be more cost effective to convince MX to build a wall at their south border and beef up their southern border security.  We could go halvesies on it and come out ahead. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on July 16, 2014, 03:42:08 PM
steps 2-5 make step 1 irrelevant and unnecessary.  it would be nothing more than a waste of money.

Step 1 is definitely necessary. Even if Step 2 were to halt all illegal immigration for jobs (and it won't), it still doesn't solve the problem of drug trafficking and other illegal activity. The border must be surveilled and secured.

you can hunt drug smugglers without prohibiting the free ingress and egress of people.  indeed, it is lunacy to suggest that the focus on preventing the latter does not make the former more difficult.

black market labor is a very minor problem in the united states, the vast majority of illegal immigrants work within the taxed, regulated job market.  of course there would be some percentage of black market labor available to illegal immigrants, but it would not be a percentage that is nationally significant.

your last sentence is entirely unsupported by logic or fact.  it is mere dogma.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on July 16, 2014, 03:44:08 PM
I participated in black market labor for basically all of HS and College.  I was paid cash wages, friends.

 :billdance:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 16, 2014, 03:45:52 PM
I participated in black market labor for basically all of HS and College.  I was paid cash wages, friends.

 :billdance:

We should have stiffer penalties for the employers who do this. Annual audits if caught and such.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 16, 2014, 10:59:04 PM
steps 2-5 make step 1 irrelevant and unnecessary.  it would be nothing more than a waste of money.

Step 1 is definitely necessary. Even if Step 2 were to halt all illegal immigration for jobs (and it won't), it still doesn't solve the problem of drug trafficking and other illegal activity. The border must be surveilled and secured.

you can hunt drug smugglers without prohibiting the free ingress and egress of people.  indeed, it is lunacy to suggest that the focus on preventing the latter does not make the former more difficult.

black market labor is a very minor problem in the united states, the vast majority of illegal immigrants work within the taxed, regulated job market.  of course there would be some percentage of black market labor available to illegal immigrants, but it would not be a percentage that is nationally significant.

your last sentence is entirely unsupported by logic or fact.  it is mere dogma.

Do they illegally use other people's SSN?

That's not kosher.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 16, 2014, 11:02:05 PM
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?

Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.

No, he's a terrible human.

I don't have the GE creds to really judge but KSU should probably head to GPC.  He'll be greeted with open arms over there.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on July 16, 2014, 11:06:18 PM
I disagree.  Thats a diff level.  Reason and logic dont exist there.  Just crazy and militant.   
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on July 16, 2014, 11:45:15 PM
Do they illegally use other people's SSN?

i'm not terribly up to date on the laws regarding ssn's; i don't know what is illegal and what isn't.  most illegals have false documents of some sort.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: nicname on July 17, 2014, 12:16:08 AM
Are these kids considered illegal immigrants, refugees or both? Something in between? It makes a difference. These kids are different from run-of-the-mill illegal-immigrants.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: the_ugly_clown on July 17, 2014, 08:31:52 AM
Build a wall. Keep them out. Secure the border. End of story.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 17, 2014, 08:32:57 AM
Are these kids considered illegal immigrants, refugees or both? Something in between? It makes a difference. These kids are different from run-of-the-mill illegal-immigrants.

Why would they be considered refugees? They're coming for the exact same reason they've been coming for decades - poverty - not war or genocide. They're telling the border agents that the reason they're coming now is because they believe they'll get amnesty.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: illBisonYourdele on July 17, 2014, 08:46:35 AM
Do they illegally use other people's SSN?

i'm not terribly up to date on the laws regarding ssn's; i don't know what is illegal and what isn't.  most illegals have false documents of some sort.

when illegals work using false documents, the tax man does not contact the illegal for settlement
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 17, 2014, 12:59:26 PM
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right?   It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost.   There's lots of that going on.

But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.

America is open for you!!  . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.



       

That makes so much sense.  They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting. 

Thanks Dax.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 17, 2014, 01:05:46 PM
Are these kids considered illegal immigrants, refugees or both? Something in between? It makes a difference. These kids are different from run-of-the-mill illegal-immigrants.

Why would they be considered refugees? They're coming for the exact same reason they've been coming for decades - poverty - not war or genocide. They're telling the border agents that the reason they're coming now is because they believe they'll get amnesty.

Why couldn't you say that without spouting off your Obama nonsense?

It's quite obvious somebody told them wrong because they're being deported and the administration has even thought about speeding up the process

It appears you love to engage in partisan hackery and bullshit. 

Get a grip and be rational, this is GE.. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on July 17, 2014, 01:08:31 PM
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.

Great idea. How many more do you think we should take? Maybe an even million? Two million? Ten? At what point does a country that's already 18 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion per year, say "eff, we can't afford this"?

How much are you willing to spend on border security?

Plenty, especially is we ultimately pay for at least some of it with a guest worker program. See my 5 Step Program.

then I would pay for however many "plenty" would pay for
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 17, 2014, 01:29:42 PM
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.

Great idea. How many more do you think we should take? Maybe an even million? Two million? Ten? At what point does a country that's already 18 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion per year, say "eff, we can't afford this"?

How much are you willing to spend on border security?

Plenty, especially is we ultimately pay for at least some of it with a guest worker program. See my 5 Step Program.

then I would pay for however many "plenty" would pay for

Except that your solution isn't a solution at all - it simply encourages more to come. Mine both fixes the problem and is paid for.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on July 17, 2014, 01:30:55 PM
my solution fixes a problem, just a different one than you think you would solve.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: OK_Cat on July 17, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
Why aren't we talking about walls and security at our northern border? White?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on July 17, 2014, 01:43:19 PM
Why aren't we talking about walls and security at our northern border? White?
Money, too.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: OK_Cat on July 17, 2014, 01:44:24 PM
I would rather block immigrants from the north. What do they have to offer? They don't make awesome food and they aren't good at soccer
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 17, 2014, 01:47:23 PM
Are these kids considered illegal immigrants, refugees or both? Something in between? It makes a difference. These kids are different from run-of-the-mill illegal-immigrants.

Why would they be considered refugees? They're coming for the exact same reason they've been coming for decades - poverty - not war or genocide. They're telling the border agents that the reason they're coming now is because they believe they'll get amnesty.

Why couldn't you say that without spouting off your Obama nonsense?

It's quite obvious somebody told them wrong because they're being deported and the administration has even thought about speeding up the process

It appears you love to engage in partisan hackery and bullshit. 

Get a grip and be rational, this is GE..

You're joking, right? Deportations are now at a record low (http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations), and Obama and his Democrat cronies are assuring their activist base that they want to reduce deportations even more (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/17/obama_said_to_assure_hispan ic_caucus_on_deportations_123342.html).

Our immigration crisis is, historically, a bipartisan disaster, but that doesn't change the fact that it is currently a Democrat disaster. It is the Democrats who have (1) created this most recent tidal wave with promises of "deferred deportation" (translation to the immigrants: "amnesty"), and (2) held immigration reform hostage by refusing to adopt a bifurcated borders first process.

Obama is now confronted with two losing situations. The 38-40% of Americans that still "approve" of his job performance consist of hardcore leftists, young single women, african americans, and a dwindling number of blue collar white traditional democrats. If he says the children can stay, he alienates the blue collar workers and african americans. If he says they must be deported, he alienates the leftists. Either way, he's stuck in an electoral quagmire right before the midterms. So his solution is to do what he always does in tough political situations: do nothing. Make vague, non-commital public comments and hope and pray that the Congress takes action to send the kids home, which will alleviate political pressure and allow him to scapegoat the Republicans.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on July 17, 2014, 01:47:42 PM
Seth rogen, drake, that point guard from TX, etc.  Don't be silly.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: OK_Cat on July 17, 2014, 02:08:19 PM

Seth rogen, drake, that point guard from TX, etc.  Don't be silly.

If we deported all Canadians this afternoon, they wouldn't be missed.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: OK_Cat on July 17, 2014, 02:08:38 PM
YES, that includes mike myers
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: OK_Cat on July 17, 2014, 02:08:54 PM
And dana carvey
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 17, 2014, 02:12:29 PM
Ryan Gosling can stay.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on July 17, 2014, 02:30:22 PM
Something earthquaked of OKs top shelf, hit his head,  and has him all concussion'ey and stuff. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 17, 2014, 02:32:01 PM
Something earthquaked of OKs top shelf, hit his head,  and has him all concussion'ey and stuff.

He is correct that we get a much greater benefit from Mexican immigrants than Canucks, though.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: OK_Cat on July 17, 2014, 03:17:46 PM
how many times a week do you think "man, i could sure go for some canadian food tonight"

yeah, exactly.  send all of the billions that ksu wildcats wants to send to the brown people's border to the white people up north
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on July 17, 2014, 04:03:06 PM
Have you never heard of poutine, putain?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: OK_Cat on July 17, 2014, 04:07:15 PM
I canuck answer that question
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 17, 2014, 04:46:46 PM
I love Canadian food but there aren't any good Canadian food restaurants near me.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 17, 2014, 06:17:23 PM
Are these kids considered illegal immigrants, refugees or both? Something in between? It makes a difference. These kids are different from run-of-the-mill illegal-immigrants.

Why would they be considered refugees? They're coming for the exact same reason they've been coming for decades - poverty - not war or genocide. They're telling the border agents that the reason they're coming now is because they believe they'll get amnesty.

Why couldn't you say that without spouting off your Obama nonsense?

It's quite obvious somebody told them wrong because they're being deported and the administration has even thought about speeding up the process

It appears you love to engage in partisan hackery and bullshit. 

Get a grip and be rational, this is GE..

You're joking, right? Deportations are now at a record low (http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations), and Obama and his Democrat cronies are assuring their activist base that they want to reduce deportations even more (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/17/obama_said_to_assure_hispan ic_caucus_on_deportations_123342.html).

Our immigration crisis is, historically, a bipartisan disaster, but that doesn't change the fact that it is currently a Democrat disaster. It is the Democrats who have (1) created this most recent tidal wave with promises of "deferred deportation" (translation to the immigrants: "amnesty"), and (2) held immigration reform hostage by refusing to adopt a bifurcated borders first process.

Obama is now confronted with two losing situations. The 38-40% of Americans that still "approve" of his job performance consist of hardcore leftists, young single women, african americans, and a dwindling number of blue collar white traditional democrats. If he says the children can stay, he alienates the blue collar workers and african americans. If he says they must be deported, he alienates the leftists. Either way, he's stuck in an electoral quagmire right before the midterms. So his solution is to do what he always does in tough political situations: do nothing. Make vague, non-commital public comments and hope and pray that the Congress takes action to send the kids home, which will alleviate political pressure and allow him to scapegoat the Republicans.

He asked congress to do something, point the finger at them for being lousy partisan hacks such as yourself. 

I mean you said yourself this has been going on for years because of poverty, which is the truth, but it really does no good for your look to go into some flaming raging conspiratorial tirade that points a bunch of baseless fingers. 

Rise above the political gamesmanship, you'll see things more clearer and be more rational about solutions.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on July 17, 2014, 10:03:05 PM
So who is illegally voting then? I'm confused
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on July 17, 2014, 10:27:41 PM
So who is illegally voting then? I'm confused

When did I say anyone was voting illegally.   Amnesty does what Seven?  What does it either do, or put people on the path to doing?

Do I have to diagram this out for you?

Oh, so I guess you're not one of those that scream for national id card because illegals are voting in mass numbers

I've known a good number of illegals, they don't give a crap if they are citizens or care at all about politics , they just want to be left alone to work and make money.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on July 17, 2014, 10:56:02 PM
Your routine is getting stale, old man

Blah blah blah DEMOCRATS :curse:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on July 17, 2014, 11:01:00 PM
Instead of the little boy that cried wolf, Dax is the old man that cried (about) democrats.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on July 17, 2014, 11:11:33 PM
I bet tattooed across dax's clavicle (reversed so you can read it in the mirror) is "Demo C. raped and murdered my wife"
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 17, 2014, 11:48:08 PM
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right?   It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost.   There's lots of that going on.

But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.

America is open for you!!  . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.



       

That makes so much sense.  They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting. 

Thanks Dax.  :rolleyes:

Two different groups of people I am referencing.

Damn bro.

Its pretty clear that is not what you were doing.

Your backpedaling is pretty pathetic.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 18, 2014, 11:35:41 AM
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right?   It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost.   There's lots of that going on.

But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.

America is open for you!!  . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.



       

That makes so much sense.  They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting. 

Thanks Dax.  :rolleyes:

Two different groups of people I am referencing.

Damn bro.

Its pretty clear that is not what you were doing.

Your backpedaling is pretty pathetic.

If it needs to be spelled out, there are the kids and moms that turn themselves in because they believed they will get amnesty right away, and there is the other group that wants to avoid DHS for possible nefarious reasons. These are drug smugglers, terrorists, etc., that are enjoying the easy access into the US via our friends, Mexico.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 18, 2014, 11:38:55 AM
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right?   It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost.   There's lots of that going on.

But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.

America is open for you!!  . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.



       

That makes so much sense.  They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting. 

Thanks Dax.  :rolleyes:

Two different groups of people I am referencing.

Damn bro.

Its pretty clear that is not what you were doing.

Your backpedaling is pretty pathetic.

If it needs to be spelled out, there are the kids and moms that turn themselves in because they believed they will get amnesty right away, and there is the other group that wants to avoid DHS for possible nefarious reasons. These are drug smugglers, terrorists, etc., that are enjoying the easy access into the US via our friends, Mexico.

There are also those who don't turn themselves in because they want to keep their jobs.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on July 18, 2014, 11:47:42 AM
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right?   It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost.   There's lots of that going on.

But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.

America is open for you!!  . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.



       

That makes so much sense.  They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting. 

Thanks Dax.  :rolleyes:

Two different groups of people I am referencing.

Damn bro.

Its pretty clear that is not what you were doing.

Your backpedaling is pretty pathetic.

If it needs to be spelled out, there are the kids and moms that turn themselves in because they believed they will get amnesty right away, and there is the other group that wants to avoid DHS for possible nefarious reasons. These are drug smugglers, terrorists, etc., that are enjoying the easy access into the US via our friends, Mexico.

There are also those who don't turn themselves in because they want to keep their jobs.

Much much more of these.

It's much more likely that a terrorist would come in from canada with false documents, have you not seen homeland?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2014, 11:51:30 AM
I would guess any terrorist worth worrying about isn't getting coyote'd in.

I don't really worry about any terrorists, but still.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 18, 2014, 11:54:36 AM
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right?   It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost.   There's lots of that going on.

But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.

America is open for you!!  . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.



       

That makes so much sense.  They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting. 

Thanks Dax.  :rolleyes:

Two different groups of people I am referencing.

Damn bro.

Its pretty clear that is not what you were doing.

Your backpedaling is pretty pathetic.

If it needs to be spelled out, there are the kids and moms that turn themselves in because they believed they will get amnesty right away, and there is the other group that wants to avoid DHS for possible nefarious reasons. These are drug smugglers, terrorists, etc., that are enjoying the easy access into the US via our friends, Mexico.

There are also those who don't turn themselves in because they want to keep their jobs.

I believe Dax thinks they want to get near a voting booth and vote democrat though.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on July 19, 2014, 02:48:14 PM
to stop potential terrorists from entering the country is the stupidest argument i've heard yet for "securing the border" with mexico.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: ednksu on July 19, 2014, 07:27:29 PM
Fact 1) They are going to CBP, not trying to evade, that is the reason why they are, you know, caught.  This isn't a new wave a illegals who are trying to avoid capture. 
Fact 2) They are not coming for amnesty, ala what neo con demigod did.  They are coming to escape the narco warfare for a chance at asylum. 
Fact 3) These are Bush W. policies Obama is following. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on July 19, 2014, 07:51:17 PM
sys . . . of course you would say that because it's just opposite world for you 24/7/365

i actually say it because it would cost a fortune to try and "secure the border" with mexico to small groups of people with money and we'd still have thousands of miles of unsecured border to the north, thousands of miles of unsecured coasts and treaties with like 40 countries allowing their citizens to enter the us without a visa.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 20, 2014, 12:40:12 AM
Embarrassing take injun, I mean it's all of this  :facepalm: and a box of chocolates.

cRusty, when the border is basically wide open, and Border Patrol is 80% tied up in paperwork, why does a potential terrorist need a Coyote?

 Dax, you implied illegals were going to vote.. It's right here on this page.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 20, 2014, 12:55:15 AM
Because that's not what you implied.

You said the DHS avoiders were welcome by progressives to vote Democrat once they're here. 

I guess maybe I was confused as to which underlying conspiracy you were referring to. The illegals voting one, or the open borders, come all ye faithful, here's your amnesty papers and democratic registration papers one. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Headinjun on July 20, 2014, 01:03:29 AM
They probably are but the amnesty initiatives that have been going around are for those already here and brought here involuntarily as children.  It's not for new hires
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: mortons toe on July 20, 2014, 11:39:40 AM
Oh, ok... the 'new hires' will be in the next amnesty cycle. Got it.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: OK_Cat on July 20, 2014, 01:04:43 PM

sys . . . of course you would say that because it's just opposite world for you 24/7/365

i actually say it because it would cost a fortune to try and "secure the border" with mexico to small groups of people with money and we'd still have thousands of miles of unsecured border to the north, thousands of miles of unsecured coasts and treaties with like 40 countries allowing their citizens to enter the us without a visa.

While that's true, Canada has very little to no corruption going to the highest levels of government and entire sections of Canada are not controlled by drug cartels.   

Because white
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 20, 2014, 04:26:01 PM

sys . . . of course you would say that because it's just opposite world for you 24/7/365

i actually say it because it would cost a fortune to try and "secure the border" with mexico to small groups of people with money and we'd still have thousands of miles of unsecured border to the north, thousands of miles of unsecured coasts and treaties with like 40 countries allowing their citizens to enter the us without a visa.

While that's true, Canada has very little to no corruption going to the highest levels of government and entire sections of Canada are not controlled by drug cartels.   

Because white

So you're saying all non-white countries are corrupt. Racist.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on July 20, 2014, 07:11:39 PM
I say if you want to become an American, you have to be an American Ninja Warrior.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 20, 2014, 09:03:36 PM
Fact 2) They are not coming for amnesty, ala what neo con demigod did.  They are coming to escape the narco warfare for a chance at asylum. 

:lol:  it's a "fact" folks. This new wave is like, totally different, than the decades of illegal immigrants before them. That damned narco warfare. These countries were so peaceful and prosperous until two years ago. They're refugees and must be granted asylum. Doors open, everyone!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 01, 2014, 03:44:49 PM
Things not reported by the US media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on August 01, 2014, 04:08:21 PM
Things not reported by the US media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html)

 :rolleyes:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on August 02, 2014, 02:16:02 AM
Things not reported by the US media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html)

What is your point? I hope it's not that you are taking the word of a farmer that patrols for illegals as hearing illegals suddenly speak great English to speak of how they feel about our president and his policy or view on immigration and legislation.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 02, 2014, 11:24:55 PM
Things not reported by the US media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html)

What is your point? I hope it's not that you are taking the word of a farmer that patrols for illegals as hearing illegals suddenly speak great English to speak of how they feel about our president and his policy or view on immigration and legislation.

Things not reported by the US media
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on August 02, 2014, 11:30:00 PM
Things not reported by the US media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html)

What is your point? I hope it's not that you are taking the word of a farmer that patrols for illegals as hearing illegals suddenly speak great English to speak of how they feel about our president and his policy or view on immigration and legislation.

Things not reported by the US media
Cheers.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: steve dave on August 07, 2014, 08:55:57 AM
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/05/rand-paul-flees-mid-burger-jus.html
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 07, 2014, 02:54:47 PM
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/05/rand-paul-flees-mid-burger-jus.html

Ha, very Joe Bidenesque.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 29, 2014, 01:26:26 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386694/judicial-watch-feds-bulletin-describes-threat-imminent-terrorist-attack-southern (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386694/judicial-watch-feds-bulletin-describes-threat-imminent-terrorist-attack-southern)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on October 03, 2014, 10:57:04 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/10/02/obama-ill-take-executive-action-on-immigration-between-the-midterms-and-end-of-the-year/

“President Obama said Thursday night that he would take executive action on immigration sometime between the midterm elections and the end of the year.  Speaking before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Gala, Obama said he shares the frustration of many in the room upset that immigration reform remains stalled. Obama was accompanied to the gala by two congressional interns who are DREAMers -- young unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States before the age of 16.”

I get angry when I think of the President changing laws by himself or ignoring to enforce laws established by Congress.  He took an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the country.  And some members of Congress feel they have the right to thumb their noses at law too.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 03, 2014, 11:52:27 AM
Gosh, I can't imagine why the Pres is waiting until after the mid-terms.

It's cute when he just blatantly lies to journalists who ask him that very question.

Quote
Chuck Todd: I'm going to go to immigration. You made a decision to delay any executive action until after the election. What do you tell the person that's going to get deported before the election that this decision was essentially made in your hopes of saving a Democratic Senate?

PRES. OBAMA: Well, that's not the reason. ... I want to make sure we get it right. I want to make sure, number one, that all the T's are crossed.

Chuck Todd: Looks like politics. I mean, it looks like election-year politics.

PRES. OBAMA: Not only do I want to make sure that the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted, but here's the other thing, Chuck, and I'm being honest now  :lol:, about the politics of it. This problem with unaccompanied children that we saw a couple weeks ago, where you had from Central America a surge of kids who are showing up at the border, got a lot of attention. And a lot of Americans started thinking, "We've got this immigration crisis on our hands." And what I want to do is when I take executive action, I want to make sure that it's sustainable. I want to make sure that--

Chuck Todd: But the public's not behind you.

PRES. OBAMA: No, no, no, no.

Chuck Todd: Are you concerned the public wouldn't support what you did?

PRES. OBAMA: What I'm saying is that I'm going to act because it's the right thing for the country. But it's going to be more sustainable and more effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration, what we've done on unaccompanied children, and why it's necessary.

President Obama just needs more time to make sure he's got all his ducks in a row before trotting out amnesty! The midterms have nothing to do with it!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 03, 2014, 01:48:10 PM
Should be interesting if the 'pubs take over the senate.  :party:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 03, 2014, 02:23:50 PM
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 03, 2014, 02:26:42 PM
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?

That is pretty much what Chuck Todd did.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on October 03, 2014, 02:27:13 PM
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?

Because Chuck wants to continue to be in the room.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 03, 2014, 02:30:19 PM
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?

Because Chuck wants to continue to be in the room.

I know, I know. Would be hilarious if it happened, though.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on October 03, 2014, 03:11:35 PM
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...

Quote
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?

That is pretty much what Chuck Todd did.

More respectfully tho
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 04, 2014, 12:56:23 PM
It seems disingenuous for the Fed to go around suing states to prevent them from enforcing their own immigration laws, then to turn around and just take "executive action" to usurp it's own legislation.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 04, 2014, 04:19:03 PM
It seems disingenuous for the Fed to go around suing states to prevent them from enforcing their own immigration laws, then to turn around and just take "executive action" to usurp it's own legislation.

Take it up with Holder. Oh wait - he finally resigned. Six years was a pretty impressive run. So many achievements... Fast & Furious, refusing to enforce immigration and other laws, stonewalling doc requests. "Department of Justice" indeed. The cronyism and corruption that has rotted once revered institutions is a sad indictment of our decline as a nation.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on October 23, 2014, 10:38:56 PM
Read tonight Obama the High Overlord of Obamaland will issue 34 million guest worker visas after the election.  I hope that the author of the article was high on something.  It not, that will put a kink in every conservative's weasel.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on October 23, 2014, 10:55:20 PM
Weasel kink is a pretty big problem these days.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 24, 2014, 08:12:24 AM
Read tonight Obama the High Overlord of Obamaland will issue 34 million guest worker visas after the election.  I hope that the author of the article was high on something.  It not, that will put a kink in every conservative's weasel.

Not mine. I think anyone who can find a job in America should have the legal means to do so.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on October 24, 2014, 10:46:11 AM
Is "kink in his weasel" an actual saying or did reno just make it up? I ask because it's awesome.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 24, 2014, 01:33:41 PM
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 24, 2014, 01:52:34 PM
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 24, 2014, 02:53:35 PM
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?

Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on October 24, 2014, 02:54:51 PM
Is "kink in his weasel" an actual saying or did reno just make it up? I ask because it's awesome.

can we get back on topic here?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 24, 2014, 02:55:38 PM
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?

Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.

I think government revenues will increase by more than the expense of covering the occasional fraudulent benefits claim.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on October 24, 2014, 02:58:10 PM
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters. 



It's only political for the "libs". Republicans are simply being genuinely racist.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 24, 2014, 03:39:29 PM
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?

Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.

I think government revenues will increase by more than the expense of covering the occasional fraudulent benefits claim.

Who said anything about fraud? I'm talking about the added cost of ER visits, schools, law enforcement, etc. Importing and legalizing millions of poor low-skilled workers is a really bad idea - especially when we've already got millions of poor unskilled Americans on the public dime. Let's see how unwilling they are to work for minimum wage when the welfare is cut back. How about we start there?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 24, 2014, 03:40:42 PM
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters. 



It's only political for the "libs". Republicans are simply being genuinely racist.

Not that it really matters, but I don't think I'm being racist. I'm worried about swamping our already maxed-out welfare system when we should be moving in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 24, 2014, 04:58:59 PM
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?

Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.

Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.

It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens.   Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.

But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.

Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?

Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.

I think government revenues will increase by more than the expense of covering the occasional fraudulent benefits claim.

Who said anything about fraud? I'm talking about the added cost of ER visits, schools, law enforcement, etc. Importing and legalizing millions of poor low-skilled workers is a really bad idea - especially when we've already got millions of poor unskilled Americans on the public dime. Let's see how unwilling they are to work for minimum wage when the welfare is cut back. How about we start there?

Most of the illegal immigrants I encounter earn well above minimum wage performing jobs that your typical American on welfare is simply unable to perform adequately. It's not just a matter of these Americans being unwilling to work for minimum wage. You also have to factor in that no employer actually wants them.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on October 24, 2014, 11:02:41 PM
34 million visas.  That is a 10% increase in our population.  Thses cards will not go to educated and self supporting people, but to sick, elderly, and poor people.  Dang I am getting a hell of a kink.  I have whizz at a right angle - weasel kink is the worst.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on October 24, 2014, 11:04:24 PM
Weasel kink def sucks
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on October 24, 2014, 11:06:53 PM
We should sell green cards.  Cut taxes and sell green cards.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 24, 2014, 11:19:55 PM
My weasel just got a little kinked reading that, too. I'm gonna rewatch Holland close out the 9th. That'll set things right.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 25, 2014, 10:37:16 AM
Poor Mexicans might get good jobs and better their lives. :bawl:

It's just not fair because their kids are going to get an education. :bawl:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on October 25, 2014, 11:52:19 AM
Make green cards like $5k  each and good for three yrs.  Constant income. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: wetwillie on October 25, 2014, 11:56:47 AM
Make green cards like $5k  each and good for three yrs.  Constant income.
Finance the 5k at 12% interest.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 25, 2014, 12:49:57 PM
Has it ever been more obvious that democrats simply don't give a crap about the financial consequences of any their policies?  That all of this is about power at any and all cost?

I'm just stunned that there are people out there who look at these things and think a) we need to give these people more power and/or b) are so stupid they can't see the long term consequences of these short term measures.

 The people who feign sympathy for humanity are the biggest collection of delusional, disingenuous morons that exist in our society.  They should have their citizenship revoked.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on October 25, 2014, 02:59:12 PM
Yep, then we can sell them their citizenship back to them for $5k at 12%.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on October 25, 2014, 03:15:27 PM

 The people who feign sympathy for humanity are the biggest collection of delusional, disingenuous morons that exist in our society.  They should have their citizenship revoked.

:D
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on October 25, 2014, 04:24:13 PM
We should sell green cards.

we do (in a really stupid way).


http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through-job/green-card-through-investment
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on October 26, 2014, 12:34:32 PM
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-suspect-in-northern-california-shooting-rampage-previously-deported-20141025-story.html

Proof deporting is an unnecessary drain of financial resources
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 26, 2014, 01:07:57 PM
Pretty great that the anti gun crowd is also the pro murderer crowd
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: ChiCat on October 26, 2014, 01:12:10 PM
Being able to stop all illegals from getting over the border argument = Being able to stop gun violence by new gun laws argument
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on October 31, 2014, 01:41:12 PM
I hear the bulk of the 34 million Obama Jackpot visa will go to Africans and other black nations.  They will have low paying jobs.  Sounds like a step up from slavery.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on October 31, 2014, 01:48:41 PM
I hear the bulk of the 34 million Obama Jackpot visa will go to Africans and other black nations.  They will have low paying jobs.  Sounds like a step up from slavery.

where did you hear that, yeesh
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on October 31, 2014, 01:55:33 PM
That really kinks my weasel
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 31, 2014, 05:56:59 PM
I hear the bulk of the 34 million Obama Jackpot visa will go to Africans and other black nations.  They will have low paying jobs.  Sounds like a step up from slavery.

Most of the migrants from Africa in southwest KS earn $40-50k.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 13, 2014, 08:53:22 AM
Obama getting ready to roll out his latest executive order to mint more Democrat voters.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/12/Father-Asks-Obama-To-Bring-Son-Slain-By-Illegal-Alien-Back-To-Life-With-Executive-Order (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/12/Father-Asks-Obama-To-Bring-Son-Slain-By-Illegal-Alien-Back-To-Life-With-Executive-Order)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Tobias on November 13, 2014, 08:55:39 AM
dat url! :love:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2014, 12:36:30 PM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/working-for-ice-is-hell-right-now-as-obama-plans-amnesty-for-illegals/article/2556174 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/working-for-ice-is-hell-right-now-as-obama-plans-amnesty-for-illegals/article/2556174)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 14, 2014, 01:40:10 PM
I could not imagine a worse job than working for ICE and don't understand why people do it.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: puniraptor on November 14, 2014, 01:55:04 PM
i have been using kinked weasel in various forms all day here at work and it has been a real hit.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 14, 2014, 03:02:46 PM
New avatar for michigancat

(http://i.imgur.com/INGhXqM.jpg)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 14, 2014, 03:04:05 PM
New avatar for michigancat

(http://i.imgur.com/INGhXqM.jpg)

The guy grabbing his crotch really completes it.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 17, 2014, 08:42:30 AM
It's too bad the republican party is so racist against Mexicans. These immigrants would vote republican while making our economy kick ass if the republicans would just stop treating them like lesser life forms.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2014, 08:44:43 AM
“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,”. . .  “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”  Barack Obama

There's a racist Republican who's also named Barack Obama? Wow.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 17, 2014, 08:49:39 AM
“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,”. . .  “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”  Barack Obama

There's a racist Republican who's also named Barack Obama? Wow.

Obama is just protecting his unions. The republicans should be on the immigrants' side here. They would demolish the dems because their special interests align more closely with the interests of the immigrants. They just can't take that step as a party, though.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 17, 2014, 08:53:36 AM
It's too bad the republican party is so racist against Mexicans. These immigrants would vote republican while making our economy kick ass if the republicans would just stop treating them like lesser life forms.

Sounds like a few years ago, Barack Obama was in "they took our jobs" mode, regarding those low life, work for nothing Mexicans.

Yes, opportunity lost.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2014, 09:00:36 AM
It's too bad the republican party is so racist against Mexicans. These immigrants would vote republican while making our economy kick ass if the republicans would just stop treating them like lesser life forms.

:lol: Let's break this down...

"Buncha racist Republicans": You know who has a bunch of racist Republicans? Oregon. Yup, deep red Oregon. 66% apparently, who voted to cancel a new state law conferring DLs on illegal immigrants. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141116/us-immigration-oregon-3fe495c4ab.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141116/us-immigration-oregon-3fe495c4ab.html)

"They would vote republican": Poor people generally vote for the party that offers them more free stuff, especially when they are immigrating in such masses so as to not effectively integrate into society.

"Legalization would be good for the economy" - they're already here, and our economy isn't exactly going gangbusters. Actually, the labor participation rate continues to drop and wages are stagnant. Hmmm... Conferring legal status on illegal immigrants won't fix these problems or help our economy - aside from perhaps a marginal increase in tax revenue - but it will ensure an even greater strain on our social comfort hammock.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 09:33:03 AM
Mexico now requiring visas to cross the border. They want to keep better tabs on who is in their country. Bunch a rough ridin' racists.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 17, 2014, 09:37:54 AM
It's too bad the republican party is so racist against Mexicans. These immigrants would vote republican while making our economy kick ass if the republicans would just stop treating them like lesser life forms.

:lol: Let's break this down...

"Buncha racist Republicans": You know who has a bunch of racist Republicans? Oregon. Yup, deep red Oregon. 66% apparently, who voted to cancel a new state law conferring DLs on illegal immigrants. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141116/us-immigration-oregon-3fe495c4ab.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141116/us-immigration-oregon-3fe495c4ab.html)

"They would vote republican": Poor people generally vote for the party that offers them more free stuff, especially when they are immigrating in such masses so as to not effectively integrate into society.

"Legalization would be good for the economy" - they're already here, and our economy isn't exactly going gangbusters. Actually, the labor participation rate continues to drop and wages are stagnant. Hmmm... Conferring legal status on illegal immigrants won't fix these problems or help our economy - aside from perhaps a marginal increase in tax revenue - but it will ensure an even greater strain on our social comfort hammock.

Poor people generally don't vote.

Our economy is best in the world.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on November 17, 2014, 02:37:57 PM
Mexico now requiring visas to cross the border. They want to keep better tabs on who is in their country. Bunch a rough ridin' racists.

Dumbasses.  They need a big ass wall and a bunch of armed security guys.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on November 17, 2014, 02:45:35 PM
mexico requires visas to cross which border?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: nicname on November 17, 2014, 03:43:33 PM
mexico requires visas to cross which border?

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/11/15/pilot-program-requires-americans-to-pay-to-cross-into-mexico/
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: puniraptor on November 17, 2014, 03:58:59 PM
how is this going to affect my upcoming AI?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on November 17, 2014, 04:00:27 PM
how is this going to affect my upcoming AI?

If your fee to enter the country isn't included, is it really AI?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: puniraptor on November 17, 2014, 04:03:02 PM
ASTERIX?!? :shakesfist:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 04:32:53 PM
mexico requires visas to cross which border?

All that matters is that it's racist
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on November 17, 2014, 06:55:56 PM
mexico has required an entry form (basically a tourist visa) for us citizens for as long as i've been going there.  i don't know what this story is attempting to impart, but it's doing a really shitty job of it.  if the new permit (if it is new) is replacing the old one, then it is more liberal.  seven days without needing the permit instead of three.  maybe it is some new permit unique to persons only visiting baja?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 06:59:29 PM
mexico has required an entry form (basically a tourist visa) for us citizens for as long as i've been going there.  i don't know what this story is attempting to impart, but it's doing a really shitty job of it.  if the new permit (if it is new) is replacing the old one, then it is more liberal.  seven days without needing the permit instead of three.  maybe it is some new permit unique to persons only visiting baja?

The last time I went Mexico it cost 65 cents and there was no paperwork, so not sure what you're trying to impart here.  If you fly they make you fill out some hokie visa that the flight attendant collects.

This visa is $28, so that would be more.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 07:03:55 PM
Mexico is doing more while we're doing less. That's the joke.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on November 17, 2014, 07:11:14 PM
Mexico is doing more while we're doing less. That's the joke.



well, we already do way way more than Mexico with regards to visa requirements
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on November 17, 2014, 07:27:54 PM
mexico has required an entry form (basically a tourist visa) for us citizens for as long as i've been going there.  i don't know what this story is attempting to impart, but it's doing a really shitty job of it.  if the new permit (if it is new) is replacing the old one, then it is more liberal.  seven days without needing the permit instead of three.  maybe it is some new permit unique to persons only visiting baja?

The last time I went Mexico it cost 65 cents and there was no paperwork, so not sure what you're trying to impart here.  If you fly they make you fill out some hokie visa that the flight attendant collects.

This visa is $28, so that would be more.

if you didn't get a visitor's permit the last time you went to mexico, either you're extremely old and went before they were required (no idea when that was, prolly around ww2), you stayed within 20 km of the border and for less than 3 days or you broke the law and should have been thrown in jail.  the 65 cents you paid was probably a toll to cross a bridge or something.  not related to legal entry into the republic of mexico.

the hokie visa that you have to get when you fly is the same hokie visa you have to get if you enter by land or boat (if you intend to stay for longer than three days or intend to enter further than 20 km from the border.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on November 17, 2014, 07:34:01 PM
googling around a little, it appears that mexico has been updating their immigration forms over the last couple years.  it looks like maybe instead of three days, you get seven days before you need to have a tourist "visa".

also, they are going to come out with a tourist visa that is valid for 10 years for relatives of mexican citizens.   :Woot:


if i had to guess the change at the otay and san ysidro crossings is that there is a pilot program to allow/require visitors to obtain the visitor's permit at the point of entry from the border entry officers instead of having to go to the migration office and do it after entering the country.  lol @ the shitty reporting by everyone who has reported on it.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 08:57:52 PM
Mexico is doing more while we're doing less. That's the joke.



well, we already do way way more than Mexico with regards to visa requirements

Well, we aren't enforcing what we do to some degree, and that makes this a funny joke
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 17, 2014, 08:59:58 PM
I'm sure we do more enforcement than Mexico does.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 09:01:03 PM
mexico has required an entry form (basically a tourist visa) for us citizens for as long as i've been going there.  i don't know what this story is attempting to impart, but it's doing a really shitty job of it.  if the new permit (if it is new) is replacing the old one, then it is more liberal.  seven days without needing the permit instead of three.  maybe it is some new permit unique to persons only visiting baja?

The last time I went Mexico it cost 65 cents and there was no paperwork, so not sure what you're trying to impart here.  If you fly they make you fill out some hokie visa that the flight attendant collects.

This visa is $28, so that would be more.

if you didn't get a visitor's permit the last time you went to mexico, either you're extremely old and went before they were required (no idea when that was, prolly around ww2), you stayed within 20 km of the border and for less than 3 days or you broke the law and should have been thrown in jail.  the 65 cents you paid was probably a toll to cross a bridge or something.  not related to legal entry into the republic of mexico.

the hokie visa that you have to get when you fly is the same hokie visa you have to get if you enter by land or boat (if you intend to stay for longer than three days or intend to enter further than 20 km from the border.

The 65 cents was to cross a bridge, recently. I could have written Charlie Fuckface on the airplane visa and stayed longer than 3 days as everyone on the flight likely did. Good guesses.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 09:02:35 PM
I'm sure we do more enforcement than Mexico does.

I'm sure Charlie Weis had tougher practices than Turner Gill
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 17, 2014, 10:34:05 PM
I'm sure we do more enforcement than Mexico does.

The only people mexico tries to keep out are Guatemalans on their way to the U.S.  They might take their jobs.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 10:35:55 PM
I heard our Obamacare health insurance quoting engine is better than the Mexican quoting engine.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 18, 2014, 10:00:08 PM
Heh. Normally liberal Glenn Kessler of WaPo's Fact Checker is so disgusted with Obama's latest denial - that he didn't flip flop on ruling like a dictator with respect to immigration - that he has awarded Obama the first ever "upside down Pinocchio." :lol:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 19, 2014, 09:18:39 AM
Obama will officially give his middle finger to the GOP, and the American people, on Friday. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102183389 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/102183389)

With this move, Obama has written off his own presidency. His approval rating will crater to the mid 30s and will not recover, but he doesn't appear to care. It seems that his only desire at this point is to take the GOP down with him. He'll likely succeed. This all but guarantees another government shutdown, which will both (1) derail the GOP's agenda, and (2) blow up in their faces. Two birds with one stone!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 19, 2014, 01:38:20 PM
This is great for millions of workers in America and the businesses that employ them.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 19, 2014, 02:20:07 PM
This is great for millions of workers in America and the businesses that employ them.

Not so great for the tens of millions of long term unemployed, or the hundreds of millions of taxpayers. But yay for the lawbreakers!  :Woohoo:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 19, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
This is great for millions of workers in America and the businesses that employ them.

Not so great for the tens of millions of long term unemployed, or the hundreds of millions of taxpayers. But yay for the lawbreakers!  :Woohoo:

The long term unemployed would remain unemployed with or without this. They are unemployed because they are lazy and wouldn't even make minimum wage working the type of performance-based jobs that illegal immigrants are earning $20-$30 per hour from. The hundreds of millions of taxpayers see a net benefit from this, too.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 19, 2014, 03:25:00 PM
This is great for millions of workers in America and the businesses that employ them.

Not so great for the tens of millions of long term unemployed, or the hundreds of millions of taxpayers. But yay for the lawbreakers!  :Woohoo:

The long term unemployed would remain unemployed with or without this. They are unemployed because they are lazy and wouldn't even make minimum wage working the type of performance-based jobs that illegal immigrants are earning $20-$30 per hour from. The hundreds of millions of taxpayers see a net benefit from this, too.

And those just facts, folks.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 19, 2014, 03:37:15 PM
This is great for millions of workers in America and the businesses that employ them.

Not so great for the tens of millions of long term unemployed, or the hundreds of millions of taxpayers. But yay for the lawbreakers!  :Woohoo:

The long term unemployed would remain unemployed with or without this. They are unemployed because they are lazy and wouldn't even make minimum wage working the type of performance-based jobs that illegal immigrants are earning $20-$30 per hour from. The hundreds of millions of taxpayers see a net benefit from this, too.

And those just facts, folks.

Long term unemployed Americans simply don't have the skills necessary to perform unskilled labor, and that is a fact.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 19, 2014, 03:38:50 PM
What skills are required to perform unskilled labor?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 19, 2014, 03:40:56 PM
What skills are required to perform unskilled labor?

Focus, attention to detail, physical durability.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 19, 2014, 03:46:14 PM
What skills are required to perform unskilled labor?

Focus, attention to detail, physical durability.

In addition to being laughably stupid, this also wins racist post of the day.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 19, 2014, 03:47:12 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 19, 2014, 04:02:57 PM
As long as the government pays people to sit on their ass, they will sit on their ass.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 19, 2014, 04:06:10 PM
As long as the government pays people to sit on their ass, they will sit on their ass.

Yes. Even in a scenario where the government stopped paying them, would you rather hire one of them? It doesn't seem like a good strategy if you want your business to be profitable.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on November 19, 2014, 04:10:36 PM
This whole Imperial Leader crap from Obama on Immigration chaps my behind red, kinks my weasel, and throws me into slobbering mouth foaming nasty verbal tirade.  We have to use Demoncrat tactics to strike back.  Since each state has to foot the bill for civil and social services for the new Obama-Americans, the state's should establish a guest worker surcharge on state income taxes and charge a business a tax that employees them.  If they become tax evaders they can be deported.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 19, 2014, 04:14:11 PM
This whole Imperial Leader crap from Obama on Immigration chaps my behind red, kinks my weasel, and throws me into slobbering mouth foaming nasty verbal tirade.  We have to use Demoncrat tactics to strike back.  Since each state has to foot the bill for civil and social services for the new Obama-Americans, the state's should establish a guest worker surcharge on state income taxes and charge a business a tax that employees them.  If they become tax evaders they can be deported.

Yes, higher taxes fix everything. :lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on November 19, 2014, 04:15:00 PM
Creating a cast system is the answer to pretty much every political problem
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 19, 2014, 04:51:19 PM
Obama-Americans  :love: :lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 19, 2014, 05:03:36 PM
Obamamericans would have been better.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 19, 2014, 05:37:47 PM
I hate them because they want to be like us.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on November 19, 2014, 05:38:34 PM
The nerve.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: nicname on November 19, 2014, 05:42:25 PM
Obamamericans would have been better.

Obamericans.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 19, 2014, 09:24:03 PM
Anyone with a brain is upset by the undemocratic manner in which this is being done. I'm pretty rough ridin' sick of the current totalitarian state.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on November 19, 2014, 09:26:57 PM
I am much more frustrated w the NSA bs than immigration. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 19, 2014, 10:53:11 PM
I am much more frustrated w the NSA bs than immigration.

All part of the totalitarian state
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 20, 2014, 06:54:59 AM
Lib showed us he prefers a Stasi like "national" security environment . . . unless it comes to border security, then come on in and vote Democrat!

Link?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2014, 08:34:51 AM
So is Obama right tonight, or was he right when he said, in no fewer than 22 prior speeches, that he cannot do what he intends to do tonight?

Quote
1. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America. (3/31/08)

2. We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress. (5/19/08)

3. Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works. (5/5/10)

4. [T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. (7/1/10)

5. I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed. (10/14/10)

6. I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws. (10/25/10)

7. America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. (3/28/11)

8. I can't solve this problem by myself. … [W]e're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it happen. (4/20/11)

9. I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself.  But that’s not how democracy works.  See, democracy is hard.  But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one. (4/29/11)

10. Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing. (5/10/11)

11. I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written. (7/25/11)

12. So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.  We are doing everything we can administratively.  But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.  And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things.  It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy.  You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.  And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved. (9/28/11)

13. Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’ (9/20/12)

14. We are a nation of immigrants. … But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own[.] (10/16/12)

15. I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law. (1/30/13)

16. I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.  And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books.  … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it. (1/30/13)

17. This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. (2/14/13)

18. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively. (7/16/13)

19. My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. … What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress. (9/17/13)

20. f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out. (11/25/13)

21. I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there.  What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing.  And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year. (3/6/14)

22. I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power].  I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.  There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting. (8/6/14)

Quote
I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. ... I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books.

How very true, Mr. President. Your violation of that oath is an impeachable offense - or it would be, if the Democrats in your own party had enough integrity to obey their own oaths to defend and uphold the Constiution. And thus does our republic continue to crumble.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 20, 2014, 08:41:55 AM
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2014, 08:43:06 AM
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.

The law be damned. Even conceding what you just said, which isn't true... the law and the Constitution be damned.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 20, 2014, 08:47:42 AM
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.

The law be damned. Even conceding what you just said, which isn't true... the law and the Constitution be damned.

This is hardly the first time a president has used an unlawful executive order.

What would you like to see done? Mass deportations?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2014, 08:50:52 AM
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.

The law be damned. Even conceding what you just said, which isn't true... the law and the Constitution be damned.

This is hardly the first time a president has used an unlawful executive order.

What would you like to see done? Mass deportations?

I've already proposed my immigration reforms in this thread, repeatedly. And this is by far the most clearly unconsitutional executive order ever. It's not even close. It makes an absolute mockery of prosecutorial discretion, as even "consitutional law professor" Obama acknolwedged in prior speeches. It sets an absolutely terrible precedent for the executive branch.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 20, 2014, 08:56:44 AM
I feel like he's been pretty clear that congress has had plenty of opportunity to fix it and they didn't.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 20, 2014, 09:01:44 AM
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.

How is he going to do that? On what authority?

These mind numbingly stupid comments must have some source. Regardless of political affiliation we must put governance ahead of political agenda. These are fundamentals
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 20, 2014, 09:03:21 AM
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.

The law be damned. Even conceding what you just said, which isn't true... the law and the Constitution be damned.

This is hardly the first time a president has used an unlawful executive order.

What would you like to see done? Mass deportations?

I've already proposed my immigration reforms in this thread, repeatedly. And this is by far the most clearly unconsitutional executive order ever. It's not even close. It makes an absolute mockery of prosecutorial discretion, as even "consitutional law professor" Obama acknolwedged in prior speeches. It sets an absolutely terrible precedent for the executive branch.

Weren't your reforms basically the same thing as the laws that were complete failures in Alabama and Georgia?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 20, 2014, 09:16:16 AM
Neocon immigration policy is to make the US worse than mexico so they self deport
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2014, 09:34:57 AM
I feel like he's been pretty clear that congress has had plenty of opportunity to fix it and they didn't.

Right, I think there's a clause in the Constitution for that... where is it? Ah yes, Article II, Section B, Subpart (i) - the "The President Can Do Whatever the eff He Wants If Congress Doesn't Give Him the Laws He Wants" clause.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2014, 09:36:53 AM
Want a laugh? Here's a quick video montage of 25 instances in which Obama acknowledged the Constitutional restraints on executive amnesty. http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/19/caught-camera-obama-called-exec-immigration-action-illegal-25-times (http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/19/caught-camera-obama-called-exec-immigration-action-illegal-25-times)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 20, 2014, 01:42:07 PM
I feel like he's been pretty clear that congress has had plenty of opportunity to fix it and they didn't.

Right, I think there's a clause in the Constitution for that... where is it? Ah yes, Article II, Section B, Subpart (i) - the "The President Can Do Whatever the eff He Wants If Congress Doesn't Give Him the Laws He Wants" clause.

Isn't Immigration/naturalization under the executive branch?  We do all kinds of things that isn't outlined in the constitution.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2014, 01:55:32 PM
I feel like he's been pretty clear that congress has had plenty of opportunity to fix it and they didn't.

Right, I think there's a clause in the Constitution for that... where is it? Ah yes, Article II, Section B, Subpart (i) - the "The President Can Do Whatever the eff He Wants If Congress Doesn't Give Him the Laws He Wants" clause.

Isn't Immigration/naturalization under the executive branch?  We do all kinds of things that isn't outlined in the constitution.

No, it is a legislative function. See Article 1, Section 8. That's why we have immigration statutes. The executive's duty generally is to enforce the laws, but can exercise prosecutorial discretion in limited circumstances.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 20, 2014, 02:06:23 PM
It's so strange to see someone who clearly supports an internal National Security Police state call other people "neocons".

Just doesn't add up.

I think it's hilarious that he uses it as a pejorative and has no idea he is one. Like Clayton Bixby from the Chappelle show.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 20, 2014, 02:07:22 PM
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.

How is he going to do that? On what authority?

These mind numbingly stupid comments must have some source. Regardless of political affiliation we must put governance ahead of political agenda. These are fundamentals


 :dunno:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: EMAWmeister on November 20, 2014, 02:08:40 PM
I don't really care if we make it easier for immigrants to get in, but we should definitely start exiling a lot of shitty Americans too.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 20, 2014, 07:40:32 PM
When, President Obama, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end to that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 20, 2014, 07:44:55 PM
It's so strange to see someone who clearly supports an internal National Security Police state call other people "neocons".

Just doesn't add up.

link?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on November 20, 2014, 08:00:10 PM
The PrezArea says he is not changing a law just not enforcing them.  What is the next law that he will ignore enforcing.  Give Obama an inch and he will take a mile and our money.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 20, 2014, 08:20:42 PM
The PrezArea says he is not changing a law just not enforcing them.  What is the next law that he will ignore enforcing.  Give Obama an inch and he will take a mile and our money.

I thought the payoff of his address was hilariously underwhelming, given the buildup this week.  These people weren't going to get deported before, and they aren't going to get deported now.  Except, now Obama is using taxes a ransom for their non-deportation.  This is really not a big deal.  At all.  It doesn't move the needle whatsoever.  In fact, we should all be thankful that Obama is asking these folks to render to Caesar.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2014, 10:20:22 PM
The best part about setting arbitrary cutoff dates like "only amnesty if you've been here at least 5 years" is that it's completely phony because it's impossible to prove. Are they going to lop off a leg and count the rings? Any "proof" can easily be forged.

It's also funny that only the people who have been breaking our laws for at least 5 years are rewarded. :lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 20, 2014, 10:40:57 PM
The PrezArea says he is not changing a law just not enforcing them.  What is the next law that he will ignore enforcing.  Give Obama an inch and he will take a mile and our money.

I thought the payoff of his address was hilariously underwhelming, given the buildup this week.  These people weren't going to get deported before, and they aren't going to get deported now.  Except, now Obama is using taxes a ransom for their non-deportation.  This is really not a big deal.  At all.  It doesn't move the needle whatsoever.  In fact, we should all be thankful that Obama is asking these folks to render to Caesar.

This, what a complete nothingburger, why would illegals come check in? what is in it for them other than be traceable to deport later, this clown picks weird fights, the illegal community will see this as another slap in the face.  If the pub's screw the spin up on this shitshow they are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 20, 2014, 10:41:48 PM
it's ok because they didn't agree with the law.  wasn't that your excuse for republicans breaking election laws?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2014, 10:47:24 PM
it's ok because they didn't agree with the law.  wasn't that your excuse for republicans breaking election laws?

No, the election laws violate the First Amendment. So no, not the same thing at all. Man what a libtard.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 20, 2014, 10:51:28 PM
but it's still like, a law tho right.  i mean jaywalking is against the law but it infringes on my pursuit of happiness sometimes.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 20, 2014, 10:52:34 PM
also election laws aren't against the constitution  :Carl:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2014, 06:48:09 AM
Did the Senate pass a bill?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Yard Dog on November 21, 2014, 08:23:18 AM
Did the Senate pass a bill?

Did the house pass a bill that the senate shot down?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 21, 2014, 08:23:41 AM
The best part about setting arbitrary cutoff dates like "only amnesty if you've been here at least 5 years" is that it's completely phony because it's impossible to prove. Are they going to lop off a leg and count the rings? Any "proof" can easily be forged.

It's also funny that only the people who have been breaking our laws for at least 5 years are rewarded. :lol:

I don't like the 5 year cutoff, either. We should be giving work visas to everyone with a job so the free market can do its thing.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2014, 09:33:27 AM
Did the Senate pass a bill?

Sure a Democratically controlled Senate passed a bill that they knew a Republican controlled House would never pass.   

It's the simple tactic of making it look like you're doing something and then throwing your hands up and the air and complaining that you can't get anything done because the other guys/gals won't just bend over and give you everything you want. 

Why not vote
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2014, 10:16:28 AM
It's amazing to me how many people are Ok with the president behaving like a monarch and blatantly violating the Consitution he swore an oath to uphold, simply because it will "help" millions of people who broke our laws to enter the country. Just another cause/symptom of our decline.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2014, 10:24:47 AM
Every president has executive order power when other branches aren't doing their job.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 21, 2014, 10:31:43 AM
It's amazing to me how many people are Ok with the president behaving like a monarch and blatantly violating the Consitution he swore an oath to uphold, simply because it will "help" millions of people who broke our laws to enter the country. Just another cause/symptom of our decline.

I hadn't noticed a decline. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Yard Dog on November 21, 2014, 10:42:04 AM
Every president has executive order power when other branches aren't doing their job.

More on this. Tell me about this being a thing. Use facts. Convince me this is truth. TIA
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 21, 2014, 10:44:42 AM
Every president has executive order power when other branches aren't doing their job.

More on this. Tell me about this being a thing. Use facts. Convince me this is truth. TIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2014, 10:45:26 AM
Executive Orders and Proclamations

Introduction
Typically, an inquiry concerning executive orders and proclamations may only be related to one particular issue. However, it is useful to fully understand the dynamics behind executive orders and proclamations. Otherwise, the reader may be disappointed when it becomes apparent that there is no hard and fast rule concerning these presidential instruments. The fact is, executive orders and proclamations encompass so many aspects of government and society that each of them must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, this report seeks to give a better understanding of executive orders and proclamations, but may not provide ready answers to questions concerning specific presidential actions. This report examines the origin and usage of these presidential instruments. It also analyzes the scope of the President's authority to use such instruments and possible responses by Congress and the Judiciary.

The first task is to define executive orders and proclamations. Unfortunately, there is no exact meaning since neither the Framers of the Constitution nor Congress defined executive orders or proclamations. However, many commentators have expressed their understanding of such instruments. The most commonly cited description is that prepared by the House Government Operations Committee:

Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President. When they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may have the force and effect of law . . . . In the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations are written documents denoted as such . . . . Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies. They usually affect private individuals only indirectly. Proclamations in most instances affect primarily the activities of private individuals. Since the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute. The President's proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority. The difference between Executive orders and proclamations is more one of form than of substance . . . .[1]

As executive orders and proclamations are not defined in the Constitution, there is also no specific provision in the Constitution authorizing the President to issue executive orders and proclamations. However, the fact remains that Presidents have been issuing them since the inception of the Republic. Often Presidents have relied upon Article II of the Constitution as the sole basis for issuing executive orders and proclamations. For present purposes, Article II states that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States," "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[2] The President's ability to issue executive orders and proclamations is also derived from express or implied statutory authority from Congress.[3]

The ambiguity behind executive orders and proclamations poses a great concern for Congress and the public. At issue is the possibility that these presidential instruments may directly or indirectly affect the substantive rights, duties or obligations of persons outside the government. As a consequence, since executive orders and proclamations are a species of executive legislation, they have important constitutional implications, particularly with respect to the separation of powers. Furthermore, these instruments, if issued under a valid claim of authority and published,[4] have the force and effect of law[5] and courts are required to take judicial notice of their existence.[6] Thus, it is important to examine the legal basis for each executive order and proclamation issued and the manner in which the President has used these instruments.

The primary focus of this report is to determine the limits of the President's authority to issue executive orders and proclamations and to determine the role of the legislature and judiciary in shaping the President's use of these powerful instruments. This report will also compare presidential memoranda, a frequently used executive instrument, to executive orders.



Evolution of Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations
The first use of proclamations can be traced back to George Washington. In 1793, the Washington Administration was wrestling with the idea of issuing a proclamation declaring the United States' neutral in the war between England and France. Given the option of calling Congress back into session or issuing a proclamation on his own accord, President Washington chose the latter. On April 22, 1793 Washington issued a proclamation which enjoined the citizens of the United States to ". . . avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever, which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition . . ." of ". . . a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers . . . ." Moreover, he had "given instructions to those officers, to whom it belongs, to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons, who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations, with respect to the powers at war, or any of them."[7] However, he found that enforcing his proclamation was difficult and, thus, decided to look to Congress for assistance. Congress responded by passing the Neutrality Act of 1794 which gave the Administration the power to prosecute those who violated Washington's proclamation.[8]

The next major use of proclamations came during the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. At the outset of the Civil War, President Lincoln issued a proclamation authorizing Gen. Scott to watch the activities of the Maryland State Legislature and to act to suppress any insurrection. In his proclamation, Lincoln even authorized the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Pursuant to this proclamation, John Merryman was arrested on May 25, 1861, and held at Ft. McHenry by Gen. Cadwalader. Subsequently, Chief Justice Taney ordered that a writ of habeas corpus be issued. Gen. Cadwalader, however, citing his authority pursuant to Lincoln's proclamation, refused to comply. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion, stated that the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus was exclusively a legislative one, and that the President cannot suspend the privilege nor authorize a military officer to do it. Taney based his argument on legal and constitutional history and the fact that the power to suspend the writ is contained in Article I (the legislative article) of the Constitution.[9] Although Taney was unable to enforce his decision, Lincoln addressed Congress, on July 4, 1861, to explain the actions he had taken and to get congressional approval for them. Almost two years later, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 which authorized the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus when, in his judgment, the public safety may require it.[10] Thus, Congress did assert its jurisdiction over the matter of habeas corpus suspension, and, in the long run, Lincoln's actions were sanctioned by Congress.

With the exception of Lincoln's assumption of power during the Civil War, Congress usually maintained tight control over the executive branch through detailed statutes, strict budgetary controls, and reviews of even the most mundane administrative matters. During the nineteenth century, executive orders most often supplemented acts of Congress to carry out minor details.[11] The use and scope of executive orders and proclamations expanded, however, with the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.

President Roosevelt's theory on the presidency, the "stewardship" theory, was based on his view that the President was vested with residual powers which were neither enumerated in the Constitution nor assigned broadly to a specific branch; instead, they simply resided in concepts like national security or the public good. Thus, Roosevelt stated: "My view was that every officer, and above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people. . . . My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws."[12] This expansion of executive power, however, did not firmly take hold until the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson.

With the onset of World War I, President Wilson was able to expand the discretion of the presidency through the use of emergency powers. During his tenure, Wilson issued over 1800 executive orders. This period appears to mark the beginning of legislative and judicial tolerance towards expanded executive power during times of national emergency. Nothing underscores this more than the use of executive orders by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). Taking office during the depression, FDR was given great latitude by Congress to implement his New Deal program. In his first year, FDR issued 654 executive orders,[13] including his Inaugural Day proclamation closing all banks for four days to restructure the financial system and to establish the administrative mechanism necessary to implement his New Deal programs. World War II provided further impetus for him to continue the expansion of executive power. Without statutory authority, but as he put it, pursuant to the powers vested in him "by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as President of the United States of America and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," FDR issued an executive order on June 9, 1941, seizing North America Aviation's plant in California.[14] Two years later, Congress acquiesced in this and other seizures by passing the War Labor Disputes Act which provided statutory authority for presidential seizure of plants, mines, and other facilities.[15] However, as the war drew toward an end, Congress began to regain control of legislative activity which in large part had been relegated to the executive in a time of national emergency. In 1944, Congress invoked its power of the purse to prevent the President from using appropriated funds to finance agencies created by executive order unless Congress specifically appropriates for the agency or authorizes the expenditure of funds by it.[16] At the beginning of this country's next conflict, the Korean War, President Truman was not as successful as Presidents Wilson and FDR were in expanding his authority to issue executive orders and proclamations.



Truman and the "Steel Seizure Case"
The President's use of executive orders and proclamations experienced a turning point at the onset of the Korean Conflict. On December 18, 1951, collective bargaining between steel companies and their employees broke down and led to an announcement that the employees would strike on December 31, 1951. In an attempt to reach an agreement between the parties, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service intervened. Its efforts were unsuccessful. President Truman then referred the dispute to the Federal Wage Stabilization Board to investigate and make recommendations for fair and equitable terms of settlement. Unfortunately, this method also proved fruitless. The President did not, perhaps for political reasons, invoke the emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act which could have enjoined the strike for 60 days.[17] Upon the announcement of a nation-wide strike, President Truman issued an executive order authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the nation's steel mills.[18] Similar to FDR's executive orders seizing property in the name of national security, this order was not based on any statutory authority, but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. and as President of the U.S. and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The order contained a finding that the President's action was necessary to avoid a national catastrophe, since a work stoppage would immediately imperil the national defense at a time when American troops were fighting in Korea. Truman immediately informed Congress of his action and stated his intention to abide by the legislative will. However, Congress took no action. Therefore, the judicial branch was called upon to determine the scope of the President's executive authority.

The steel companies sued the Secretary of Commerce in a Federal district court, praying for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.[19] The district court issued a preliminary injunction which the court of appeals stayed.[20] The Supreme Court granted certiorari. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,[21] the Court found that the President had acted without statutory or Constitutional authority. Moreover, the Court declined to entertain the contention that presidential power should be implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution.[22]

In its decision, the Court explained that the President's power to issue executive orders must stem from either an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. The Court could not find any statute which either expressly or impliedly authorized the President to take possession of property as he did in this situation. In fact, the use of the seizure technique to solve labor disputes in order to prevent work stoppages was not only unauthorized by any congressional enactment, but had been rejected by Congress as a method of settling such disputes.[23] Instead, Congress enacted the Taft-Hartley Act which permitted the executive to settle disputes through mediation, conciliation, investigation by boards of inquiry, and public reports. In some instances temporary injunctions were authorized to provide cooling-off periods of 60 days. Congress' explicit refusal to include the seizure technique as one of the many mechanisms provided to the executive made it clear that the President did not have statutory authority), to issue the executive order in question. Moreover, the Court failed to find any constitutional basis for the President to issue such an order. In particular, the Court declined to find the "aggregate" of the President's powers was sufficient to authorize seizure of the nation's steel mills.

The Court went on to state that although other Presidents may have taken possession of private businesses in order to settle labor disputes, Congress has not lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution. Thus, the only role the President had in this situation was to make sure that the laws be faithfully executed, not to make them.

Six members of the Court joined in affirming the lower court, holding that (1) the constitutional issue was ripe for decision; and (2) that the seizure order was not within the constitutional powers of the President. However, four justices (Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson, and Burton) concurred in the result but wrote separate opinions, which, as stated by Frankfurter, J., show differences in attitude toward the basic constitutional principles involved. The lack of constitutional authority supporting the President's action was emphasized, not only in the Court's opinion but in Douglas' concurring opinion as well.

The emphasis of the concurring opinions of Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton is on the fact that whatever the President's inherent power to seize private property to meet an emergency may be, he was precluded from exercising such power in the present case by specific legislation designed to meet the emergency confronting him.


Justice Clark, who concurred in the result, held that in the absence of action by Congress to deal with the type of crisis confronting the President, his independent power to act turns upon the gravity of the situation confronting the nation. However, when Congress has laid down specific procedures to deal with such a crisis, the President must follow these procedures. In this case, Clark found that the President did not avail himself of his authority under the Selective Service Act of 1948 to seize plants which fail to produce goods required by the armed forces.

Chief Justice Vinson, with the concurrence of Justices Reed and Minton dissented. They would have upheld the seizure as an appropriate method, not prohibited by the Labor Management Relations Act or any other act of Congress, of faithfully executing and preserving the defense program enacted by Congress, until the latter could take appropriate action.

Of all the opinions in Youngstown, Justice Jackson's has become the most enduring and influential. Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown, which sets forth a framework for analysis of exercises of presidential power through executive orders, has become the standard by which courts test such executive actions.[24] In his concurrence, Justice Jackson stated:

Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress. We may well begin by a somewhat oversimplified grouping of practical situations in which a President may doubt, or others may challenge, his powers, and by distinguishing roughly the legal consequences of this factor of relativity.
When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, this authority, is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the entire matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.[25]


Executive Authority after Youngstown
Justice Jackson's "oversimplified"[26] standards have been and continue to be adhered to. However, some modifications have been made as more complex situations have arisen. Thus, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to review such a case when President Carter claimed implied legislative support for his actions in response to the seizure of American personnel as hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran. There the President, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declared a national emergency on November 14, 1979, and blocked the removal or transfer of all property and interests in property of the Government of Iran which were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[27] On January 19, 1981, the President, pursuant to an agreement with Iran, issued an executive order revoking all licenses permitting the exercise of "any right, power, or privilege" with regard to Iranian funds, securities, or deposits; "nullified" all non-Iranian interests in such assets acquired subsequent to the blocking order of Nov. 14, 1979; and required those banks holding Iranian assets to transfer them "to the Federal Reserve of New York, to be held or transferred as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury."[28] On February 24, 1981, President Reagan issued an executive order in which he "ratified" Executive Order 12279.[29] Moreover, he "suspended" all "claims which may be presented to the . . . Tribunal" and provided that such claims "shall have no legal effect in any action now pending in any court of the United States."[30]

In Dames & Moore v. Regan, the Supreme Court was asked to review various executive orders and regulations by which the President nullified attachments and liens on Iranian assets in the United States, directed that these assets be transferred to Iran, and suspended claims against Iran that could be presented to an International Claims Tribunal.[31] The Court upheld the President's action in nullifying the attachments and ordering the transfer of the assets since it was taken pursuant to specific congressional authorization[32] and, thus, was "supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it."[33] However, the Court could not find that either IEEPA or the Hostage Act[34] authorized the President to suspend claims. The Court, therefore, looked at the legislative intent of these statutes in order to determine whether the President acted alone or with the acquiescence of Congress.[35] In finding that Congress had acquiesced in the President's actions, the Court stated:

Congress cannot anticipate and legislate with regard in every possible action the President may find it necessary to take or every possible situation in which he might act. Such failure of Congress specifically to delegate authority does not, "especially . . . in the areas of foreign policy and national security," imply "congressional disapproval" of action taken by the Executive. Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 291. On the contrary, the enactment of legislation closely related to the question of the President's authority in a particular case which evinces legislative intent to accord the President broad discretion may be considered to "invite measures on independent presidential responsibility." Youngstown 343 U.S. at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring). At least this is so where there is no contrary indication of legislative intent and when as here, there is a history of congressional acquiescence in conduct of the sort engaged in by the President.[36]

It would also appear highly significant that the executive order issued in Dames & Moore involved issues of foreign policy and national security. Traditionally, executive orders and proclamations that involve these two areas have been given great leeway by the courts. One example of a controversial executive order, involving national security during WWII, which was upheld, was Executive Order 9066 which authorized the dislocation of Americans of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and their confinement in camps in the southwestern desert for the duration of the war. In Korematsu v. U.S., the Supreme Court speaks at length about the facts of the case and the national emergency which we faced.[37] The following statement sums up the Court's reasoning behind sanctioning Executive Order 9066:

Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.[38]

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2014, 10:45:46 AM
The Court's reasoning in Korematsu appears to be consistent with a passage from President Lincoln's message to the extraordinary session of Congress convened on July 4, 1861, in which he asks, "[a]re all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated: Even in such a case, would not the office oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?" Since it appears that the Court may view executive orders more leniently when foreign policy and national security are involved, it is appropriate that we review decisions by the courts involving executive orders that effect the social, economic, and political framework of this country.

FDR was the first President to use executive orders in order to establish an antidiscrimination policy.[39] Executive Order 8802 prohibited discrimination in the employment of workers in "defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin."[40] Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy followed FDR's lead in prohibiting discrimination,[41] but it was President Johnson's executive order which eventually created a stir. In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11,246 which prohibits employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by nonexempt federal government contractors and requires inclusion of an affirmative action clause in all covered federal contracts for procurement of goods and services.[42] Moreover, the order empowered the Secretary of Labor to issue rules and regulations necessary and appropriate to fulfill its propose. Based on this provision, the Philadelphia Plan was promulgated under the Nixon Administration.

The Philadelphia Plan required contractors to set specific goals for hiring members of minority groups as a condition for working on federally assisted projects. The courts upheld the legality of this plan and the executive order upon which it was based. In Contractors Association v. Secretary of Labor, the court found a relationship sufficiently established in respect of federally assisted construction projects because of the strong federal interest in ensuring that the cost and progress of these projects were not adversely affected by an artificial restriction of the labor pool caused by discriminatory employment practices.[43] Thus, the court made a connection between the executive order and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPSA or Procurement Act)[44] that was sufficient to uphold Executive Order 11246.[45]

Similarly, the court in AFL-CIO v. Kahn,[46] established a "nexus" test in upholding President Carter's executive order directing the Wage and Price Stability Council to establish voluntary wage and price standards for noninflationary behavior for the entire economy and making compliance with those guidelines a factor in determining whether a company could receive a government contract.[47] The court found that there was a sufficiently close nexus between Executive Order 12092 and the efficiency and economy criteria of the Procurement Act. The court specifically emphasized the importance of the wage and price standards and likely savings to the Government.

On March 10, 1995, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12954 prohibiting the use of striker replacements by employers who are performing under federal contracts.[48] Subsequently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other employee associations brought actions for declaratory and preliminary injunctive relief against the Secretary of Labor's enforcement of the executive order.[49] They alleged that the executive order was contrary to the National Labor Relations Act, the Procurement Act and the Constitution. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia did not reach the substantive issues, instead dismissing the action for lack of ripeness.[50] On expedited appeal the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the District Court's determination and remanded the case for further consideration.[51] On remand, the District Court again ruled in favor of the executive order.[52] The District Court held that the challenge was not judicially reviewable since the Procurement Act vests broad discretionary authority in the President. In the alternative, the District Court also rejected the appellants' statutory claim on the merits, reasoning that under the executive order the government was acting in a proprietary capacity and, therefore, the NLRA pre-emption was inapplicable. Once again, the decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals found that the executive order was regulatory in nature and was preempted by the NLRA which guarantees the right to hire permanent replacements.[53] Thus, the Court of Appeals, reversing the ruling of the District Court, found the executive order to be unlawful.

There have also been other courts unable to find an appropriate nexus to support a presidential action through an executive order. In Liberty Mutual v. Friedman,[54] while applying the nexus test used in Contractors Association and Kahn, the court was unable to find a sufficient relationship between the Procurement Act and Executive Order 11246. In this case, the issue involved a regulation promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 11246 in which the government determined that providers of workers' compensation insurance to government contractors are government subcontractors and thus subject to affirmative action requirements governing equal employment opportunity. The court found that "the connection between the cost of workers' compensation policies, for which employers purchase a single policy to cover employees working on both federal and nonfederal contracts without distinction between the two, and any increase in the cost of federal contracts that could be attributed to discrimination by these insurers is simply too attenuated to allow a reviewing court to find the requisite connection between procurement costs and social objectives."[55] However, the court does distinguish this case from Contractors Association since in that case there was sufficient evidence to show that the executive was acting to protect the Federal Government's financial interest in the state projects thereby establishing a sufficiently close nexus sought by both Contractors Association and Kahn.[56]

Executive orders and proclamations have also been used to further the policy agenda of a President through control of the agency decision making process. Two very controversial orders which exemplify this use were President Reagan's Executive Orders 12291 and 12498.[57] On February 17, 1981, the President issued Executive Order 12291 which was designed "to reduce the burden of existing and future regulations, increase agency accountability for regulatory actions, provide for Presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, and insure well-reasoned regulations."[58] In essence, this order increased control over executive branch rulemaking.


The issuance of Executive Order 12291 was followed by an opinion, from the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice supporting its validity.[59] The opinion stated that the President's authority to issue the order was based solely on his constitutional power to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[60] While concluding that any inquiry into congressional intent in enacting specific rulemaking statutes "will usually support the legality of Presidential supervision of rulemaking by Executive Branch agencies," the opinion stated that Presidential supervision of agency rulemaking "is more readily justified when it does not purport wholly to displace, but only to guide and limit, discretion which Congress had allocated to a particular subordinate official."[61]

Executive Order 12291 drew much criticism from Members of Congress, public interest groups, and commentators. These criticisms were primarily based on constitutional, statutory, and management principles. One such criticism was that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) violated separation of powers principles when it sought to "control" agency rulemaking authority that had been assigned to the agency by Congress in the enabling statute establishing the regulatory program.[62] Although the order exempted independent regulatory agencies, the President's authority to extend the executive order's requirements to them was also the subject of much debate.[63] Another concern raised by the order was that nonpublic communications between OMB and the rulemaking agency during review of an agency rule would deny members of the public an opportunity to rebut OMB's arguments made to the agency, and thus undermine the integrity of the rulemaking record.[64] Due to congressional pressure, OMB responded by reaffirming certain previously established procedures and by establishing additional procedures for reviews by OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).[65]


Although no court has specifically addressed the constitutionality of the review provisions of Executive Order 12291, Sierra Club v. Costle[66] is often cited as being supportive of the policy underlying presidential review. In Sierra Club, the primary issue involved the propriety of nonpublic executive communications in an EPA rulemaking, not the constitutionality of presidential review. However, the court of appeals' following statement lends support to such review:

The Court recognizes the basic need of the President and his White House staff to monitor the consistency of executive agency regulations with Administrative policy. He and his White House advisers surely must be briefed fully and frequently about rules in the making, and their contributions to policymaking considered. The executive power under our Constitution, after all, is not shared — it rests exclusively with the President. The idea of a "plural executive," or a President with a council of state, was considered and rejected by the Constitutional Convention. Instead the Founders chose to risk the potential for tyranny inherent in placing power in one person, in order to gain the advantages of accountability fixed on a single source. To ensure the President's control and supervision over the Executive Branch, the Constitution — and its judicial gloss — vests him with the powers of appointment and removal, the power to demand written opinions from executive officers, and the right to invoke executive privilege to protect consultative privacy. In the particular case of EPA, presidential authority is clear since it has never been considered an "independent agency," but always part of the Executive Branch.

The authority of the president to control and supervise executive policymaking is derived from the Constitution; the desirability of such control is demonstrable from the practical realities of administrative rulemaking. Regulations such as those involved here demand a careful weighing of cost, environmental, and energy considerations. They also have broad implications for national economic policy. Our form of government simply could not function effectively or rationally if key executive policymakers were isolated from each other and from the Chief Executive. Single mission agencies do not always have the answers to complex regulatory problems. An overworked administrator exposed on a 24-hour basis to a dedicated but zealous staff needs to know the arguments and ideas of policymakers in other agencies as well as in the White House.[67]

On September 30, 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866 which repealed Executive Orders 12291 and 12498.[68] This order maintains the basic process established by President Reagan, including the essential procedural provision requiring that major regulations be submitted to OMB for general review and oversight. It also includes the requirement that agencies submit an annual regulatory plan, compiled in conjunction with OMB. However, Executive Order 12866 does make a number of important substantive and procedural modifications. In particular, it addresses certain conflicts between agencies and OMB, and the appearance of improper influence over the review process.[69]

Neither Executive Order 12866 nor, its predecessors, 12291 and 12498, have been directly challenged in the courts. Thus, it is difficult to say how much deference the courts would give to executive orders involving political issues. However, the courts may treat political issues in a manner similar to executive orders involving social or economic aspects of society.

Therefore, it appears that the current standard of review for an executive order or proclamation includes Justice Jackson's tripartite test espoused in Youngstown with a determination of whether the executive order is closely related to the statute upon which it relies. The courts may also look at congressional intent when necessary. However, the courts may also base their determination upon the topic of the presidential instrument. As has been demonstrated, the courts are more likely to give deference to the President when the issue involves foreign affairs or national security than when they involve economic, political or social matters.



Congressional Oversight of Executive Orders and Proclamations
The previous discussion described the judiciary's role in determining whether the President has validly issued an executive order or proclamation pursuant to his authority. The next question is, what is Congress' role in executive orders or proclamations? The role that Congress may play varies with the authority upon which the President bases his executive order or proclamation. As discussed in Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown, the President's authority to issue executive orders and proclamations can be broken down into three categories. Briefly stated, these three categories include executive orders and proclamations that: (1) are issued pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress; (2) are based upon undefined powers that lay in a "zone of twilight" where the President acts solely on the basis of his independent power and Congress has not spoken; and (3) are incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, and thus rely solely upon his constitutional authority. The standard propounded in Youngstown is primarily applicable to the judiciary when reviewing the validity of a presidential action. This standard does not necessarily reflect Congress' strong ability to affect presidential action.

Unless it is constitutionally based, Congress may directly affect a presidential action by either amending, nullifying, repealing revoking, or terminating the authority on which it is founded. The most recent example of Congress nullifying an executive order appears to have involved Executive Order 12806.[70] Executive Order 12806, issued by President Bush, directed the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a human fetal tissue bank for research projects. The President based this order on his authority under "the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America."[71] Congress, however, explicitly nullified this order by stating that "the provisions of Executive Order 12806 shall not have any legal effect."[72] Since the President's authority in this situation was on tenuous grounds, there was little, if anything, that could prevent Congress from affecting his order.[73]

Congress may also retroactively repeal the statutory authority in which the President based his executive order or proclamation. This would render any executive order or proclamation, issued after the date established by Congress, invalid.

Another means by which Congress may affect executive orders and proclamations based on statutory authority, or where there is concurrent authority, is to amend such language to include a sunset provision. With a sunset provision, Congress may extend the effective period of the necessary provision or let it lapse. If Congress lets the provision lapse, the President will no longer have the authority, with regards to this statute, to act.[74] An example of using a sunset provision involved the National Council on Indian Opportunity (NCIO). The NCIO was established by Executive Order 11399[75] and later amended by Executive Order 11688.[76] In 1969, Congress appropriated funds to continue the NCIO for five years at which time it would terminate unless unauthorized by Congress.[77] The NCIO is no longer in existence.


Congress may also play a role in the President's ability to issue an executive order or proclamation when the President relies on authority which exists in a "zone of twilight." In this "zone of twilight," the President and Congress may have concurrent authority or there may be uncertainty as to the distribution of such authority. In either situation, "congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence"[78] may leave the door open for the President to act. Congress may either close the door or prop it open further.

If Congress wishes to close the door on the President in the "zone of twilight," it may legislate in contradiction to the executive order or proclamation. Such was the case at the end of World War II (a period where Congress had acquiesced in expanded presidential authority due to a time of national emergency). By 1944, Congress grew uncomfortable with the expanse of executive power and decided to use its power of the purse to prevent FDR from using executive orders to create agencies and carry out agency activities that had no legislative authority.[79] Subsequently, Congress passed the "Russell Amendment" which prohibits the use of any appropriation or fund to pay the expenses of "any agency or instrumentality including those established by Executive Order" if Congress tins not appropriated money specifically for it or authorized the expenditure of funds by it.[80]

Another instance where Congress has used its appropriation power involved the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) which required the public registration of "communist action" and "communist front" organizations.[81] After the registration requirement was held to violate the Fifth Amendment,[82] Congress revitalized the SACB by authorizing it to determine, through hearings, whether individuals and organizations were communist.[83] This too was found to violate the Constitution (First Amendment).[84] President Nixon later got involved by issuing an executive order which expanded the board's authority and field of inquiry.[85] Senator Sam Ervin took exception to this use of executive power and introduced a resolution to prohibit the use of appropriated funds to implement the executive order.[86] His contention in this issue was based on the sentiment that the President had no power "to alter by Executive order the content or effect of legislation enacted by Congress." This resolution was passed by the Senate, but was tabled by the House. The next year the House passed a bill which supported the executive order while the Senate entertained an amendment to delete the SACB's entire budget of $450,000. In conference, the House and Senate compromised by appropriating $350,000 to the SACB, but they specifically prohibited the SACB from using any of the funds to carry out the executive order.[87] Following this experience, the Administration did not request appropriations for the SACB in the 1974 budget.

Other than attempting to derail an executive order or proclamation which exists in the "zone of twilight," Congress may want to prop up such action by enacting legislation in support of the President's use of power. One strong reason for Congress to do this is so that it establishes its jurisdiction over that particular area of authority. Otherwise, continued acquiescence towards presidential action in a particular manner may be given great weight by the judiciary in determining who actually possesses such authority.[88]

The proclamations issued by Presidents Washington[89] and Lincoln,[90] and the executive orders issued by FDR[91] are prime examples of situations in which the President has acted in a manner which is highly dubious, yet is later sanctioned by congressional action. The Prize Cases[92] support the proposition that Congress may ratify actions of the President, thereby curing any defects which may have existed. In The Prize Cases, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to President Lincoln's right to proclaim a blockade which resulted in the capture of prizes by the public ships of the United States. At issue was whether a state of war existed which would have authorized the President to take such action.[93] The Supreme Court stated that ". . . if it were necessary to the technical existence of a war, that it should have a legislative sanction, we find it in almost every act passed at the extraordinary session of the Legislature of 1861, which was wholly employed in enacting laws to enable the Government to prosecute the war with vigor and efficiency. And finally, in 1861, we find Congress "ex majore cautela" and in anticipation of such astute objections, passing an act "approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, etc., as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States."[94]

Congress may also act, where there is concurrent jurisdiction, in a manner similar to the President, yet tailored to its own purposes. Such was the case involving Executive Order 11599. In 1972, President Nixon established a Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, by executive order. Although it appeared that Congress was in concurrence with the establishment of this office, it also seemed as though the Director was given more authority than Congress may have wished. Subsequently, Congress established, through legislation, a Special Office for Drug Abuse Prevention in which the Director was given less authority.[95] Thus, Congress utilized its legislative powers to repeal portions of an executive order, while permitting the President's office to remain intact.



Other Means of Affecting Executive Orders and Proclamations
There are also methods of amending or repealing an executive order or proclamation that do not involve Congress. The President may amend or repeal an executive order that he issued or that any other President issued. This is done by issuing a similar document and declaring such change. A recent example involved President Clinton's Executive Order 12,866, which altered the regulatory planning and review process which had been in place since 1981.[96] In his order, President Clinton explicitly revoked "Executive Orders 12,291 and 12,498; all amendments to those Executive orders; all guidelines issued under those orders; and any exemptions from those orders heretofore granted for any category of rule." [97]

Moreover, the President may amend or repeal an executive order or proclamation, with the advice and consent of the Senate, through treaty. Executive Order 11618 established the foundation of the legislative and executive branches of government on the Ryukyu Islands[98] Shortly thereafter, the United States, by treaty, returned the administration of the Ryukyu Islands back to Japan.[99] Thus, Executive Orders 11618 and 10713 were repealed by treaty.

Executive orders and proclamations may also be terminated by the terms of the presidential action. In other words, an executive order may be temporary. Executive Order 12664 was a temporary order which established an Emergency Board to investigate a dispute between the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Co. and certain of its employees represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.[100] The Emergency Board remained in existence until it submitted its final report about 60 days after the order was issued. Thus, Executive Order 12664 was self terminated.


Executive Orders vs. Presidential Memoranda
Another executive tool which has raised many questions is the presidential memoranda. Although they possess a different title than executive orders, it appears as though these instruments are very much alike. Both are undefined, written instruments by which the President directs, and governs actions by, Government officials and agencies. They differ in that executive orders must be published in the Federal Register whereas presidential memoranda are similarly published only if the President determines that they have “general applicability and legal effect.”[101] If issued under a valid claim of authority and published,[102] executive orders and presidential memoranda have the force and effect of law[103] and courts are required to take judicial notice of their existence.[104] In at least one instance, a federal district court seemed to use the two terms interchangeably. In Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Deer, the court, in describing how a particular presidential memorandum did not create an enforceable duty to permit a private right of action, referred to executive orders needing specific foundation in order to be judicially enforceable in private civil suits.[105] This usage implies that the two terms are similar, if not identical. One may say that the difference between executive orders and presidential memoranda may be, similar to executive orders and proclamations, one more of form than of substance.

This proposition may best be demonstrated in the uses of presidential memoranda. One example is the use of a type of presidential memorandum called a “presidential determination.”[106] Typically, a presidential determination is made in order to satisfy a statutory requirement that a certain event or action has occurred or a condition has been met. The determination often acts as the President's way of notifying Congress of such satisfaction. For example, President Clinton's most recent determination, based on section 614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,[107] was that “it is important to the security interests of the United States to furnish funds [from the] Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs . . . to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization”.[108] This determination permitted the President, pursuant to section 614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, to contribute $25 million to this organization. Although Presidents have chosen to issue presidential memoranda to make such determinations, there is no constitutional or statutory provision that would have prohibited them from issuing an executive order instead. Thus, there would be no substantive difference between an executive order and a presidential memorandum in this situation.

arch 5, 1999.Presidential memoranda have also been used by the President to delegate his authority in certain instances. In a recent delegation of authority, President Clinton, citing the Constitution and 3 U.S.C. § 301, delegated to the Secretary of State the authority to set rates on compensation for U.S. representatives to the United Nations.[109] However, the use of presidential memoranda for this purpose is not exclusive. Previous presidents have relied on the same authority to make delegations of authority pursuant to executive orders. One example of this occurred in 1979, when President Carter issued an executive order in order to delegate certain functions to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.[110] Once again, there appears to be no substantive difference between the use of these presidential mechanisms.

One of the more controversial uses of presidential memoranda, and for that matter, executive orders,[111] has been to effectuate action by the agencies. Although the term “executive order” usually comes to mind when a President directs an agency to act, there are many instances when a presidential memorandum was used for this purpose. One example of this involved a very controversial presidential memorandum, issued by President Clinton, directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to remove the moratorium on Federal funding of research involving the transplantation of fetal tissue from induced abortions.[112] Although this action was reported by many as an executive order, it was actually done by presidential memorandum.[113] The confusion, however, is understandable since there is no reason why the President could not have issued an executive order in this case.

The interchangeability of presidential memoranda and executive orders can be seen more clearly in the following examples. In April 1995, President Clinton issued a presidential memorandum directing specific agency heads to implement new policies, outlined by the President, “to give compliance officials more flexibility in dealing with small business and to cut back on paperwork.”[114] Several months later, the President issued an executive order requiring agencies that conduct, support, or regulate research involving human subjects to review, and report on, the protections of the rights and welfare of human research subjects that are afforded by existing policies and procedures.[115] Although these two actions are not directly related they both involve policy initiatives initiated by the President. Once again, either presidential mechanism would have been sufficient to direct the agencies to act.

One function where Presidents have almost exclusively relied on executive orders has been for the establishment of advisory committees and other similar bodies.[116] Another has been to establish emergency boards to investigate certain labor disputes. Most recently, President Clinton issued an executive order creating such a board to help avert a strike between American Airlines and its pilots.[117] Neither of these actions require that an executive order be issued. The President could have issued a presidential memorandum in both these instances. The only time a President is required to use an executive order rather than another instrument is when Congress so requires in statute. One example of such a requirement is where the apprehension, detention,. or conditional release of individuals is necessary to “prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases as may . . . be specified in Executive orders of the President . . . .”[118] Otherwise, executive orders and presidential memoranda may be, and appear to be, used interchangeably.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2014, 10:45:53 AM
Presidential memoranda and executive orders appear to be very closely related, if not identical. However, the lack of a definition for either of these mechanisms has made it difficult to make a clear distinction between them. Although a clear distinction cannot be made, they are both forms of executive legislation that must possess similar authority. If issued under a valid claim of authority and published,[119] executive orders and presidential memoranda have the force and effect of law[120] and courts are required to take judicial notice of their existence.[121] Thus, it is important to examine the legal basis for each executive order and presidential memoranda issued and the manner in which the President has used these instruments.



Conclusion
In summary, the President's authority to issue executive orders and proclamations is neither explicitly stated in the Constitution nor in statute. However, it is generally accepted that the President derives his authority to act from Article II of the Constitution. The President's authority is primarily based upon the following language of Article II: "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States," "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[122]

Because the Framers of the Constitution left the question of executive authority open to interpretation, there has been much confusion and controversy since the first proclamation was issued by President George Washington.[123] Although this confusion and debate persists, some clarifying guideposts have been developed. Youngstown has enlightened the situation by providing a tripartite standard which simply states three degrees of presidential authority in issuing executive orders and proclamations. Briefly stated, these three categories include executive orders and proclamations issued pursuant to: (1) an express or implied authorization of Congress (presidential authority is at its maximum); (2) are incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, and thus rely solely upon his constitutional authority (presidential power is at its lowest ebb); and (3) undefined powers that lay in a "zone of twilight" (presidential power is uncertain). The judiciary has also expanded its examination of executive orders and proclamations to include a review of legislative history when necessary.


Other than relying upon the judiciary to determine the validity of executive orders and proclamations, Congress may also play a role. Congress may effectively oversee presidential action by amending or repealing legislation, retroactively, which authorizes the President to issue executive orders or proclamations. Congress may propose a constitutional amendment which would remove a particular power from the President. Finally, where Congress is silent, and the President has acted, Congress may legislate to either support or derail such action unless that action is firmly based on exclusive constitutional authority.




Table 1 Executive Orders, by President, 1789–1995

President   Years in Office   Number of Orders   Average per Year
Washington   8.00   8   1.00
J. Adams   4.00   1    .25
Jefferson   8.00   4    .50
Madison   8.00   1    .13
Monroe   8.00   1    .13
J.Q. Adams   4.00   3    .75
Jackson   8.00   12   1.50
Van Buren   4.00   10   2.50
W.H. Harrison[124]   0.08   0   -
Tyler   4.00   17   4.25
Polk   4.00   18   4.50
Taylor   1.25   5   4.00
Fillmore   2.75   12   4.36
Pierce   4.00   35   8.75
Buchanan   4.00   16   4.00
Lincoln   4.00   48   12.00
A. Jackson   4.00   79   19.75
Grant   8.00   217   27.13
Hayes   4.00   92   23.00
Garfield[125]   0.50   6   -
Arthur   3.25   96   29.50
Cleveland (1st Term)   4.00   113   28.25
Harrison   4.00   143   35.75
Cleveland (2nd Term)   4.00   140   35.00
McKinley   4.75   185   38.95
T. Roosevelt   7.25   1081   149.10
Taft   4.00   724   181.00
Wilson   8.00   1803   225.38
Harding   2.60   522   200.77
Coolidge   5.40   1203   222.77
Hoover   4.00   968   242.00
F.D. Roosevelt   12.33   3522   285.64
Truman   7.67   897   116.96
Eisenhower   8.00   478   59.75
Kennedy   3.00   228   76.00
L.B. Johnson   5.00   316   63.20
Nixon   5.60   355   63.39
Ford   2.40   152   63.33
Carter   4.00   311   77.75
Reagan   8.00   409   51.13
Bush   4.00   149   37.25
Clinton[126]   6.00   281   46.83


Sources: Calculated by the author from Gary King and Lyn Ragsdale, The Elusive Executive: Discovering Statistical Patterns in the Presidency (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1988), 160-167; Information for the Bush and Clinton years has been calculated by John Contrubis using information available in LEXIS, Codes Library, FEDREG File.



Jump up ? Staff of House Committee on Government Operations, 85th Congress, 1st Session, Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Committee Print 1957).
Jump up ? U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sections 1, 2, & 3.
Jump up ? Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), discussed, infra, at pp. 5-8. In such instances where Cmtgress statutorily grants the President the authority to act, his authority is at its peak.
Jump up ? The Federal Register Act requires that executive orders and proclamations be published in the Federal Register. 44 U.S.C. § 1505. Moreover, the President is required to comply with the regulations, established by executive order, governing the preparation, presentation, filing, and publication of executive orders and proclamations. Executive Order No. 11030, 27 Fed. Reg. 5847 (1962).
Jump up ? Armstrong v. United States, 80 U.S. 154 (1871); see also Farkas v. Texas Instrument Inc., 375 F.2d 629 (5th Circuit 1967); Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 329 F.2d 3 (3d Circuit 1964).
Jump up ? Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U.S. 546, 560-561 (1893).
Jump up ? Charles M. Thomas, American Neutrally in 1793, A Study in Cabinet Government, p.42-43 (1931).
Jump up ? Ch. 50, 1 Stat. 381 (See 18 USC § 960).
Jump up ? See Taney's Decisions in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, 1836-61, p. 252; see Staff of House Comm. on Government Operations, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957).
Jump up ? Ch. 81, 12 Stat. 755.
Jump up ? Probably for this reason there were few executive orders issued until President Theodore Roosevelt took office. See Table 1.
Jump up ? Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography (New York: Scribners's, 1931 ), 388.
Jump up ? Staff of House Comm. on Government Operations, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers, 36 (Comm. Print 1957).
Jump up ? Exec. Order No. 8773, 6 Fed. Reg. 2777 (1941). FDR later that year used the same authority to seize shipbuilding companies, a cable company, a shell plant, and almost 4,000 coal companies. See Louis Fisher, Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President, 106 (3rd ed. rev. 1992)
Jump up ? June 25, 1943, c. 144, 57 Stat. 163.
Jump up ? 31 U.S.C. § 1347.
Jump up ? 29 U.S.C. §§ 176, 179(b).
Jump up ? Executive Order 10340, 17 Fed. Reg. 3139 (1952).
Jump up ? 103 F.Supp. 569 (1952).
Jump up ? 197 F.2d 582 (D.C.C. 1952).
Jump up ? 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
Jump up ? Id. The "aggregate of powers" theory of presidential power states that the President has and may exercise a reservoir of implied powers created by the accumulation of the total of express powers vested in him by the Constitution and the statutes. Thus, executive orders will often start with a recital of the so-called powers vested in the President as President, as Commander in Chief, etc.
Jump up ? In its discussion of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, Congress rejected an amendment which would have authorized such governmental seizures in cases of emergency. 93 Cong. Rec. 3637-3645 (1947).
Jump up ? See Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981); Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981); AFL-CIO v. Kahn, 618 F.2d 784 (1979).
Jump up ? Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. at 635-638.
Jump up ? As described by Jackson himself in his concurrence in Youngstown. 343 U.S. at 635.
Jump up ? Exec. Order No. 12170, 3 CFR 457 (1980).
Jump up ? Exec. Order No. 12279, 46 Fed. Reg. 7919.
Jump up ? Exec. Order No. 12294, 46 Fed. Reg. 14111.
Jump up ? Id.
Jump up ? 453 U.S. 657 (1981).
Jump up ? See § 203 of the IEEPA, 91 Stat. 1626, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1) and § 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. § 5(b).
Jump up ? Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 674, quoting, Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring)
Jump up ? Rev. Stat. § 2001, 22 U.S.C. § 1732.
Jump up ? See also Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981); AFL-CIO v. Kahn, 618 F.2d 784 (1979).
Jump up ? Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 678. See also U.S. v. Midwest Oil Company, 236 U.S. 459 (1915) (Long congressional silence with respect to unauthorized executive order construed as consent).
Jump up ? 323 U.S. 214 (1944). See also Hirabayashi v. U.S., 320 U.S. 81 (1942) (a conviction for violation of a curfew order, based upon Executive Order 9066, was sustained by the Court).
Jump up ? Id. at 219-220 (emphasis added).
Jump up ? Exec. Order No. 8802, 6 Fed. Reg. 3109 (1941).
Jump up ? Id.
Jump up ? See Exec. Order No. 10308, 16 Fed. Reg. 12303 (1951); Exec. Order No. 10479, 18 Fed. Reg. 4899 (1953); Exec. Order No. 10925, 26 Fed. Reg. 1977 (1961).
Jump up ? 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339. The status of this executive order and affirmative action programs in general is now in question. In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 63 USLW 4523 (1995), the Supreme Court altered the standard to be applied to affirmative action programs to that of strict scrutiny. Since the Court remanded the case, the interpretation of this standard with regards to affirmative action will be decided in the near future.
Jump up ? 442 F.2d 159 (3d Cir. 1971).
Jump up ? 40 U.S.C. § 486(a).
Jump up ? But see Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1978) (the Court casts doubt upon the "nexus" between Executive Order 11246 and the Procurement Act since "nowhere in the Act is there a specific reference to employment discrimination." Id. at fn. 34. However, the Court did not determine the precise source of authority for the executive order since it held that the regulation being challenged there was not authorized by any of the arguable statutory grants of authority.
Jump up ? 618 F.2d 784 (D.C.C. 1979) (en banc).
Jump up ? 43 Fed. Reg. 51375 (1978).
Jump up ? 60 Fed. Reg. 13023 (March 10, 1995).
Jump up ? U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 886 F.Supp. 66 (D.D.C. 1995).
Jump up ? Id.
Jump up ? U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 57 F.3d 1099 (D.C.Cir. 1995).
Jump up ? U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 897 F.Supp. 570 (D.D.C. 1995).
Jump up ? U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322 (D.C.Cir. 1996).
Jump up ? 639 F.2d 164 (4th Cir. 1981).
Jump up ? Id. at 171.
Jump up ? Id. at 170-171; Cf. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980) (Powell, J., concurring: importance of legislative findings of discrimination to sustain Act of Congress mandating affirmative action in federal grants for local public works project).
Jump up ? 3 CFR 127 (1981); 3 CFR 323 (1985).
Jump up ? 3 CFR 1981 Comp., 127, 5 U.S.C. § 601 note, amended by Exec. Order No. 12498, 3 CFR 1985 Comp., 323, repealed by Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (1993).
Jump up ? Op. Office of Legal Counsel, Dept. of Justice, Proposed Executive Order entitled "Federal Regulation" (Feb. 18, 1981), reprinted in 1988-1989 Regulatory Program of the United States Government at 532-36.
Jump up ? Id. at 532.
Jump up ? Id. at 533-34.
Jump up ? See, e.g., Rosenberg, Beyond the Limits of Executive Power: Presidential Control of Agency Rulemaking Under Executive Order 12,291, 80 Mich. L. Rev. 193 (1981). Erik D. Olsen, The Quiet Shift of Power: OMB Supervision of EPA Rulemaking Under Executive Order 12291, 4 Va. J. Nat. Res. L. 1 (1984).
Jump up ? See McGarity, Presidential Control of Regulatory, Agency Decisionmaking, 36 Am. U. L. Rev. 443 (1987); Strauss and Sunstein, The Role of the President and OMB in Informal Rulemaking, 38 Admin. L. Rev. 181, 202-05 (1986).
Jump up ? See, e.g., McGarity, supra n. 56 at 457-60; Olson, The Quiet Shift of Power: Office of Management & Budget Supervision of Environmental Protection Agency Rulemaking Under Executive Order 12,291, 4 Va. J. Nat. Res. 1, 75-77 (1984).
Jump up ? Memorandum, Additional Procedures Concerning OIRA Reviews Under Executive Order Nos. 12,291 and 12,498, June 13, 1986, from Wendy A. Gramm to Heads of Departments and Agencies Subject to Executive Orders 12,291 and 12,498, reprinted in 1990-1991 Regulatory Program of the United States Government 605-07.
Jump up ? 657 F.2d 298 (D.C.C. 1981).
Jump up ? Costle at 405-06 (footnotes omitted). A panel of the D.C. Circuit chose to avoid the sensitive constitutional issue in Public Health Citizen Research Group v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479 (D.C.C. 1986).
Jump up ? 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (1993), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. § 601 note.
Jump up ? See Exec. Order No. 12866 § 6(b), supra n. 61.
Jump up ? 3 CFR, 1992 Comp., p. 302 (March 19, 1992).
Jump up ? Id. Although Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown creates a standard primarily for the judiciary, it is indicative of the President's ability to stand behind an executive order. In a case, such as this one, where the President relies solely on his constitutional powers, his power is at is lowest ebb. There may be instances where the President's authority under the Constitution is truly strong and exclusive which would require a constitutional amendment in order to alter such authority. However, in this situation, the President relied upon very broad language in describing his authority to issue Executive Order 12806.
Jump up ? P.L. 103-43, 107 Stat 133, § 121.
Jump up ? See Youngstown, supra n. 19 (clause 3).
Jump up ? Although not involving executive orders or proclamations, a good example of using a sunset provision to oversee the President's authority to act is with reorganization authority. On various occasions, Congress has given the President the authority to reorganize agencies through the use of reorganization plans. 5 U.S.C. § 903. The President was compelled to abide by certain requirements which included presenting the plan to Congress which would then vote, within a specified amount of time, to approve the plan as a whole. Sometimes a failure to vote indicated acceptance of the President's plan. However, this reorganization authority was effective until a specified date unless reauthorized. 9 U.S.C. § 905(b). The last day this authority was in effect was December 31, 1984. Since then no President has had the authority to present reorganization plans to Congress.
Jump up ? 33 Fed. Reg. 4245, as amended by Exec. Order No. 11551, 35 Fed. Reg. 12885; Exec. order No. 11688, 37 Fed. Reg. 25815.
Jump up ? 37 Fed. Reg. 25815 (Dec. 1, 1972).
Jump up ? P.L. 91-125, 83 Stat. 220, 25 U.S.C. nt. prec. 1.
Jump up ? Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring).
Jump up ? Louis Fisher, Laws Congress Never Made, 5 Constitution 59, 63 (Fall 1993).
Jump up ? 31 U.S.C. § 1347; 58 Stat. 387, ch. 286, sec. 213 (1944).
Jump up ? 64 Stat. 987 (1950).
Jump up ? Albertson v. Subversive Civilities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 (1965).
Jump up ? 81 Stat. 765 (1968).
Jump up ? Boorda v. SACB, 421 F.2d 1142 (D.C.Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1042 (1970).
Jump up ? Exec. Order No. 11605, 36 Fed. Reg. 12831 (1971).
Jump up ? S.Res. 163, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971).
Jump up ? 86 Stat. 1134, sec. 706 (1972).
Jump up ? See Midwest Oil v. U.S., 236 U.S. 459 (1915).
Jump up ? Supra. 2.
Jump up ? Supra. p. 3.
Jump up ? Supra. p. 4.
Jump up ? 2 Black 635 (1862).
Jump up ? By Acts of Congress of February 28, 1795, and March 3, 1807, the President was authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, "... and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United states." See staff of House Comm. on Government Operations, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Power (Comm. Print 1957).
Jump up ? 2 Black 670-671 (1862).
Jump up ? 21 U.S.C. § 1113 (repealed 1988).
Jump up ? Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (1993).
Jump up ? Id. at Sec. 11.
Jump up ? Exec. Order No. 11618, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 610, amending Exec. Order No. 10713, 22 Fed. Reg. 4007.
Jump up ? TIAS 7314, 23 UST 446 (May 15, 1972).
Jump up ? 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 206 (Jan. 6, 1989).
Jump up ? 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a).
Jump up ? The Federal Register Act requires that executive orders and proclamations be published in the Federal Register. 44 U.S.C. § 1505. Moreover, the President is required to comply with the regulations, established by executive order, governing the preparation, presentation, filing, and publication of executive orders and proclamations. Exec. Order No. 11030, 27 Fed. Reg, 5847 (1962).
Jump up ? Armstrong v. United States, 80 U.S. 154 (1871); see also Farkas v. Texas Instrument Inc., 375 F.2d 629 (5th Cir. 1967); Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 329 F.2d 3 (3d Cir. 1964).
Jump up ? Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U.S. 546, 560-561 (1893).
Jump up ? 911 F.Supp. 395, 401 (D.S.D. 1995).
Jump up ? As of April 24, 1997, President Clinton has issued 21 presidential determinations in 1997.
Jump up ? 22 U.S.C. § 2364(a)(1).
Jump up ? Presidential Determination No. 97-21, 62 Fed. Reg. 23939 (May 2, 1997). See Presidential Determination No. 97-20, 62 Fed. Reg. 15353 (March 31, 1997) (certifying that North Korea is complying with the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs in Title II of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997).
Jump up ? Memorandum of April 1, 1997, 62 Fed. Reg. 18261 (April 5, 1997).
Jump up ? See Executive Order No. 12152, 44 Fed. Reg. 48143 (Aug. 14, 1979).
Jump up ? See President Reagan's Executive Orders 12291 (3 CFR 127 (1981)) and 12498 (3 CFR 323 (1985)) (These executive orders were very controversial because they were perceived as furthering the policy agenda of a President through control of the agency decision making process).
Jump up ? Memorandum of January 22, 1993, 58 Fed. Reg. 7457 (February 5, 1993).
Jump up ? See, Amy Goldstein, Richard Morin, Clinton Cancels Abortion Restrictions of Reagan-Bush Era, Washington Post, January 23, 1993, at A1; See also, The Legal and Ethical Implications of Gag Clauses in Physician Contracts, 22 Am.J.L. & Med. 433 (January 1996) (refers to President Clinton's presidential memorandum suspending the “gag rule” as an executive order).
Jump up ? Memorandum of April 21, 1995, 60 Fed. Reg. 20621 (April 26, 1995).
Jump up ? Executive Order No. 12975, 60 Fed. Reg. 52063 (Oct. 5, 1995).
Jump up ? See, Executive Order No. 13038, 62 Fed. Reg. 12065 (March 13, 1997) (Establishing an advisory committee for public interest obligations of digital television broadcasters).
Jump up ? Executive Order No. 13036, 62 Fed. Reg. 7653 (Feb. 19, 1997); See, Executive Order No. 13004, 61 Fed. Reg. 25771 (May 22, 1996) (Establishing an emergency board to investigate disputes between certain railroads and their employees).
Jump up ? 42 U.S.C. § 264(b) (emphasis added).
Jump up ? The Federal Register Act requires that executive orders and proclamations be published in the Federal Register. 44 U.S.C. § 1505. Moreover, the President is required to comply with the regulations, established by executive order, governing the preparation, presentation, filing and publication of executive orders and proclamations. Exec. Order No. 11030, 27 Fed. Reg. 5847 (1962).
Jump up ? Armstrong v. United States, 80 U.S. 154 (1871); see also Farkas v. Texas Instrument Inc., 375 F.2d 629 (5th Circuit 1967); Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 329 F.2d 3 (3d Circuit 1964).
Jump up ? Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U.S. 546, 560-561 (1893).
Jump up ? U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sections 1, 2, & 3.
Jump up ? For an example of the confusion that existed see the correspondence between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison concerning President Washington's desire to issue a proclamation declaring this country's neutrality in the French and British War in 1793. See Charles M. Thomas, American Neutrality in 1793, A Study in a Cabinet Government, (New York, Columbia University Press 1931).
Jump up ? Died after only 1 month in office.
Jump up ? Assassinated after 6 months in office.
Jump up ? Currently in his 2nd term of office. The number of executive orders he has issued is
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2014, 11:04:04 AM
The President has the authority to issue executive orders to carry out powers reserved for the executive branch - typically orders with respect to foreign policy and as to how he intends to enforce laws. This is where things like "prosecutorial discretion" come into play. The president absolutely does not have the Consitutional authority to issue an executive order making new law or completely ignoring existing laws "just because the other branches aren't doing their jobs" - whatever that means. JFC. The very foundation of our Constitution is a system of checks and balances. :facepalm:

Moreover, "the Congress failed to act" excuse is utter bullshit. We already have immigration laws. Congress acted - Congress just chose not to pass the amnesty that Obama wanted.

For the libtards who are really pressing this expansive view of executive power - you really need to stop to consider the terrible precedent this might set for the next president. Our president could say "You know what, eff this tax code. I've been asking congress for comprehensive tax reform for years and they haven't delivered, so I'm issuing an executive order making all people/businesses who earn less/more than $___ immune from paying taxes greater than ___%." He could say, "you know what, eff this Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act. I'm issuing an executive order that it will no longer be enforced for the states of _____." He could say "screw Title IX - I'm issuing an executive order that it will henceforth no longer be enforced for DI schools." He could say "these Clean Air laws are bullshit - I'm issuing an executive order exempting all coal-fired power plants."

That's not how our Republic works. The President is not a king. He has enumerated powers, chief among them is to execute our laws.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 21, 2014, 11:07:01 AM
The President has the authority to issue executive orders to carry out powers reserved for the executive branch - typically orders with respect to foreign policy and as to how he intends to enforce laws. This is where things like "prosecutorial discretion" come into play. The president absolutely does not have the Consitutional authority to issue an executive order making new law or completely ignoring existing laws "just because the other branches aren't doing their jobs" - whatever that means. JFC. The very foundation of our Constitution is a system of checks and balances. :facepalm:


This seems to fall under the category of the president deciding how he intends to enforce a law relating to foreign policy. :dunno:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2014, 11:15:06 AM
We already have laws?  Pffft
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 8manpick on November 21, 2014, 11:15:28 AM
Carter: 319; 80/year
Reagan: 380; 48/year
Bush 1: 165; 41/year
Clinton: 363; 45/year
Bush 2: 290; 36/year
Obama: 192; 32/year

What exactly is Obama doing that is so egregious? It certainly isn't the sheer number. Are his executive orders significantly more impactful that those of his predecessors?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2014, 11:18:54 AM
HE'S TRYING TO BE A KING!!!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 21, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
Anyone using quantity of executive orders issued by prior offices as a metric to defend this action is a rough ridin' nitwit.

Willy nilly enforcement of laws, reinterpretation and effective amendment of laws is not acceptable, and furthers the totalitarian police state we all should fear and our Constitution seeks to protect us from.

The presence of illegal aliens on our sovereign soil is not a rough ridin' foreign policy matter, that is the dumbest rough ridin' position you can take.

Illegal aliens are not immigrants and have not immigrated. They are tresspassers. These are rudimentary concepts.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 8manpick on November 21, 2014, 11:41:53 AM


Anyone using quantity of executive orders issued by prior offices as a metric to defend this action is a rough ridin' nitwit.

Willy nilly enforcement of laws, reinterpretation and effective amendment of laws is not acceptable, and furthers the totalitarian police state we all should fear and our Constitution seeks to protect us from.

The presence of illegal aliens on our sovereign soil is not a rough ridin' foreign policy matter, that is the dumbest rough ridin' position you can take.

Illegal aliens are not immigrants and have not immigrated. They are tresspassers. These are rudimentary concepts.

I wasn't using the number to defend it. I don't know that much about Obama's executive orders, or those of his predecessors. I was asking if the substance of his orders differed substantially from other presidents'. You obviously think so based on something, not sure what though.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on November 21, 2014, 11:42:52 AM
Our political process has mostly fallen apart.  The ability for two different parties/sides to discuss, debate, negotiate, compromise, and ultimately come to agreement on needed legislation is basically gone. 

The thought that one branch is going to just do what they want is rough ridin' horrible and has taken place too often.



Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 21, 2014, 12:07:41 PM
It's amazing to me how many people are Ok with the president behaving like a monarch and blatantly violating the Consitution he swore an oath to uphold, simply because it will "help" millions of people who broke our laws to enter the country. Just another cause/symptom of our decline.

I hadn't noticed a decline.

Blacks and hispanics can own property now  :Yuck:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2014, 01:12:32 PM
The President has the authority to issue executive orders to carry out powers reserved for the executive branch - typically orders with respect to foreign policy and as to how he intends to enforce laws. This is where things like "prosecutorial discretion" come into play. The president absolutely does not have the Consitutional authority to issue an executive order making new law or completely ignoring existing laws "just because the other branches aren't doing their jobs" - whatever that means. JFC. The very foundation of our Constitution is a system of checks and balances. :facepalm:


This seems to fall under the category of the president deciding how he intends to enforce a law relating to foreign policy. :dunno:

You're smarter than this. I know you are. Stop trolling.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on November 21, 2014, 01:19:10 PM
this seems more like a laissez faire attitude than "imperialism".
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2014, 01:23:30 PM
I don't know that much about Obama's executive orders, or those of his predecessors.

No offense, but that much is pretty clear.

I was asking if the substance of his orders differed substantially from other presidents'.

Yes. The President just exempted, on its face, approximately 5 million illegal immigrants from our immigration laws. In reality, he has all but nullified existing immigration law because it will be nearly impossible to disprove how long an illegal immigrant has been here. A nullification of law of this level by executive order is without precedent. The New York Times, for example, tries its best to gloss over Obama's overreach, but must concede that an executive nullification of this scope is without precedent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/politics/obamas-immigration-decision-has-precedents-but-may-set-a-new-one.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/politics/obamas-immigration-decision-has-precedents-but-may-set-a-new-one.html?_r=0)

Quote
President Obama’s action to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and grant them work permits opens a new front in the decades-long debate over the scope of presidential authority.

Although Mr. Obama is not breaking new ground by using executive powers to carve out a quasi-legal status for certain categories of unauthorized immigrants — the Republican Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush all did so — his decision will affect as many as five million immigrants [it will actually be a lot more as I explain above], far more than the actions of those presidents.

Mr. Obama’s action is also a far more extensive reshaping of the nation’s immigration system.

“The magnitude and the formality of it is arguably unprecedented,” said Peter J. Spiro, a Temple University law professor. “It’s fair to say that we have never seen anything quite like this before in terms of the scale.”

The breadth of Mr. Obama’s decision is already raising serious legal and constitutional questions, fueling Republican charges of imperial overreach and worries among some Democrats of future fallout.

...
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 8manpick on November 21, 2014, 01:31:08 PM
Alright, thanks for the answer.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2014, 01:55:11 PM
Alright, thanks for the answer.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 21, 2014, 01:57:15 PM


Anyone using quantity of executive orders issued by prior offices as a metric to defend this action is a rough ridin' nitwit.

Willy nilly enforcement of laws, reinterpretation and effective amendment of laws is not acceptable, and furthers the totalitarian police state we all should fear and our Constitution seeks to protect us from.

The presence of illegal aliens on our sovereign soil is not a rough ridin' foreign policy matter, that is the dumbest rough ridin' position you can take.

Illegal aliens are not immigrants and have not immigrated. They are tresspassers. These are rudimentary concepts.

I wasn't using the number to defend it. I don't know that much about Obama's executive orders, or those of his predecessors. I was asking if the substance of his orders differed substantially from other presidents'. You obviously think so based on something, not sure what though.

Your first sentence is belied by the second and third.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 21, 2014, 01:58:31 PM
this seems more like a laissez faire attitude than "imperialism".

Ah yes, the invisible hand of affirmatively ignoring the rule of law. GMAFB
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Mr Bread on November 21, 2014, 02:16:23 PM
Quote
a letter Thursday night signed by 10 of the nation’s top legal and constitutional scholars, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard, a noted liberal, and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago, a conservative, that called the new policy “lawful” and “within the power of the executive branch.”

 :eek:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on November 21, 2014, 02:29:36 PM
A noted liberal
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 21, 2014, 02:36:25 PM
I woke up this morning feeling a little less free.  Now I know why.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 21, 2014, 02:48:23 PM
I woke up this morning feeling a little less free.  Now I know why.

must be that extra 25% you are being forced to pay for obamacare.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Mr Bread on November 21, 2014, 02:54:10 PM
We're not really sure here Mr. President . . . Okay, go out and get me ten legal scholars that will sign a letter saying that I'm cool on this thing and feel free to emboldened with or threaten to take away federal research money. :bigthumbsuparoundtheroom

Hey dax they released the legal underpinnings of the decision (also unprecedented I hear), you should rip that little bitch to shreds.  Really make them look like idiots that are talking out their assholes.  Go!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Mr Bread on November 21, 2014, 02:58:51 PM
We're not really sure here Mr. President . . . Okay, go out and get me ten legal scholars that will sign a letter saying that I'm cool on this thing and feel free to emboldened with or threaten to take away federal research money. :bigthumbsuparoundtheroom

Hey dax they released the legal underpinnings of the decision (also unprecedented I hear), you should rip that little bitch to shreds.  Really make them look like idiots that are talking out their assholes.  Go!

I'm not saying they're incorrect.   The complexities in the law at hand allow for a vast array of interpretations.   I am lampooning the PR effort particularly as it relates to individuals under the employment of institutions that receive, in most cases, substantial federal funding.   Sorry that was confusing for you (not really sorry).

Tap out noted. :surprised:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Mr Bread on November 21, 2014, 03:10:42 PM
You can't tap out of a fight you never entered.

Sorry bro, just facts.

Well you said they weren't sure and I was all but they told everybody their basis for doing what they did and I was all go get 'em dax and you were all no no thanks I can't.  It seemed like when given the opportunity to address the facts you begged off.  Then I duly noted your tap out. :frown:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 21, 2014, 04:00:57 PM
Golly, does anyone know why we didn't get immigration reform back when Dems controlled Congress (and of course the Oval Office)?

Because less than 38% of Americans think its even somewhat a good idea?  :dunno:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
To be fair, the Dem Congress had to devote all their energy those first couple years to not reading the Obamacare legislation.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Yard Dog on November 21, 2014, 04:09:28 PM
To be fair, the Dem Congress had to devote all their energy those first couple years to not reading the Obamacare legislation.

 :facepalm: :ROFL:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 21, 2014, 05:59:06 PM
I've got a question for goEMAW lawyers,  so we have a ton of laws on the books, some really good ones like don't murder anyone that we enforce real well, some really old ones that nobody cares about and nobody tries to enforce, and some that involve current political issues like immigration, smoking pot, sodomy etc.  This all seems like a very inconsistent mess, how can we as americans know which laws we really have to obey are? Turning on and off prosections of lawbreaking individuals and corporations seems like a scenario begging for corruption.  What is the solution to my perceived problems?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 21, 2014, 06:01:17 PM
I've got a question for goEMAW lawyers,  so we have a ton of laws on the books, some really good ones like don't murder anyone that we enforce real well, some really old ones that nobody cares about and nobody tries to enforce, and some that involve current political issues like immigration, smoking pot, sodomy etc.  This all seems like a very inconsistent mess, how can we as americans know which laws we really have to obey are? Turning on and off prosections of lawbreaking individuals and corporations seems like a scenario begging for corruption.  What is the solution to my perceived problems?

Edify yourself.  #CurrentEvents
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 21, 2014, 06:38:19 PM
You mean study all of current law and figure out how strict my local, state, and federal governments are going to be about stuff currently?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 21, 2014, 06:44:51 PM
You mean study all of current law and figure out how strict my local, state, and federal governments are going to be about stuff currently?
If you plan on participating in questionably legal activities, yes.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 21, 2014, 06:54:11 PM
What if I own a business and would never knowingly break a law, and my competitors give money to local politicians and start breaking laws that give them a big competitive advantage against me,  when I point this out after years of getting my ass kicked the pol says,"that law is not a priority for us right now, bye".
So reluctantly I start breaking the law, then bam, i get arrested and go to jail while my old competitor is retired in Barbados?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 21, 2014, 06:58:35 PM
What if I own a business and would never knowingly break a law, and my competitors give money to local politicians and start breaking laws that give them a big competitive advantage against me,  when I point this out after years of getting my ass kicked the pol says,"that law is not a priority for us right now, bye".
So reluctantly I start breaking the law, then bam, i get arrested and go to jail while my old competitor is retired in Barbados?

So, you knowingly break the law even though you would never knowingly break the law? Sounds made up.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 21, 2014, 07:06:48 PM
Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 21, 2014, 10:22:01 PM
Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
it is common, yes
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 21, 2014, 10:26:51 PM
Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
it is common, yes
The question is whether it is healthy for our country or not, and if so why?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 21, 2014, 10:31:09 PM
Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
it is common, yes
The question is whether it is healthy for our country or not, and if so why?
it depends.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 21, 2014, 10:55:03 PM
Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
it is common, yes
The question is whether it is healthy for our country or not, and if so why?
it depends.

Good talk Spracne, good talk
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on November 21, 2014, 10:58:12 PM
Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
it is common, yes
The question is whether it is healthy for our country or not, and if so why?
it depends.

Good talk Spracne, good talk
In some cases it is healthy.

If you are building a house, is a screwdriver always a useful tool?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2014, 11:34:50 PM
Some selective enforcement - prosecutorial discretion - is important and necessary. Our AsG, for example, employ broad discretion in prosecuting crimes. There aren't enough resources to go after every low level dope dealer. This amnesty, however, goes far beyond the limits of any prosecutorial discretion, and is not based on limited resources but because Obama does not like the policy of the law. That is simply wrong.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 22, 2014, 03:51:46 PM
Quote
a letter Thursday night signed by 10 of the nation’s top legal and constitutional scholars, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard, a noted liberal, and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago, a conservative, that called the new policy “lawful” and “within the power of the executive branch.”

 :eek:

 :lol:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 22, 2014, 04:01:22 PM
What a crap show
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 24, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
:lol:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/23/snl_mocks_obamas_immigration_action_with_satirical_schoolhouse_rock_bill_sketch.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/23/snl_mocks_obamas_immigration_action_with_satirical_schoolhouse_rock_bill_sketch.html)

:lol:

When the media won't do its job, maybe parody is the best way to speak truth to power.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on November 24, 2014, 10:35:28 PM
We are quickly devolving back to butt picking monkeys given the moron legal scholars who say this is lawful.  A God fearing conservative president would be skewered and fried by now.  This is lawful only because Obama knows how to make repubulicans look like neanderthal klansmen who hate everybody who is not lilly white
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 25, 2014, 09:14:23 PM
Welp, so much for "prosecutorial discretion" - Obama admits in countering protestors "hey, I just changed the law!" What a tyrant asshat.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Obama-Puzzled-By-Illegal-Hecklers-I-Just-Took-An-Action-To-Change-The-Law (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Obama-Puzzled-By-Illegal-Hecklers-I-Just-Took-An-Action-To-Change-The-Law)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 25, 2014, 09:29:31 PM
 :jerk:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 25, 2014, 09:31:32 PM
:jerk:

I know right? That "Constitutional Separation of Powers" thing is so  :jerk:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 25, 2014, 09:33:59 PM
Here's a fun confluence of two of Obama's biggest follies! Obamacare encourages employers to hire illegals instead of citizens because they don't have to pay a penalty for not insuring the illegals.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 26, 2014, 10:28:22 AM
:lol:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/23/snl_mocks_obamas_immigration_action_with_satirical_schoolhouse_rock_bill_sketch.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/23/snl_mocks_obamas_immigration_action_with_satirical_schoolhouse_rock_bill_sketch.html)

:lol:

When the media won't do its job, maybe parody is the best way to speak truth to power.

This is real. I repeat, this is a real thing.

The Washington Post just "fact checked" the recent SNL sketch. :lol:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/23/snl-skit-suggests-obamas-immigration-executive-action-is-unconstitutional/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/23/snl-skit-suggests-obamas-immigration-executive-action-is-unconstitutional/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost)

Good news though, the Post confirms that the sketch basically got it right. It should be known, however, that Bills and Executive Orders generally don't have faces, sing, or dance, and are generally not six feet tall (except Obamacare).
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 04, 2014, 12:42:17 PM
http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/amnesty-shocker-the-secret-behind-obamas-order/ (http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/amnesty-shocker-the-secret-behind-obamas-order/)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on December 15, 2014, 02:39:50 PM
The case for open borders:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double#interview

(A very good read, @sys)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 15, 2014, 05:19:05 PM
The case for open borders:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double#interview

(A very good read, @sys)

This really isn't very intelligent and nothing but the application of the most simplistic free market theory to a single good (labor). This is like a Macro 101 study on widgets, supply and demand.

If we're going to get rid of borders we might as well abolish customs, trade agreements, tariffs, all federal agencies and, while we're at it, the federal government, as there will no longer be a sovereign state to protect.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on December 15, 2014, 05:24:16 PM
The case for open borders:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double#interview

(A very good read, @sys)

This really isn't very intelligent and nothing but the application of the most simplistic free market theory to a single good (labor). This is like a Macro 101 study on widgets, supply and demand.

If we're going to get rid of borders we might as well abolish customs, trade agreements, tariffs, all federal agencies and, while we're at it, the federal government, as there will no longer be a sovereign state to protect.


interesting ideas. would definitely save some cash!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on December 15, 2014, 05:38:33 PM
#oneworld y'all
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on December 15, 2014, 05:58:19 PM
NWO, brotherrrr

Sweeeeeeeeeet!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 15, 2014, 07:03:44 PM
The case for open borders:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double#interview

(A very good read, @sys)

This really isn't very intelligent and nothing but the application of the most simplistic free market theory to a single good (labor). This is like a Macro 101 study on widgets, supply and demand.

If we're going to get rid of borders we might as well abolish customs, trade agreements, tariffs, all federal agencies and, while we're at it, the federal government, as there will no longer be a sovereign state to protect.


interesting ideas. would definitely save some cash!

I know you think it's cute when rudimentary free market concepts are used in support of an irrational progressotard agenda, but you should know it makes you look ignorant and foolish.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on December 15, 2014, 08:02:33 PM
The case for open borders:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double#interview

(A very good read, @sys)

will read tomorrow.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 16, 2014, 01:25:28 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/16/district-court-declares-obama-immigration-action-unconstitutional/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/16/district-court-declares-obama-immigration-action-unconstitutional/)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 17, 2014, 08:38:35 AM
Hope and Change! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/world/americas/ecuador-isaias-obama-campaign-robert-menendez-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/world/americas/ecuador-isaias-obama-campaign-robert-menendez-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0)

Quote
Ecuador Family Wins Favors After Donations to Democrats

MIAMI — The Obama administration overturned a ban preventing a wealthy, politically connected Ecuadorean woman from entering the United States after her family gave tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns, according to finance records and government officials.

The woman, Estefanía Isaías, had been barred from coming to the United States after being caught fraudulently obtaining visas for her maids. But the ban was lifted at the request of the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so that Ms. Isaías could work for an Obama fund-raiser with close ties to the administration.

It was one of several favorable decisions the Obama administration made in recent years involving the Isaías family, which the government of Ecuador accuses of buying protection from Washington and living comfortably in Miami off the profits of a looted bank in Ecuador.

The family, which has been investigated by federal law enforcement agencies on suspicion of money laundering and immigration fraud, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to American political campaigns in recent years. During that time, it has repeatedly received favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government, including from New Jersey’s senior senator and the State Department.

The Obama administration has allowed the family’s patriarchs, Roberto and William Isaías, to remain in the United States, refusing to extradite them to Ecuador. The two brothers were sentenced in absentia in 2012 to eight years in prison, accused of running their bank into the ground and then presenting false balance sheets to profit from bailout funds. In a highly politicized case, Ecuador says the fraud cost the country $400 million.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sys on December 17, 2014, 08:49:40 PM
read the interview.  good interview.  good idea.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 18, 2014, 11:10:34 AM
The president of the AFL-CIO was on CNBC this morning trying to explain why the union supported amnesty. It was hilariously awkward.

At least the chamber has balls and principles, the unions shill for the dems even when the dems are rough ridin' them in the ass.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 27, 2015, 10:09:16 AM
Catch. And Release. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/ (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/)

Not to worry though. Now that the Republicans are in charge of Congress, we'll finally get a real border security bill! Right?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 27, 2015, 10:22:27 AM
Catch. And Release. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/ (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/)

Not to worry though. Now that the Republicans are in charge of Congress, we'll finally get a real border security bill! Right?

Is the argument that people shouldn't get deportation hearings or be allowed out on bond?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 27, 2015, 11:32:30 AM
Catch. And Release. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/ (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/)

Not to worry though. Now that the Republicans are in charge of Congress, we'll finally get a real border security bill! Right?

Is the argument that people shouldn't get deportation hearings or be allowed out on bond?

Given that something like 99.5% never show up for their deportation hearing, the argument would be that you hire more magistrates and require a hearing within 30 days, and you are not allowed out on bond. A bond, by the way, is almost never required, and was only required in this case due to a prior conviction. That would be actual border enforcement.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 27, 2015, 11:36:37 AM
Catch. And Release. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/ (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/)

Not to worry though. Now that the Republicans are in charge of Congress, we'll finally get a real border security bill! Right?

Is the argument that people shouldn't get deportation hearings or be allowed out on bond?

Given that something like 99.5% never show up for their deportation hearing, the argument would be that you hire more magistrates and require a hearing within 30 days, and you are not allowed out on bond. A bond, by the way, is almost never required, and was only required in this case due to a prior conviction. That would be actual border enforcement.

Oh, I'd agree that with a prior conviction and deportation, we should probably just load the guy up and send him back.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 28, 2015, 04:15:06 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Loretta Lynch, our next Attorney General. She will be a suitable replacement for Eric Holder.

Quote
SESSIONS:
Well, just let me wrap up by asking this: Are you — if — if a person comes here and is given a lawful right under the president’s executive amnesty to have Social Security and a work authorization card, what if somebody prefers to hire an American citizen first? Would you take action against them?
 
Do you understand this to mean that those who are given executive amnesty are entitled as much as anybody else in America to compete for a job in America?
 
LYNCH:
 Well, I don’t believe that it would give anyone any greater access to the workforce, and certainly an employer would be looking at the issues of citizenship in making those determinations.
 
SESSIONS:
 Would you take action against an employer who says, “No, I prefer to hire someone that came to the country lawfully rather than someone given executive amnesty by the president”? Would Department of Justice take action against them?
 
LYNCH:
 With respect to the — the provision about temporary deferral, I did not read it as providing a legal amnesty, that is, that permanent status there, but a temporary deferral.
 
With respect to whether or not those individuals would be able to seek redress for employment discrimination, if — if that is the purpose of your question, again, I haven’t studied that legal issue.
 
I certainly think you raised an important point and would look forward to discussing it with you and using — and relying upon your thoughts and experience as we consider that point.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 28, 2015, 04:21:46 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Loretta Lynch, our next Attorney General. She will be a suitable replacement for Eric Holder.

Quote
SESSIONS:
Well, just let me wrap up by asking this: Are you — if — if a person comes here and is given a lawful right under the president’s executive amnesty to have Social Security and a work authorization card, what if somebody prefers to hire an American citizen first? Would you take action against them?
 
Do you understand this to mean that those who are given executive amnesty are entitled as much as anybody else in America to compete for a job in America?
 
LYNCH:
 Well, I don’t believe that it would give anyone any greater access to the workforce, and certainly an employer would be looking at the issues of citizenship in making those determinations.
 
SESSIONS:
 Would you take action against an employer who says, “No, I prefer to hire someone that came to the country lawfully rather than someone given executive amnesty by the president”? Would Department of Justice take action against them?
 
LYNCH:
 With respect to the — the provision about temporary deferral, I did not read it as providing a legal amnesty, that is, that permanent status there, but a temporary deferral.
 
With respect to whether or not those individuals would be able to seek redress for employment discrimination, if — if that is the purpose of your question, again, I haven’t studied that legal issue.
 
I certainly think you raised an important point and would look forward to discussing it with you and using — and relying upon your thoughts and experience as we consider that point.

I would take that as a "Yes".
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 28, 2015, 04:29:33 PM
Really? I'd take that as a no.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on January 28, 2015, 04:34:08 PM
It's an "I don't know"
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on January 28, 2015, 04:38:30 PM
A "probably not"
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2015, 04:57:35 PM
It's an "I don't know"
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 28, 2015, 06:32:19 PM
It's an "I don't know"

Which is pretty amazing. She is so worried about going against the party line that she "doesn't know" whether an illegal immigrant who has been granted amnesty from deportation can sue for employment discrimination.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2015, 07:32:32 PM
Sessions sounds like a crazy old kook, it's probably wise to not engage in dialogue with him

http://www.c-span.org/video/?323993-1/us-attorney-general-nominee-confirmation-hearing&live

^Sessions starts at 1:20:40, the questioning that led up to the quoted question is at 1:27
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 07:51:10 PM
If anyone is a cook, it's Lynch
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 07:52:34 PM
I mean, how on earth can you not know the only correct answer to that question? What the eff is wrong with all these loser radicals b.o. puts in charge of crap?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 28, 2015, 08:53:10 PM
Sessions sounds like a crazy old kook, it's probably wise to not engage in dialogue with him

http://www.c-span.org/video/?323993-1/us-attorney-general-nominee-confirmation-hearing&live

^Sessions starts at 1:20:40, the questioning that led up to the quoted question is at 1:27

Yeah I left out the five questions he had to first ask her just to get her to acknowledge that legal status for immigrants is a privilege - not a right. It was painful but she ultimately got to the right answer on that. Sessions is far from a crank.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2015, 09:07:08 PM


Sessions is far from a crank.

Well fooled me
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 28, 2015, 09:16:42 PM


Sessions is far from a crank.

Well fooled me

I'm not sure how you can watch that exchange and conclude that Sessions is the crank. I guess it's not cool to be an advocate for law and order, but I would hope that would be a priority for an AG.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2015, 09:17:58 PM
OK
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 02, 2015, 10:03:01 AM
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231394-cdc-director-warns-of-measles-outbreak (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231394-cdc-director-warns-of-measles-outbreak)

Golly, I wonder where the glut of un-immunized kids is coming from? :dunno:  we used to check for this kind of thing back when we had a legal functioning immigration system.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 02, 2015, 10:05:45 AM
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231394-cdc-director-warns-of-measles-outbreak (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231394-cdc-director-warns-of-measles-outbreak)

Golly, I wonder where the glut of un-immunized kids is coming from? :dunno:  we used to check for this kind of thing back when we had a legal functioning immigration system.

Jenny McCarthy disciples
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 17, 2015, 08:52:29 AM
Federal court in Texas has temporarily suspended Barack Obama's illegal illegal alien amnesty pending outcome of litigation. I believe the injunction will be appealed. A small win for the rule of law.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 17, 2015, 10:06:44 AM
Federal court in Texas has temporarily suspended Barack Obama's illegal illegal alien amnesty pending outcome of litigation. I believe the injunction will be appealed. A small win for the rule of law.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html)

The always correct Texas judicial system in action.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 17, 2015, 11:36:09 AM
Federal court in Texas has temporarily suspended Barack Obama's illegal illegal alien amnesty pending outcome of litigation. I believe the injunction will be appealed. A small win for the rule of law.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html)

The always correct Texas judicial system in action.

This federal judge is correct in this instance. Obama has gone much further than any possible definition of "prosecutorial discretion." This is not simply a matter of choosing not to deport a broad swath of illegal immigrant, which might at least arguably be within his discretion "not to prosecute." Instead, Obama's "Executive Memorandum" actually attempts to create an entirely new shadow immigration system, complete with work permits, social security numbers, etc. It's a joke, and it is absolutely unconstitutional.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on February 17, 2015, 12:56:11 PM
Activist judges  :angry:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 17, 2015, 01:21:08 PM
Activist judges  :angry:

It's not "activist" to follow the Constitution.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2015, 09:03:51 AM
Chairman Ann sums it up perfectly. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-02-18.html (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-02-18.html)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! 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/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/2/irs-defends-refunds-illegals-never-filed-taxes/)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! 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/ (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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne 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/ (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. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on May 26, 2015, 05:16:04 PM
Who appointed the other two?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on May 26, 2015, 07:12:47 PM
Who appointed the other two?

Clinton, W. Bush
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on May 26, 2015, 07:13:41 PM
Who appointed the other two?

Clinton, W. Bush

- of course -
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee 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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on May 26, 2015, 09:46:41 PM
we should just send obama to counseling
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: 8manpick 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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: GregKSU1027 on May 27, 2015, 09:23:34 AM
Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee 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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne 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?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: GregKSU1027 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...
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee 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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne 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?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: GregKSU1027 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. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne 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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee 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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! 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 (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 (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."
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! 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/ (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= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer=)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne 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/ (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= (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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bubbles4ksu 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/ (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= (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.
(http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/cheesy.gif)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! 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/ (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= (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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne 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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee 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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on May 27, 2015, 09:35:16 PM
how much does ksuw hate mexicans?  a lot is the answer
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 27, 2015, 09:50:11 PM
Illegal immigration is an oxymoron
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 27, 2015, 09:52:23 PM
how much does ksuw hate mexicans?  a lot is the answer

You know when people post something along the lines of, "this post never gets old?"

This post is the polar opposite of that.  Come up with something better. K? Thx
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 27, 2015, 10:02:38 PM
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.

The H1B visa program needs serious reform, but that doesn't mean illegal immigration is better. The same big business, corporate welfare special interests support both. They'll take cheap labor however they can get it, Americans be damned.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on May 27, 2015, 10:06:23 PM
I got H1B once, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 27, 2015, 10:07:50 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.

Wait - you're just going to assume the Obama administration believes they have sound legal justification for their actions? Let me fill you in on the way this administration works: their justification is "we're going to do it if we want to do it, and who's gonna stop us? A court several years down the road? :lol:"
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on May 27, 2015, 10:09:41 PM
I look at it more as a judicial gamble, and one which they could lose and still politically win.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 27, 2015, 10:31:35 PM
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.

The H1B visa program needs serious reform, but that doesn't mean illegal immigration is better. The same big business, corporate welfare special interests support both. They'll take cheap labor however they can get it, Americans be damned.

In most cases, it's not a case of getting cheap foreign labor over expensive domestic labor. Usually, it's a choice of getting cheap foreign labor or not having a viable business.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 27, 2015, 11:14:38 PM
I look at it more as a judicial gamble, and one which they could lose and still politically win.

A sad indictment of the democrat party, indeed.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 03, 2015, 07:22:35 PM
Insanity. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/irs-illegals-can-get-back-taxes-obama-amnesty/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/irs-illegals-can-get-back-taxes-obama-amnesty/)

Thankfully , the Fifth Circuit is so far holding the line.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on June 03, 2015, 07:50:42 PM
Insanity!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 03, 2015, 07:56:49 PM
We should probably get rid of the EITC.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 03, 2015, 10:32:20 PM
We should probably get rid of the EITC.

Yeah I'd be good with that. But maybe we could just start by not giving it to illegal immigrants.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2015, 03:21:10 PM
I love good, smart, common sense judges. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/)

Quote
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.

In an opinion freighted with meaning for the separation of powers battles, Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, singled out Mr. Obama’s own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn’t pass the bill he wanted.

The key remark came in a speech in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions. Fed up with a heckler who was chiding him for boosting the number of deportations, Mr. Obama fired back, agreeing that he’d overseen a spike in deportations.

“But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” the president said.

The two judges said the Justice Department failed to explain away Mr. Obama’s remarks.

“At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes,” Judge Smith wrote.

Uh yeah, because that's exactly the point of Obama's attempted executive amnesty - to change immigration law. Which is, you know, unconstitutional (as long as the case is being heard by a non-liberal idealogue judge).
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 04:23:32 PM
I love good, smart, common sense judges. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/)

Quote
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.

In an opinion freighted with meaning for the separation of powers battles, Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, singled out Mr. Obama’s own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn’t pass the bill he wanted.

The key remark came in a speech in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions. Fed up with a heckler who was chiding him for boosting the number of deportations, Mr. Obama fired back, agreeing that he’d overseen a spike in deportations.

“But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” the president said.

The two judges said the Justice Department failed to explain away Mr. Obama’s remarks.

“At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes,” Judge Smith wrote.

Uh yeah, because that's exactly the point of Obama's attempted executive amnesty - to change immigration law. Which is, you know, unconstitutional (as long as the case is being heard by a non-liberal idealogue judge).

The constitution is just a piece of paper.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 10, 2015, 04:28:36 PM
That's true dax
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 04:30:01 PM
That's true dax

Worthless, that whole oath thing, utterly meaningless.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2015, 06:07:08 PM
That's true dax

No, it's not. The Constitution is written on a piece of paper. The Constitution is the formative and supreme law of this nation from which the rule of law emanates.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 10, 2015, 06:39:53 PM
still just a paper
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2015, 08:02:22 PM
still just a paper

I know you're just trolling, but stupid-trolling is annoying. The Constitution is no more a piece of paper than it is a stone monument or an audio tape or any other medium it has been recorded on.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: mocat on November 20, 2015, 10:00:51 AM
Quote
The Pew Research Center found that slightly more than 1 million Mexicans and their families, including American-born children, left the U.S. for Mexico from 2009 to 2014. During the same five years, 870,000 Mexicans came to the U.S., resulting in a net flow to Mexico of 140,000.

 :surprised:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 20, 2015, 10:37:42 AM
Further supports my hypothesis that if you make the US really shitty for illegals, they'll leave.

I guess thanks to B.O. for inadvertently testing that hypothesis. Sad he had to take down the entire lower class and a good piece of the middle class with it.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 20, 2015, 10:39:46 AM
Mitt Romney  :billdance:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: mocat on November 20, 2015, 11:04:36 AM
Further supports my hypothesis that if you make the US really shitty for illegals, they'll leave.

I guess thanks to B.O. for inadvertently testing that hypothesis. Sad he had to take down the entire lower class and a good piece of the middle class with it.

i thought illegals came here and immediately were given ipads and free healthcare and snizz?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2015, 11:12:34 AM
Mitt Romney  :billdance:

My first thought as well. We seem to be finding agreement on things lately, and that is mildly troubling.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on November 20, 2015, 11:13:51 AM
Sorry, I was unclear that it was mitt Romney dancing.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 20, 2015, 01:21:55 PM
Further supports my hypothesis that if you make the US really shitty for illegals, they'll leave.

I guess thanks to B.O. for inadvertently testing that hypothesis. Sad he had to take down the entire lower class and a good piece of the middle class with it.

i thought illegals came here and immediately were given ipads and free healthcare and snizz?

Apparently these tokens aren't enough to keep people in obamerica

Sad....really
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: mocat on November 20, 2015, 01:49:34 PM
interesting take
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2015, 09:00:19 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/refugees/419976/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/refugees/419976/)

In summary, Ted Kennedy's immigrations reforms have been great for Dems, but a disaster for the US.

Quote
Donald Trump’s noisy complaints that immigration is out of control are literally true. Nobody is making conscious decisions about who is wanted and who is not, about how much immigration to accept and what kind to prioritize—not even for the portion of U.S. migration conducted according to law, much less for the larger portion that is not.

Nor is there much understanding of what has happened after it has happened. A simple question like, “How many immigrants are in prison?” turns out to be extraordinarily hard to answer. Poor information invites excessive fears, which are then answered with false assurances and angry accusations.

Nervous about Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris massacre? How dare you! Would you turn away Jews fleeing Hitler? Oh, you think that analogy is hyperbolic? Tell it to the mayor of New York City.

This frequent invocation of the refugee trauma of the 1930s shuts down all discussion of anything that has happened since. Since 1991, the United States has accepted more than 100,000 Somali refugees. Britain accepted 100,000 as well. Some 50,000 Somali refugees were resettled in Canada; some 40,000 in Sweden; smaller communities were settled in the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark.

How’s that going?

- Minnesota is home to America’s largest Somali community, 33,000 people. The unemployment rate for Somali Minnesotans in 2015 was triple the state average, 21 percent. As of 2014, about 5,950 of the state’s Somali population received cash assistance; 17,000 receive food assistance as of 2014.

- A close study of Somali refugees by the government of Maine (home to the nation’s second-largest Somali community) found that fewer than half of the working-age population had worked at any time in the five years from 2001 through 2006.

- The U.S. unemployment rate of 20+ percent still represents a huge improvement over rates in Europe. Only about 40 percent of working-age Somali men in Norway are employed. In the Swedish city of Malmo, home to one of the largest Somali communities in Europe, only 20 percent work.

- Somalis have so much difficulty finding work in the developed world because their skills badly mismatch local labor needs. Only about 18 percent of boys and 15 percent of girls attend even primary school in Somalia. UNICEF has given up trying to measure literacy rates. Much of the U.S. refugee population is descended from people held as slaves in Somalia, who accordingly lack any family tradition of education. Their children then flounder in Western schools, baffled by the norms and expectations they encounter there. In the U.K., Somali students pass the standard age 16 high school exams at a rate less than half that of Nigerian immigrant students.

- Struggling with the transition from semi-nomadic-herder society to postindustrial urban life, young Somalis in the West are tempted by criminal activity. Danish Somalis are 10 times more likely to be committed of a serious offense than native-born Danes. At least 29 young Canadian Somalis were murdered in drug-trafficking-related deaths between 2005 and 2010. In July 2012, Richard Stanek, sheriff of the county that encompasses Minneapolis-St. Paul, testified to Congress about the rising danger of American Somali gangs.

- Other young Somalis turn to political and religious violence. An estimated 50 American Somalis returned to fight for al Shabab, committing some of the most heinous acts of that insurgency. One carried out a suicide bombing that killed 24 people in 2009. Al Shabab claimed three American Somalis took part in the attack on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall in 2013 that killed at least 67 people. Al Shabab is now intensely recruiting American Somalis to undertake terror missions inside the United States.

There's a lot more in the article.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on December 13, 2015, 10:54:40 PM
If it's true that 85% of the Somali refugees didn't attend primary school, a 20% unemployment rate seems like a huge success.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on December 14, 2015, 05:16:01 AM
If it's true that 85% of the Somali refugees didn't attend primary school, a 20% unemployment rate seems like a huge success.
Kansas' school budget issue may have found a solution.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 10, 2016, 11:21:27 AM
KCK killer, in the country illegally. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on March 10, 2016, 11:41:42 AM
I say we deport
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: ednksu on March 28, 2016, 09:56:26 AM
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/03/28/border-states-spend-to-root-out-smuggling
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 06, 2016, 08:35:44 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/05/terrorists-entering-europe-because-of-porous-borders-may-be-unde/
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: eastcat on April 13, 2016, 05:33:00 PM
Comparing Europe's immigration problem to ours is ridiculous.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 14, 2016, 08:04:30 AM
Comparing Europe's immigration problem to ours is ridiculous.

The old "it can't happen here".
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 14, 2016, 09:00:41 PM
If it's true that 85% of the Somali refugees didn't attend primary school, a 20% unemployment rate seems like a huge success.

The employment qualifications for guerrilla soldier just aren't what they used to be.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 14, 2016, 09:01:41 PM
Comparing Europe's immigration problem to ours is ridiculous.

Who are our peers for immigration problems?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bucket on April 16, 2016, 02:24:13 PM
The Pope is bringing refugees into the Vatican. I love the Pope!  :love:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: wetwillie on April 16, 2016, 03:05:42 PM
The Pope is bringing refugees into the Vatican. I love the Pope!  :love:

i hope none of them are little boys
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bucket on April 16, 2016, 03:07:12 PM
The Pope is bringing refugees into the Vatican. I love the Pope!  :love:

i hope none of them are little boys

Muslims  :ohno:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on April 16, 2016, 03:32:46 PM
I think that one went over buckets head
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bucket on April 16, 2016, 05:41:55 PM
I think that one went over buckets head

No, I get it. However, I prefer to focus on the fact that our Christian nation wants to block Muslim refugees from entering while the Pope chooses to harbor them. Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29, Luke 6:31, and Matthew 7:12. Were Matthew and Luke roommates?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: wetwillie on April 16, 2016, 05:53:37 PM
I think that one went over buckets head

No, I get it. However, I prefer to focus on the fact that our Christian nation wants to block Muslim refugees from entering while the Pope chooses to harbor them. Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29, Luke 6:31, and Matthew 7:12. Were Matthew and Luke roommates?

Lol, this guy.   You realize it was 12 people right?

The US has let in
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bucket on April 16, 2016, 05:55:43 PM
What's your point?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: wetwillie on April 16, 2016, 05:59:57 PM
What's your point?

There are millions of Syrian refugees, letting in 12 is nothing more than show. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bucket on April 16, 2016, 06:24:59 PM
What's your point?

There are millions of Syrian refugees, letting in 12 is nothing more than show.

Understood. However, I prefer to look to look at the significance of the fact that the leader of the Catholic Church is harboring Muslims. I am young so please recall a time where the Pope has harbored Muslim refugees.

In the bigger picture, I thoroughly enjoy when the Pope elicits Christian values that this country doesn't. We're such a proud Christian nation, but we hate on Muslims and the LGBT community. Real Christian. Study your Bible.  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: The Big Train on April 16, 2016, 06:27:39 PM
Who gives a crap what religion it is.  The majority of Muslims don't want to blow stuff up.  Read up on other religions
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: bucket on April 16, 2016, 06:35:11 PM
Who gives a crap what religion it is.  The majority of Muslims don't want to blow stuff up.  Read up on other religions

Do we have a "Christian Values In This Country Suck" thread?
Title: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 12, 2016, 09:46:08 AM
http://cbsloc.al/1VUuC4N

Sorry kids, knowing who is coming into the country is "racist".
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 12, 2017, 05:24:14 PM
Hey look at that! Obama finally decided to crack down on illegal immigration - if you're of a certain nationality that is politically conservative. Back to the gulags, comrades!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_CUBA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-12-16-50-37 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_CUBA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-12-16-50-37)

(http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/when_will_the_economy_finally_make_obama_smile.jpg)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 12, 2017, 05:29:20 PM
So Israel, Cuban asylum seekers, who else gets the middle finger this last week of President Shithead's term?
Title: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 13, 2017, 11:28:03 AM
Trying to escape a repressive totalitarian regime, a tendency to lean family-Judeo Christian?  Sorry folks!

Trying to escape a war we perpetuate, potentially harboring deep seeded hate against Americans and all non Muslims?  Come on in!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 13, 2017, 11:30:55 AM
You guys are confusing.  Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes?   What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 13, 2017, 11:35:41 AM
You guys are confusing.  Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes?   What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?

A communist government that will imprison/torture/murder you upon return, for starters. We've had this special policy for Cuba for decades, and it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Obama just said "eff you, Miami" in the last week of his presidency, purely out of spite.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 13, 2017, 11:37:41 AM
You guys are confusing.  Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes?   What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?

A communist government that will imprison/torture/murder you upon return, for starters. We've had this special policy for Cuba for decades, and it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Obama just said "eff you, Miami" in the last week of his presidency, purely out of spite.

Good thing they aren't Muslim, I guess.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 13, 2017, 11:38:31 AM
You guys are confusing.  Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes?   What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?

A communist government that will imprison/torture/murder you upon return, for starters. We've had this special policy for Cuba for decades, and it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Obama just said "eff you, Miami" in the last week of his presidency, purely out of spite.

Good thing they aren't Muslim, I guess.

Yes. You don't see a lot of Cuban terrorists running around.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 13, 2017, 11:42:50 AM
It will be interesting to see if this actually reduces the flow or not.

It will also be interesting to see if this effects cuba by keeping more of their dissatisfied citizens in country.  Especially now that Castro is dead and lil bro castro is like 80.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 13, 2017, 11:48:29 AM
It will be interesting to see if this actually reduces the flow or not.

It will also be interesting to see if this effects cuba by keeping more of their dissatisfied citizens in country.  Especially now that Castro is dead and lil bro castro is like 80.

Trump's just going to reverse Obama after he takes office. There will be parties in the streets of Miami. And Florida will get a little more red.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 13, 2017, 12:46:58 PM
So Israel, Cuban asylum seekers, who else gets the middle finger this last week of President Shithead's term?
Hope it's the polish
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on January 13, 2017, 12:49:35 PM
Aborted babies
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 13, 2017, 01:33:16 PM
Florida will continue to be the vacation choice of the poors
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 13, 2017, 01:40:55 PM
Aborted babies

Oooh good one. Repeal the Hyde Amendment by executive action?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Kat Kid on January 13, 2017, 01:48:21 PM
You guys are confusing.  Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes?   What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?

A communist government that will imprison/torture/murder you upon return, for starters. We've had this special policy for Cuba for decades, and it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Obama just said "eff you, Miami" in the last week of his presidency, purely out of spite.

Good thing they aren't Muslim, I guess.

Yes. You don't see a lot of Cuban terrorists running around.

lol
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on January 13, 2017, 01:52:14 PM
White people
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 13, 2017, 02:45:41 PM
Look at the apologists.

Sad
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Asteriskhead on January 13, 2017, 02:54:13 PM
You guys are confusing.  Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes?   What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?

A communist government that will imprison/torture/murder you upon return, for starters. We've had this special policy for Cuba for decades, and it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Obama just said "eff you, Miami" in the last week of his presidency, purely out of spite.

Good thing they aren't Muslim, I guess.

Yes. You don't see a lot of Cuban terrorists running around.

lol

Yea, I got a good laugh at it too.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Kat Kid on January 13, 2017, 02:58:25 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Asteriskhead on January 13, 2017, 03:09:33 PM
Just delete it. The last thing Dub wants are facts.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 13, 2017, 04:02:04 PM
No by all means, continue comparing that Cuban terrorism problem to Muslims.  :bwpopcorn:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Kat Kid on January 13, 2017, 04:10:32 PM
No by all means, continue comparing that Cuban terrorism problem to Muslims.  :bwpopcorn:

Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 13, 2017, 04:12:43 PM
This is true, just before the suicide vest goes off, the AK-47 starts cracking and the detonator on the car bomb is pushed, you hear Viva Che! about as often if not more often than Allah Akbar.

Great point KK!!!

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on January 13, 2017, 04:15:38 PM
No by all means, continue comparing that Cuban terrorism problem to Muslims.  :bwpopcorn:
Muslims being imported don't want to be here.  They want to Kill evil satan Americans once here.  Cubans become good citizens, and have babies that run for President.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 13, 2017, 04:15:49 PM
Everybody remember when those Cubans wearing this:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Inh5wV4sL.jpg)


Flew those jet liners into the WTC and the Pentagon? 

Never Forget! 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 13, 2017, 06:35:53 PM
 “Obama has screwed all Cubans,”

http://www.manilatimes.net/obama-screwed-us-angry-cuban-migrants-say/306712/

Sorry guys, our outgoing President hasn't met a theocratic Muslim oriented monarchy or communist dictatorship that he didn't want to support or prop up.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on January 13, 2017, 06:38:26 PM
Good point dax, muzzies are probably safe this week
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 13, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
Good point dax, muzzies are probably safe this week

Weird (and meaningless) post
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Kat Kid on January 13, 2017, 09:08:32 PM
the cuban exiles have a long history of basically having a CIA trained hit squad running around Miami setting off car bombs, blowing up planes, blowing up bars and restaurants and committing murder in broad daylight with impunity. But carry on with your transparent attempts to change the subject dax. Not your best effort.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 13, 2017, 11:03:07 PM
Yeah those darned CIA trained Cuban hit men. Right up there with ISIS and AQ. :shakesfist:

Good points as always KK. Keep going.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 14, 2017, 03:22:09 AM
So the CIA trained Cubans are still doing all that stuff?   Wow, the media really is getting sloppy.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Kat Kid on January 14, 2017, 08:08:22 AM
Lol, ksuw had no idea what he was talking about so he lined up a mismatch title fight for the worst terrorists in the world belt.

Glad I could educate you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Asteriskhead on January 14, 2017, 09:24:55 AM
KSUW, do you state things as fact that you have no clue about this often in your life away from gE?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 14, 2017, 12:21:24 PM
KSUW, do you state things as fact that you have no clue about this often in your life away from gE?

Hmmm. Maybe. Seems to be working out ok. But let's get back to the threat of CIA trained Cuban hitmen to national security.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 14, 2017, 12:58:43 PM
Remember the first time those CIA trained Cubans tried to blow up the WTC!   

I'm still haunted by their cigar smoking. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 14, 2017, 04:02:04 PM
I don't like sending the Cubans back. I don't really support our immigration laws, though.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 15, 2017, 09:46:21 PM
Def retaliation for Hills losing Flo Rida.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2017, 10:58:25 PM
the cuban exiles have a long history of basically having a CIA trained hit squad running around Miami setting off car bombs, blowing up planes, blowing up bars and restaurants and committing murder in broad daylight with impunity. But carry on with your transparent attempts to change the subject dax. Not your best effort.

Is this an Al Pacino movie?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2017, 10:59:14 PM
What's this about cuban cia operatives? Fascinating
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: michigancat on January 16, 2017, 12:09:52 AM
If you can remove yourself from the partisan politics, it at the very least seems like interesting diplomacy.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 17, 2017, 02:34:23 PM
I think he just realized Cubans are generally conservative, at least the ones trying to escape communism.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on January 17, 2017, 02:41:23 PM
That's probably it
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 17, 2017, 02:43:34 PM
I think he just realized Cubans are generally conservative, at least the ones trying to escape communism.

First gen Mexicans are usually as well, though. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Kat Kid on January 17, 2017, 02:46:23 PM
What's this about cuban cia operatives? Fascinating

The CIA had decades of hilariously incompetent attempts on Castro's life, most of the plots involved Cuban exiles.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 17, 2017, 02:47:59 PM
I think he just realized Cubans are generally conservative, at least the ones trying to escape communism.

First gen Mexicans are usually as well, though.

But their kids aren't, and the first gens usually can't vote.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 17, 2017, 02:58:08 PM
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Yard Dog on January 17, 2017, 02:58:59 PM
From how I have heard the media frame it, it wasn't fair to other immigrants waiting their turn to see these individuals come here and immediately gain a form of legal status. Also, i guess since Obama opened up trade with Cuba or whatever in 2014 the influx of Cubans coming to the US to be citizens has increased. So this solves both of those problems I guess?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 17, 2017, 03:27:18 PM
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:

California public schools?  :dunno:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 17, 2017, 03:33:54 PM
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:

California public schools?  :dunno:

Yeah, probably. I doubt it's the republican party demonizing their parents for following the American dream. Probably the schools.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 17, 2017, 03:53:01 PM
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:

California public schools?  :dunno:

Texas, tho  :dunno:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on January 17, 2017, 04:03:02 PM
Education is inherently liberal leaning, that's why conservatives are anti-education
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 17, 2017, 04:08:03 PM
Controlling ed has always been a means of control.  Has been around a lot longer than dumb dumbs on the far right. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 17, 2017, 05:48:26 PM
I really appreciated how far KK rolled with the Cubans trained by the CIA decades ago equals Islamic Terrorism in the homeland of today (some of whom were likely trained by the CIA or U.S. proxies). 

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 17, 2017, 05:53:17 PM
I really appreciated how far KK rolled with the Cubans trained by the CIA decades ago equals Islamic Terrorism in the homeland of today (some of whom were likely trained by the CIA or U.S. proxies).

I think he's still rolling with it. Turns out he was referring to assassination attempts Castro. Which naturally is right up there with terrorism against Americans.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 17, 2017, 05:58:55 PM
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:

California public schools?  :dunno:

Yeah, probably. I doubt it's the republican party demonizing their parents for following the American dream. Probably the schools.

Hmmm. I guess relying upon the government to feed, cloth, doctor and otherwise care for your children certainly is a dream of many immigrants to America. I'm not sure that's what the American Dream is supposed to mean.

Mexican immigrants "become more liberal" in the second generation because that's when they can vote (legally). It's not like they cross the border as conservatives. Many have a good work ethic but they are also coming because of the generous welfare. You can make money, send it home, and rely on Uncle Sam to cover your kids here.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on January 17, 2017, 06:06:19 PM
it's really hard to figure out why latino's think republicans hate them.  very confusing
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 17, 2017, 06:19:06 PM
It's really hard to figure out why Trump got more Latino voters than Romney did. Very confusing.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 17, 2017, 07:34:51 PM
According to Pew reasearch, illegal Mexicans are leaving america, so this problem should work itself out.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 18, 2017, 11:48:20 AM
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:

California public schools?  :dunno:

Yeah, probably. I doubt it's the republican party demonizing their parents for following the American dream. Probably the schools.

Hmmm. I guess relying upon the government to feed, cloth, doctor and otherwise care for your children certainly is a dream of many immigrants to America. I'm not sure that's what the American Dream is supposed to mean.

Mexican immigrants "become more liberal" in the second generation because that's when they can vote (legally). It's not like they cross the border as conservatives. Many have a good work ethic but they are also coming because of the generous welfare. You can make money, send it home, and rely on Uncle Sam to cover your kids here.

It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: TheFormerKCCat on January 18, 2017, 11:56:54 AM
According to Pew reasearch, illegal Mexicans are leaving america, so this problem should work itself out.
LOL at people who think that illegal = Mexican. You poor sheltered human being. Expired visas anyone?

Mr. Taco Trucks on every corner is the prototype of the Trump Latino enthusiast, you really want to cast your lot with THAT guy?

VERY few immigrants come to the USA thinking it's the land of handouts. Ironically, despite anti-immigrant fear-mongering, immigrants are the ones keeping the TRUE American Dream of hard work and a better tomorrow alive. It's kind of inherent in the country's DNA. If we lower in-migration to the USA, our country dies (because, you know, demographics). If you ever want to come see the American Dream alive and well, go to an immigrant enclave and you'll marvel at the entrepreneurship, hard work, and optimism.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 18, 2017, 02:02:47 PM
Weird, a Dem sent Japanese Americans to detention camps. A  Dem ordered all Iranians in the country on student visas to report to INS offices.  Then the same Dem blocked all visas for Iranians except a handful allowed to enter after strident examination for humanitarian reasons only.  A Dem just executive ordered that all Cubans trying to escape the dictatorship in Cuba be sent back. 

But that doesn't stop Libs from melting down about Xenophobia, when the Pres-Elect talks about greatly heightened immigration screening of those trying to enter from Islamic oriented countries with known ties to terrorism, be it state or rogue state (ISIL/ISIS) sponsored. 

As I've said before.  Duplicitous hypocrite, thy name is liberal Democrat. 

Sad
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on January 18, 2017, 02:04:04 PM
Dax is very angry  :frown:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 18, 2017, 02:06:26 PM
Dax is very angry  :frown:

Compensation does not cover your internal rage, lib.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: cfbandyman on January 18, 2017, 02:08:36 PM
Dax is very angry  :frown:

It's the only thing he has anymore to run on, that an massively simplifying everything and imbibing on schadenfreude. Oh well, keep on hating dax.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 18, 2017, 02:23:06 PM
Dax is very angry  :frown:

It's the only thing he has anymore to run on, that an massively simplifying everything and imbibing on schadenfreude. Oh well, keep on hating dax.

Actually my analysis is quite detailed and extremely deep.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 18, 2017, 03:23:16 PM
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:

California public schools?  :dunno:

Yeah, probably. I doubt it's the republican party demonizing their parents for following the American dream. Probably the schools.

Hmmm. I guess relying upon the government to feed, cloth, doctor and otherwise care for your children certainly is a dream of many immigrants to America. I'm not sure that's what the American Dream is supposed to mean.

Mexican immigrants "become more liberal" in the second generation because that's when they can vote (legally). It's not like they cross the border as conservatives. Many have a good work ethic but they are also coming because of the generous welfare. You can make money, send it home, and rely on Uncle Sam to cover your kids here.

It's hilarious that you actually believe that.

I believe it because it is true. For example, it is not a coincidence that schools with high ELL (English Language Learner) numbers also have high free and reduced price lunch numbers. All this data is tracked by the KSDE. http://datacentral.ksde.org/ (http://datacentral.ksde.org/) We now have school districts in Kansas where over a third of the students are taking ELL classes. It is far worse in states like TX, NM, CO, and CA.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 18, 2017, 03:35:40 PM
So you think if we drop school lunch for poor people, the Mexicans will just go home?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 18, 2017, 03:40:59 PM
So, we need to change our immigration policy to only let in the rich, obvsly.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 18, 2017, 03:44:27 PM
Also, it's fairly clear that western Kansas must be a pretty liberal place. Good thing the population is low.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 18, 2017, 03:56:45 PM
So you think if we drop school lunch for poor people, the Mexicans will just go home?

Oh crap, KSU-Dub's busting out "facts" again. Quick, get behind this straw shield!
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on January 18, 2017, 03:58:05 PM
Stupid lazy mooching liberal Mexicans  :curse:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 18, 2017, 03:58:26 PM
So you think if we drop school lunch for poor people, the Mexicans will just go home?

Oh crap, KSU-Dub's busting out "facts" again. Quick, get behind this straw shield!

Hmmm. I guess relying upon the government to feed, cloth, doctor and otherwise care for your children certainly is a dream of many immigrants to America. I'm not sure that's what the American Dream is supposed to mean.

Mexican immigrants "become more liberal" in the second generation because that's when they can vote (legally). It's not like they cross the border as conservatives. Many have a good work ethic but they are also coming because of the generous welfare. You can make money, send it home, and rely on Uncle Sam to cover your kids here.

If that isn't what you were saying, then what was your point here?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 18, 2017, 04:00:01 PM
your fact only proves that ESL kids are on average raised in lower income homes.  Trying to say that this makes them liberal is crazy.  The kid isn't out lunch money one way or the other, the parents are and it was admitted earlier ITT that those parents, in these circumstances, are the conservatives. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 18, 2017, 04:05:48 PM
(http://datacentral.ksde.org/Reserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd?ReportSession=4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m&Culture=1033&CultureOverrides=True&UICulture=1033&UICultureOverrides=True&ReportStack=1&ControlID=0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b&OpType=ReportImage&IterationId=19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6&StreamID=M_8_1)

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage

There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 18, 2017, 07:15:35 PM
(http://datacentral.ksde.org/Reserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd?ReportSession=4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m&Culture=1033&CultureOverrides=True&UICulture=1033&UICultureOverrides=True&ReportStack=1&ControlID=0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b&OpType=ReportImage&IterationId=19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6&StreamID=M_8_1)

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage

There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.

Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 18, 2017, 07:32:41 PM
ESL /= illegal,  tho.  You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income.  How many illegals are doing that? 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 18, 2017, 08:45:10 PM
ESL /= illegal,  tho.  You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income.  How many illegals are doing that?

A ton and you're delusional if you believe otherwise. I know several teachers including family members. They all know what's going on, though they prefer the term "undocumented."

ESL does not necessarily mean illegal, and of course not all ESL students are illegal (or are children of illegals), but it is the closest comparison we can make in terms of data the government actually collects.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Kat Kid on January 18, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
ESL /= illegal,  tho.  You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income.  How many illegals are doing that?

A ton and you're delusional if you believe otherwise. I know several teachers including family members. They all know what's going on, though they prefer the term "undocumented."

ESL does not necessarily mean illegal, and of course not all ESL students are illegal (or are children of illegals), but it is the closest comparison we can make in terms of data the government actually collects.

Looks like you've finally uncovered the Democrats plan.  Sounds like you and Kobach should get busy really crunching the numbers and digging in to the data to find the truth.

Kobach.

KSU-DUB.

True Detective Season 3.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 18, 2017, 10:39:10 PM
 :rolleyes: You can do better.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 18, 2017, 10:44:15 PM
According to Pew reasearch, illegal Mexicans are leaving america, so this problem should work itself out.
LOL at people who think that illegal = Mexican. You poor sheltered human being. Expired visas anyone?

Mr. Taco Trucks on every corner is the prototype of the Trump Latino enthusiast, you really want to cast your lot with THAT guy?

VERY few immigrants come to the USA thinking it's the land of handouts. Ironically, despite anti-immigrant fear-mongering, immigrants are the ones keeping the TRUE American Dream of hard work and a better tomorrow alive. It's kind of inherent in the country's DNA. If we lower in-migration to the USA, our country dies (because, you know, demographics). If you ever want to come see the American Dream alive and well, go to an immigrant enclave and you'll marvel at the entrepreneurship, hard work, and optimism.

I'll give this parody post a 73%

"The real America dream" was pretty good. The Pew research is cited itt, however  :nono:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: TheFormerKCCat on January 18, 2017, 11:41:45 PM
Zero parody intended, zero fucks given. Buenas noches, mamón.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 19, 2017, 08:29:18 AM
(http://datacentral.ksde.org/Reserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd?ReportSession=4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m&Culture=1033&CultureOverrides=True&UICulture=1033&UICultureOverrides=True&ReportStack=1&ControlID=0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b&OpType=ReportImage&IterationId=19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6&StreamID=M_8_1)

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage

There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.

Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.

So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 19, 2017, 08:36:33 AM
(http://datacentral.ksde.org/Reserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd?ReportSession=4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m&Culture=1033&CultureOverrides=True&UICulture=1033&UICultureOverrides=True&ReportStack=1&ControlID=0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b&OpType=ReportImage&IterationId=19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6&StreamID=M_8_1)

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage

There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.

Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.

So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.

Ok, so sounds like you've conceded the point that illegal immigrants, and particularly their children, are heavily reliant on public welfare. We're making progress. Now we can circle back to your idiotic arguments that illegal immigrants are really conservative and just trying to "live the American Dream" that kicked this all off.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 19, 2017, 08:37:27 AM
(http://datacentral.ksde.org/Reserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd?ReportSession=4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m&Culture=1033&CultureOverrides=True&UICulture=1033&UICultureOverrides=True&ReportStack=1&ControlID=0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b&OpType=ReportImage&IterationId=19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6&StreamID=M_8_1)

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage

There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.

Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.

So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.

Ok, so sounds like you've conceded the point that illegal immigrants, and particularly their children, are heavily reliant on public welfare. We're making progress. Now we can circle back to your idiotic arguments that illegal immigrants are really conservative and just trying to "live the American Dream" that kicked this all off.

Where is your argument that they are not? Are you claiming that a conservative would never take advantage of government money?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 19, 2017, 09:10:36 AM
ESL /= illegal,  tho.  You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income.  How many illegals are doing that?

A ton and you're delusional if you believe otherwise. I know several teachers including family members. They all know what's going on, though they prefer the term "undocumented."

ESL does not necessarily mean illegal, and of course not all ESL students are illegal (or are children of illegals), but it is the closest comparison we can make in terms of data the government actually collects.

You realize that this would have been used as the main tool for deportation if this was the case, right?  I mean, it is basically illegals raising their hand and asking to be deported.  Why even have ICE if you can just cross check the free lunch program monthly? 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 19, 2017, 10:08:25 AM
ESL /= illegal,  tho.  You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income.  How many illegals are doing that?

A ton and you're delusional if you believe otherwise. I know several teachers including family members. They all know what's going on, though they prefer the term "undocumented."

ESL does not necessarily mean illegal, and of course not all ESL students are illegal (or are children of illegals), but it is the closest comparison we can make in terms of data the government actually collects.

You realize that this would have been used as the main tool for deportation if this was the case, right?  I mean, it is basically illegals raising their hand and asking to be deported.  Why even have ICE if you can just cross check the free lunch program monthly?

You don't seem to be aware that you do not have to prove legal status to attend public school or be eligible for subsidized school meals. Might want to Google that.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 19, 2017, 10:20:53 AM
(http://datacentral.ksde.org/Reserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd?ReportSession=4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m&Culture=1033&CultureOverrides=True&UICulture=1033&UICultureOverrides=True&ReportStack=1&ControlID=0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b&OpType=ReportImage&IterationId=19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6&StreamID=M_8_1)

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage

There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.

Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.

So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.

Ok, so sounds like you've conceded the point that illegal immigrants, and particularly their children, are heavily reliant on public welfare. We're making progress. Now we can circle back to your idiotic arguments that illegal immigrants are really conservative and just trying to "live the American Dream" that kicked this all off.

Where is your argument that they are not? Are you claiming that a conservative would never take advantage of government money?

There's nothing wrong with playing by the rules and taking advantage of something you have a right to. For example, if you lose your job, that's what unemployment benefits are for.

The same does not apply to people who immigrate to the United States or are otherwise present here illegally. It is neither conservative, nor the American Dream, to sneak across the border for a relatively higher paying job while relying upon taxpayer money to subsidize your children. To the compound the outrage, Mexico alone receives about $25 billion a year in remittances from the United States. It's estimated that illegal immigrants in total remit about $50 billion annually. But I'm sure that money is just coming from illegal immigrants who are totally self supporting and not relying upon welfare in one form or another. :rolleyes: You can't be that delusional.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 19, 2017, 10:46:00 AM
You just said in your last post that illegal immigrants can legally get free lunch for their kids.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 19, 2017, 10:48:34 AM
Do the Cubans who come here illegally not get free lunch for their kids? Maybe they aren't as conservative as we believe.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Kat Kid on January 19, 2017, 10:53:55 AM
If most illegal immigrants really brought their whole families to re-settle for a better education braving coyotes, camping and navigating the great outdoors by the stars, then bootstrapping their way in to a better life working as an entrepreneur in construction that sounds precisely like the sort of Horatio Alger rugged individualism horseshit that Republicans can't stop talking about as the pathway to the middle class. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 19, 2017, 11:08:14 AM
You just said in your last post that illegal immigrants can legally get free lunch for their kids.

They're here illegally.  :facepalm: I give up. This is pointless.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: LickNeckey on January 19, 2017, 11:11:11 AM
I would argue that most Latino Immigrants are conservative, especially as it relates to social issues.  They however have generally voted democrat due to Republicans largely blaming of all of societies problems on them and working diligently to limit paths to citizenship.

 :th_twocents:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Kat Kid on January 19, 2017, 11:18:10 AM
I would argue that most Latino Immigrants are conservative, especially as it relates to social issues.  They however have generally voted democrat due to Republicans largely blaming of all of societies problems on them and working diligently to limit paths to citizenship.

 :th_twocents:

lots of good data out there about how religious most minority groups that vote democratic are.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 19, 2017, 11:31:48 AM
You just said in your last post that illegal immigrants can legally get free lunch for their kids.

They're here illegally.  :facepalm: I give up. This is pointless.

Yeah, that's what I just said.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 19, 2017, 11:44:54 AM
ESL /= illegal,  tho.  You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income.  How many illegals are doing that?

A ton and you're delusional if you believe otherwise. I know several teachers including family members. They all know what's going on, though they prefer the term "undocumented."

ESL does not necessarily mean illegal, and of course not all ESL students are illegal (or are children of illegals), but it is the closest comparison we can make in terms of data the government actually collects.

You realize that this would have been used as the main tool for deportation if this was the case, right?  I mean, it is basically illegals raising their hand and asking to be deported.  Why even have ICE if you can just cross check the free lunch program monthly?

You don't seem to be aware that you do not have to prove legal status to attend public school or be eligible for subsidized school meals. Might want to Google that.
That is not relevant.   What is, is that you have to apply and qualify for the lunch program, meaning you are giving a govt institution your info.  That list, if your claims are true, would be a great tool to look through for deportations.  Why is that not happening?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 19, 2017, 11:47:36 AM
That is not relevant.   What is, is that you have to apply and qualify for the lunch program, meaning you are giving a govt institution your info.  That list, if your claims are true, would be a great tool to look through for deportations.  Why is that not happening?

We don't want to harm local economies and separate families.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: CNS on January 19, 2017, 11:52:02 AM
Not recommended.  What I am getting at is if the free lunch prog was filthy with illegal immigrants, why is that not being used in that manner?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 19, 2017, 11:53:35 AM
I think we only deport criminals. It might start getting used if Trump wants to deport everyone. He's indicated that he wants to do that, but he's also indicated that he doesn't.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: LickNeckey on January 19, 2017, 01:45:24 PM
(pssst... conservative business owners don't really want to deport mexican laborers here illegally it has proven to be economically disastrous to do so,  however banging the drum and rallying fear is a great way to motivate a voting block)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 19, 2017, 02:11:37 PM
Really, the only people who should be upset about illegal immigrants should be high school dropouts, and the odds of somebody who couldn't handle high school being able to handle working manual labor for more than 50 hours per week seem sort of slim to me.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Spracne on January 19, 2017, 03:49:49 PM
(http://datacentral.ksde.org/Reserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd?ReportSession=4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m&Culture=1033&CultureOverrides=True&UICulture=1033&UICultureOverrides=True&ReportStack=1&ControlID=0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b&OpType=ReportImage&IterationId=19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6&StreamID=M_8_1)

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage

There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.

Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.

So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.

Ok, so sounds like you've conceded the point that illegal immigrants, and particularly their children, are heavily reliant on public welfare. We're making progress. Now we can circle back to your idiotic arguments that illegal immigrants are really conservative and just trying to "live the American Dream" that kicked this all off.

Where is your argument that they are not? Are you claiming that a conservative would never take advantage of government money?

(http://www.leskobooks.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/crazy1.gif)
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 14, 2017, 08:52:39 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article132736944.html

Thanks Obama.   But no marching in the streets, no total meltdowns by the left for these poor people.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 28, 2017, 10:45:42 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/the-immigration-debate-we-need.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/the-immigration-debate-we-need.html?_r=0)

By George Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Quote
The first month of the Trump administration has already changed the direction of the immigration debate, with many more changes coming soon. So far, executive orders and deportations dominate the discussion. But the fight over how many refugees to admit or how best to vet those refugees obscures what the debate is really about.

Changes in social policy do not make everyone better off, and immigration policy is no exception. I am a refugee, having fled Cuba as a child in 1962. Not only do I have great sympathy for the immigrant’s desire to build a better life, I am also living proof that immigration policy can benefit some people enormously.

But I am also an economist, and am very much aware of the many trade-offs involved. Inevitably, immigration does not improve everyone’s well-being. There are winners and losers, and we will need to choose among difficult options. The improved lives of the immigrants come at a price. How much of a price are the American people willing to pay, and exactly who will pay it?

This tension permeates the debate over immigration’s effect on the labor market. Those who want more immigration claim that immigrants do jobs that native-born Americans do not want to do. But we all know that the price of gas goes down when the supply of oil goes up. The laws of supply and demand do not evaporate when we talk about the price of labor rather than the price of gas. By now, the well-documented abuses of the H-1B program, such as the Disney workers who had to train their foreign-born replacements, should have obliterated the notion that immigration does not harm competing native workers.

Over the past 30 years, a large fraction of immigrants, nearly a third, were high school dropouts, so the incumbent low-skill work force formed the core group of Americans who paid the price for the influx of millions of workers. Their wages fell as much as 6 percent. Those low-skill Americans included many native-born blacks and Hispanics, as well as earlier waves of immigrants.

But somebody’s lower wage is somebody else’s higher profit. The increase in the profitability of many employers enlarged the economic pie accruing to the entire native population by about $50 billion. So, as proponents of more immigration point out, immigration can increase the aggregate wealth of Americans. But they don’t point out the trade-off involved: Workers in jobs sought by immigrants lose out.

They also don’t point out that low-skill immigration has a side effect that reduces that $50 billion increase in wealth. The National Academy of Sciences recently estimated the impact of immigration on government budgets. On a year-to-year basis, immigrant families, mostly because of their relatively low incomes and higher frequency of participating in government programs like subsidized health care, are a fiscal burden. A comparison of taxes paid and government spending on these families showed that immigrants created an annual fiscal shortfall of $43 billion to $299 billion.

Even the most conservative estimate of the fiscal shortfall wipes out much of the $50 billion increase in native wealth. Remarkably, the size of the native economic pie did not change much after immigration increased the number of workers by more than 15 percent. But the split of the pie certainly changed, giving far less to workers and much more to employers.

The immigration debate will also have to address the long-term impact on American society, raising the freighted issue of immigrant assimilation. In recent decades, there has been a noticeable slowdown in the rate at which the economic status of immigrants improves over time. In the 1970s, the typical immigrant could expect a substantial improvement relative to natives over his or her lifetime. Today, the economic progress of the typical immigrant is much more stagnant.

Part of the slowdown is related to the growth of ethnic enclaves. New immigrants who find few ethnic compatriots get value from acquiring skills that allow more social and economic exchanges, such as becoming proficient in English. But new immigrants who find a large and welcoming community of their countrymen have less need to acquire those skills; they already have a large audience that values whatever they brought with them. Put bluntly, mass migration discourages assimilation.

The trade-offs become even more difficult when we think about the long-term integration of the children and grandchildren of today’s immigrants. Many look back at the melting pot in 20th-century America and assume that history will repeat itself. That’s probably wishful thinking. That melting pot operated in a particular economic, social and political context, and it is doubtful that those conditions can be reproduced today.

Many of the Ellis Island-era immigrants got jobs in manufacturing; Ford’s work force was 75 percent foreign-born in 1914. Those manufacturing jobs evolved into well-paid union jobs, creating a private-sector safety net for the immigrants and their descendants. Does anyone seriously believe that the jobs employing low-skill immigrants today will offer the same economic mobility that unionized manufacturing jobs provided?

Similarly, the ideological climate that encouraged assimilation back then, neatly encapsulated by our motto “E pluribus unum” (Out of many, one), is dead and gone. A recent University of California directive shows the radical shift. The university’s employees were advised to avoid using phrases that can lead to “microaggressions” toward students and one another. One example is the statement “America is a melting pot,” which apparently sends a message to the recipient that they have to “assimilate to the dominant culture.”

Europe is already confronting the difficulties produced by the presence of unassimilated populations. If nothing else, the European experience shows that there is no universal law that guarantees integration even after a few generations. We, too, will need to confront the trade-off between short-term economic gains and the long-term costs of a large, unassimilated minority.

The op-ed goes on to suggest a number of sensible immigration reforms.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on February 28, 2017, 10:49:14 AM
What cuss words did you direct at Bush this morning?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on February 28, 2017, 11:15:20 AM
Thanks for sharing
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: cfbandyman on February 28, 2017, 11:19:55 AM
It's such a complex issue, but in general the tenets need to be:

-Work with Mexico and Central America to get those who wish to come here, to come here legally (though as I'll tirelessly say again, most come through an airport, and overstay their visa, no stupid wall is going to do that). It worked well when Mexico was actually extraditing people back to Central America that was using Mexico was a through way. Instead of alienating and antagonizing Mexico/central america.

-Those who are here illegally, if they are committing no crimes other than overstaying, get them on a path to citizenship, that will quickly get them to paying taxes rather than dodging them (though the businesses are doing more of that issue). Deporting noncriminals only costs more money, rips people apart, and takes too much time and resources. 

-Any of those are committing violent crimes and the like, send em out.

-Wall is a waste of time and money. Just patrol better.

-In terms of limits on how many, IDK, it never really worked properly in the 1800s, can't imagine it working that well today. You can try, but ultimately if they want to come and can prove they can make it work here, I don't see a problem.

The assimilation issue is part an immigration, part totally something else. Other groups that came here created little italies, chinatowns, and the like. It may bother you, but you kind of can't stop it. It's not really illegal to only want to speak Spanish. As long as you are adhering to the law, you just kind of have to deal with it. And assimilation goes both ways, you got to walk you walk towards them too, you can't just dictate them to you.   

As for refugees, it's fine to vet them, not sure what "extreme vetting" means to Trump but in general, get them documented, check their background, accept them, disperse among the country, monitor as necessary, and move on. Just don't make it last too long, you're hurting them and not really helping you. The humanitarian benefit makes America look like a partner to the world, which helps our rather tattered image.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 28, 2017, 04:32:30 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/the-immigration-debate-we-need.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/the-immigration-debate-we-need.html?_r=0)

By George Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Quote
The first month of the Trump administration has already changed the direction of the immigration debate, with many more changes coming soon. So far, executive orders and deportations dominate the discussion. But the fight over how many refugees to admit or how best to vet those refugees obscures what the debate is really about.

Changes in social policy do not make everyone better off, and immigration policy is no exception. I am a refugee, having fled Cuba as a child in 1962. Not only do I have great sympathy for the immigrant’s desire to build a better life, I am also living proof that immigration policy can benefit some people enormously.

But I am also an economist, and am very much aware of the many trade-offs involved. Inevitably, immigration does not improve everyone’s well-being. There are winners and losers, and we will need to choose among difficult options. The improved lives of the immigrants come at a price. How much of a price are the American people willing to pay, and exactly who will pay it?

This tension permeates the debate over immigration’s effect on the labor market. Those who want more immigration claim that immigrants do jobs that native-born Americans do not want to do. But we all know that the price of gas goes down when the supply of oil goes up. The laws of supply and demand do not evaporate when we talk about the price of labor rather than the price of gas. By now, the well-documented abuses of the H-1B program, such as the Disney workers who had to train their foreign-born replacements, should have obliterated the notion that immigration does not harm competing native workers.

Over the past 30 years, a large fraction of immigrants, nearly a third, were high school dropouts, so the incumbent low-skill work force formed the core group of Americans who paid the price for the influx of millions of workers. Their wages fell as much as 6 percent. Those low-skill Americans included many native-born blacks and Hispanics, as well as earlier waves of immigrants.

But somebody’s lower wage is somebody else’s higher profit. The increase in the profitability of many employers enlarged the economic pie accruing to the entire native population by about $50 billion. So, as proponents of more immigration point out, immigration can increase the aggregate wealth of Americans. But they don’t point out the trade-off involved: Workers in jobs sought by immigrants lose out.

They also don’t point out that low-skill immigration has a side effect that reduces that $50 billion increase in wealth. The National Academy of Sciences recently estimated the impact of immigration on government budgets. On a year-to-year basis, immigrant families, mostly because of their relatively low incomes and higher frequency of participating in government programs like subsidized health care, are a fiscal burden. A comparison of taxes paid and government spending on these families showed that immigrants created an annual fiscal shortfall of $43 billion to $299 billion.

Even the most conservative estimate of the fiscal shortfall wipes out much of the $50 billion increase in native wealth. Remarkably, the size of the native economic pie did not change much after immigration increased the number of workers by more than 15 percent. But the split of the pie certainly changed, giving far less to workers and much more to employers.

The immigration debate will also have to address the long-term impact on American society, raising the freighted issue of immigrant assimilation. In recent decades, there has been a noticeable slowdown in the rate at which the economic status of immigrants improves over time. In the 1970s, the typical immigrant could expect a substantial improvement relative to natives over his or her lifetime. Today, the economic progress of the typical immigrant is much more stagnant.

Part of the slowdown is related to the growth of ethnic enclaves. New immigrants who find few ethnic compatriots get value from acquiring skills that allow more social and economic exchanges, such as becoming proficient in English. But new immigrants who find a large and welcoming community of their countrymen have less need to acquire those skills; they already have a large audience that values whatever they brought with them. Put bluntly, mass migration discourages assimilation.

The trade-offs become even more difficult when we think about the long-term integration of the children and grandchildren of today’s immigrants. Many look back at the melting pot in 20th-century America and assume that history will repeat itself. That’s probably wishful thinking. That melting pot operated in a particular economic, social and political context, and it is doubtful that those conditions can be reproduced today.

Many of the Ellis Island-era immigrants got jobs in manufacturing; Ford’s work force was 75 percent foreign-born in 1914. Those manufacturing jobs evolved into well-paid union jobs, creating a private-sector safety net for the immigrants and their descendants. Does anyone seriously believe that the jobs employing low-skill immigrants today will offer the same economic mobility that unionized manufacturing jobs provided?

Similarly, the ideological climate that encouraged assimilation back then, neatly encapsulated by our motto “E pluribus unum” (Out of many, one), is dead and gone. A recent University of California directive shows the radical shift. The university’s employees were advised to avoid using phrases that can lead to “microaggressions” toward students and one another. One example is the statement “America is a melting pot,” which apparently sends a message to the recipient that they have to “assimilate to the dominant culture.”

Europe is already confronting the difficulties produced by the presence of unassimilated populations. If nothing else, the European experience shows that there is no universal law that guarantees integration even after a few generations. We, too, will need to confront the trade-off between short-term economic gains and the long-term costs of a large, unassimilated minority.

The op-ed goes on to suggest a number of sensible immigration reforms.

People growing commodities are not going to increase wages in the absence of cheap labor because they don't have the ability to increase the cost of their goods. They will just stop growing that commodity until the price goes up enough to support the higher wages, and in most cases that will never happen. A low-regulation, free market approach is the best approach to immigration.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on February 28, 2017, 08:08:05 PM
So what do the kill and hate mexican bloodlust wing of the republican party think of trump supporting an immigration reform bill.  Good move in my opinion.  Solve this.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 28, 2017, 08:12:25 PM
I genuinely had no idea there were people who believed illegal immigration resulted in a net positive economically. That's lol levels of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 28, 2017, 10:29:58 PM
I genuinely had no idea there were people who believed illegal immigration resulted in a net positive economically. That's lol levels of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Of course it's a net positive, just like free trade and fewer regulations are a net positive.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on February 28, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
The one thing from the article that I took issue with is that I don't think America has ever been a melting pot. So this assimilation talk as a negative, I think is crap. Other than that the article did make me reevaluate some things and I'm glad I was shared.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 24, 2017, 07:10:22 AM
So U.K. Bomber just returned from Libya a country destroyed by Obama and now full of AQ and ISIS terrorists.

SMDH thanks Obama
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on May 24, 2017, 09:11:13 AM
Yet another FSD troll post. He's on a roll.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: libliblibliblibliblib on May 24, 2017, 09:16:28 AM
More like on a psychotic break
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 24, 2017, 09:42:50 AM
Hillary and Barrack's regime change(s) are the gifts that just keep on giving. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on May 24, 2017, 10:07:12 AM
Do your real life conversations consist of much the same material or do you get it out of the way here?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 24, 2017, 10:11:21 AM
Let's all just agree b.o. and hillary royally mumped the ME worse than it's been in our lifetimes.

There's really no reason yo deny that.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on May 24, 2017, 10:14:02 AM
Ok. Agreed. Can we move on now?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 24, 2017, 10:14:52 AM
 :thumbs:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: SdK on May 24, 2017, 10:17:34 AM
Hell yeah! Bipartisan pitting here we come! :D
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 25, 2017, 06:48:35 AM
Nope.  Not moving on. 
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 25, 2017, 04:36:11 PM
But ya see, you can't suspend immigration from countries we (Obama) bombed.

Quote
“I think he saw children—Muslim children—dying everywhere, and wanted revenge. He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted revenge,” she said. “Whether he got that is between him and God.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/manchester-bomber-fought-in-libya-1495662073
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: The Big Train on May 25, 2017, 11:02:41 PM
Hillary and Barrack's regime change(s) are the gifts that just keep on giving.

I think this is a quote worth saving.  :thumbs:
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on August 02, 2017, 01:35:47 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/02/trump-announces-proposed-change-to-legal-immigration-policy-live-blog.amp.html
I like this green card proposal.   Trump does good occasionally.  Preference will be given to immogrunts who speak English, can support their family, and have skills we need.  Good job.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Matt Mckee on August 03, 2017, 08:21:27 AM
I think half of MLB would not be given green cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: LickNeckey on August 03, 2017, 12:24:28 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/02/trump-announces-proposed-change-to-legal-immigration-policy-live-blog.amp.html
I like this green card proposal.   Trump does good occasionally.  Preference will be given to immigrants who speak English, can support their family, and have skills we need.  Good job.

given that we do not have an official language i find this somewhat troubling
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: catastrophe on August 03, 2017, 01:33:54 PM
The "skills we need" include a lot of manual labor.  We depend on cheap labor to make food and other products cheap for consumers.  There are instances in the U.S. where a crackdown on illegal immigration was pretty devastating to the local economy because it resulted in a bunch of vacant jobs nobody was willing to take.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Yard Dog on August 17, 2017, 11:57:33 AM
The "skills we need" include a lot of manual labor.  We depend on cheap labor to make food and other products cheap for consumers.  There are instances in the U.S. where a crackdown on illegal immigration was pretty devastating to the local economy because it resulted in a bunch of vacant jobs nobody was willing to take.

In these instances the theory goes that the job creators would have to raise wages in order to attract workers who were legal to hire. When this has happened in the past, do these businesses just decide to fail? Or do they just move their business somewhere people are willing to work for next to nothing?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: LickNeckey on August 17, 2017, 12:30:40 PM
http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 17, 2017, 01:12:59 PM
The "skills we need" include a lot of manual labor.  We depend on cheap labor to make food and other products cheap for consumers.  There are instances in the U.S. where a crackdown on illegal immigration was pretty devastating to the local economy because it resulted in a bunch of vacant jobs nobody was willing to take.

In these instances the theory goes that the job creators would have to raise wages in order to attract workers who were legal to hire. When this has happened in the past, do these businesses just decide to fail? Or do they just move their business somewhere people are willing to work for next to nothing?

The government is deciding they fail.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: catastrophe on August 17, 2017, 01:38:09 PM
The "skills we need" include a lot of manual labor.  We depend on cheap labor to make food and other products cheap for consumers.  There are instances in the U.S. where a crackdown on illegal immigration was pretty devastating to the local economy because it resulted in a bunch of vacant jobs nobody was willing to take.

In these instances the theory goes that the job creators would have to raise wages in order to attract workers who were legal to hire. When this has happened in the past, do these businesses just decide to fail? Or do they just move their business somewhere people are willing to work for next to nothing?

A lot of them have no choice but to fail. Consumers will not pay the price that comes with the increased cost of production.  Also, the story I'm talking about is on farms where people simply aren't willing to do like 10 hours worth of labor to harvest.  It's not an issue of a fair wage.
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: Yard Dog on August 18, 2017, 08:55:03 AM
The "skills we need" include a lot of manual labor.  We depend on cheap labor to make food and other products cheap for consumers.  There are instances in the U.S. where a crackdown on illegal immigration was pretty devastating to the local economy because it resulted in a bunch of vacant jobs nobody was willing to take.

In these instances the theory goes that the job creators would have to raise wages in order to attract workers who were legal to hire. When this has happened in the past, do these businesses just decide to fail? Or do they just move their business somewhere people are willing to work for next to nothing?

A lot of them have no choice but to fail. Consumers will not pay the price that comes with the increased cost of production.  Also, the story I'm talking about is on farms where people simply aren't willing to do like 10 hours worth of labor to harvest.  It's not an issue of a fair wage.

I guess in rural areas the pool for needed workers is too low? I think we would be surprised what a consumer would pay, but in this instance I would assume the cost wouldn't go up by a few cents but by 10 dollars or more?

I know it would be impossible to enforce, but if the welfare system could determine who truly needed it (mentally and physically disabled/too old for physically labor) they could also identify their able bodied / willing to work recipients. Then if a job existed in the area that would pay more than welfare they would actively try to train their able bodied welfare recipients to take and succeed at those jobs.

For example, Jim Smith lost his job at a factory that could no longer operate due to the rising wage vs access to workers. Jim goes to the welfare office and requests support. The welfare office cuts him a check and also gives him a list of jobs available from employers willing to pay more than he would receive from welfare. Jim chooses one that sounds good to him and continues to receive welfare as he trains for the job and until he receives his first check from the job.

This has to be cheaper in the long run for the government requiring less funding (and in turn less taxes) and helps to fill a job/employ a citizen allowing for positive growth in the community. It also offers a solution to replacing immigrant labor. If we think everyone deserves a living wage, how can we in the same breath say. . .oh well, except for immigrant workers. Or are we saying that immigrant workers need less money to live?
Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: chum1 on October 04, 2017, 06:54:55 PM
Quote
A heavily redacted cache of emails, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by students at Vanderbilt University Law School and published exclusively by The Intercept, reveals how in the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency, ICE agents in Austin scrambled — and largely failed — to engineer a narrative that would substantiate the administration’s claims that the raids were motivated by public safety concerns. Instead, the emails detail the evolution of ICE’s public statements once it became obvious that the Trump administration’s narrative was not true.

Title: Re: So immigration...
Post by: renocat on December 22, 2017, 01:57:07 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/22/dhs-readies-plan-to-divide-detain-migrants-in-families/amp/
Hot hunching rabbits, chain immigration in reverse.  Ol Trump don't give a rat's ass about the squeals coming from bleeding heart lefty dogooders.