Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (1 Viewer)

[HellToupee]

Hearing the earned income tax credit might be a gravy boat for the " newly documented"

 

[ericttspikes]

so why didn't Boehner put Senate immigration bill to a vote?

 

[Rich Conway]

so why didn't Boehner put Senate immigration bill to a vote?

Lose/lose situation? It was a crap bill, so it would be bad if it passed. The GOP would get skewered in the press if it got voted down, so it would be bad if it failed. Best bet in that situation was to not vote at all.

 

[Loan Sharks]

I also want to add for the sake of clarity: just as Walking Boot stated that even if he were convinced that illegals were a net benefit he still couldn't get past their illegality, I need to state that for me even if I were convinced that illegals were a net drain I would still be for them coming here. To me it goes much much deeper than economics; it's a question of what this nation is all about. The so called crime of crossing the border without papers is IMO not really a crime at all given the nature of the United States and how we are different and better than any other country on Earth. These illegals have just as much right to be here as me, as all of you, as anyone living in the world. To be an American means to welcome everyone in. The economics are secondary.

I thought this country was all about slavery? or are you saying times have changed?

You are right though we welcomed all the slaves in, and the Japanese in to internment camps. Not so much the Indians though.

 

[Rich Conway]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam. One issue I don’t want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

Do you have a link for this too, particularly as compared to citizens in the same economic class?

 

[tommyboy]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam. One issue I don’t want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

the Democrats don't care. They think this is "winning"

 

[timschochet]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam. One issue I dont want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesnt it?

Wait is this Sarnoff?

 

[Loan Sharks]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam. One issue I don’t want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

Do you have a link for this too, particularly as compared to citizens in the same economic class?

Do you need the link to google maps? Or can you find Huntington Park on your own.

 

[Sabertooth]

so why didn't Boehner put Senate immigration bill to a vote?

Lose/lose situation? It was a crap bill, so it would be bad if it passed. The GOP would get skewered in the press if it got voted down, so it would be bad if it failed. Best bet in that situation was to not vote at all.

Hasn't this been their MO for like 10 years? Do nothing and whine?

 

[CBusAlex]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam. One issue I don’t want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

Plus, I heard their menstruation attracts bears.

 

[Loan Sharks]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam. One issue I don’t want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

Plus, I heard their menstruation attracts bears.

Quit tryin to dehumanize hispanics racist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/women-period-attract-bears_n_1776474.html

 

[Rich Conway]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam. One issue I don’t want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

Do you have a link for this too, particularly as compared to citizens in the same economic class?

Do you need the link to google maps? Or can you find Huntington Park on your own.

I imagine I can find Huntington Park. I was asking for a link supporting the bolded statement in statistical form (i.e. not a single occurrence, but actual data showing that such behavior is more prevalent among illegals than among citizens or legal immigrants of the same economic class). But you knew that.

 

[jon_mx]

Hearing the earned income tax credit might be a gravy boat for the " newly documented"

Absolutely. The bottom 25% has an effective tax rate which is negative (they get more in tax refunds than all they paid in including SS tax). On top of that, we will then be on the hook to pay them social security benefits when they retire. It is a huge windfall for them to be drawn into the tax system.

 

[Loan Sharks]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam. One issue I don’t want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

Do you have a link for this too, particularly as compared to citizens in the same economic class?

Do you need the link to google maps? Or can you find Huntington Park on your own.

I imagine I can find Huntington Park. I was asking for a link supporting the bolded statement in statistical form (i.e. not a single occurrence, but actual data showing that such behavior is more prevalent among illegals than among citizens or legal immigrants of the same economic class). But you knew that.

Rest assured that once you've been to Huntington Park it is not a single occurrence, but you knew that.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English.

the Democrats don't care. They think this is "winning" racist as ####.

 

[SacramentoBob]

12 pages and not one joke about the title spelling?

 

[SacramentoBob]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam.

The horror.

 

[Loan Sharks]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam.

The horror.

I agree it's pretty bad, and now we are going to allow more people in to make their overcrowding situation worse rather than help these folks.

 

[timschochet]

Huntington Park is one of the most vibrant communities in all of Southern California. It is largely Hispanic, and there is much retail on its main avenue, Pacific. I spend a LOT of time leasing there: I'm currently working on opening up a Denny's there and I may be involved in buying a small commercial building there. In the past I've helped open up a Papa John's Pizza, two foot massage stores, and a cash for gold store. I'm very well acquainted with the area, and with Cudahy, Bell, and Bell Gardens on its borders.

Just about everything Walking Boot wrote is either outright a falsehood or based on bigoted stereotypes. Most of the stores on Pacific Avenue have both Spanish and English titles. Many are just English. You can't walk 3 feet, much less drive for miles, without seeing a sign in English. All the billboards are in English. Second, the whole 20 to an apartment thing is mostly an urban myth. Finally, the use of the word "they" indicates that, at least in Walking Boots' mind, there is no difference between the legal Latino Americsns who comprise most of Huntington Park's population, and the minority of illegals. To Boot, "they" are apparently all the same.

 

[ericttspikes]

so why didn't Boehner put Senate immigration bill to a vote?

Lose/lose situation? It was a crap bill, so it would be bad if it passed. The GOP would get skewered in the press if it got voted down, so it would be bad if it failed. Best bet in that situation was to not vote at all.

Everything I read is that it would of passed with bi-partisan support. Isn't that what he's talking about needing now; bi-partisan support? Lindsey Graham sponsored the thing in the senate. Seems like the solution has been on Boehners desk for a while now.

 

[CBusAlex]

Condoleezza Rice, sounds like a Mexican dish. Maybe we should put her on a plate and send her to Mexico so the Mexicans will eat her. White Power!

 

[Loan Sharks]

You are so full of crap. NONE of the hookers on Pacific speak english.

I have literally been in hundreds of hispanic homes in Huntington Park and you like usual are a flat out liar.

 

[timschochet]

You are so full of crap. NONE of the hookers on Pacific speak english.

I have literally been in hundreds of hispanic homes in Huntington Park and you like usual are a flat out liar.

oh Ok. Well I admit I don't spend a lot of time talking to the hookers. My bad!

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Mitch McConnell pointed out when Obama won in 2008 that working with him to pass bipartisan legislation would do nothing except help Obama, and hurt Republicans. So, exactly as he said he would do, Mitch McConnell made sure that there was no bipartisan legislation passed by the Senate for six years.

McConnell was right. It was a brilliant strategy, Obama played right into his hands by continuing to 'negotiate' for so long, and Republicans actually managed to keep most of the Senate together for six years. McConnell won, Obama lost.

So, having just swept the midterms and with everyone's eyes on 2016, Republicans aren't going to start passing bipartisan legislation now.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why do Republican KooKs hate brown people?

 

[timschochet]

Why do Republican KooKs hate brown people?

they seem to like the prostitutes.

 

[Loan Sharks]

You are so full of crap. NONE of the hookers on Pacific speak english.

I have literally been in hundreds of hispanic homes in Huntington Park and you like usual are a flat out liar.

oh Ok. Well I admit I don't spend a lot of time talking to the hookers. My bad!

Talking to the hookers is a perk when conducting a fraud investigation. The ones I met were actually pretty cool once they knew I wasn't a cop or John.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Why do Republican KooKs hate brown people?

they seem to like the prostitutes.

Hey you are the guy cruising Pacific for non business purposes.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

You are so full of crap. NONE of the hookers on Pacific speak english.

I have literally been in hundreds of hispanic homes in Huntington Park and you like usual are a flat out liar.

oh Ok. Well I admit I don't spend a lot of time talking to the hookers. My

bad!

Thankfully your are focused on making a profit by facilitating the opening of stores such as cash for gold and early pay check cashing which totally enhance the already vibrant community.

 

[urbanhack]

You are so full of crap. NONE of the hookers on Pacific speak english.

I have literally been in hundreds of hispanic homes in Huntington Park and you like usual are a flat out liar.

Friend of the community?

 

[Loan Sharks]

You are so full of crap. NONE of the hookers on Pacific speak english.

I have literally been in hundreds of hispanic homes in Huntington Park and you like usual are a flat out liar.

Friend of the community?

Eh business. I was a insurance adjuster, then fraud investigator in Los Angeles for 15 years for a Insurance carrier whose largest demographic was hispanics. I took in person statements, depositions and examinations under oath on every claim.

Tim once again doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

I would be happy to give my opinions on this if anyone cares. But its Friday afternoon so I imagine most people are fishing at this point.

 

[Apple Jack]

This country was founded by slaveowners responsible for acts of genocide and then "grown" by the robber barons. This "law" thing you're hung up on is comical.

 

[Fennis]

so why didn't Boehner put Senate immigration bill to a vote?

Since the mid 90s, the House, with very few exceptions, has required a majority of the majority party to support a bill for it to be brought up for a vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

 

[timschochet]

You are so full of crap. NONE of the hookers on Pacific speak english.

I have literally been in hundreds of hispanic homes in Huntington Park and you like usual are a flat out liar.

Friend of the community?

Eh business. I was a insurance adjuster, then fraud investigator in Los Angeles for 15 years for a Insurance carrier whose largest demographic was hispanics. I took in person statements, depositions and examinations under oath on every claim. Tim once again doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

I would be happy to give my opinions on this if anyone cares. But its Friday afternoon so I imagine most people are fishing at this point.

i believe you, Loan Sharks. You've obviously spent time there. But please don't tell me that you believe Boots' generalizations about 20 to a room and drive for miles with no signs in English. Because you know that's not true.

 

[ericttspikes]

so why didn't Boehner put Senate immigration bill to a vote?

Since the mid 90s, the House, with very few exceptions, has required a majority of the majority party to support a bill for it to be brought up for a vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

Thanks. And people actually wonder why nothing gets done in Congress?

 

[tommyboy]

This what Dems are cheering:

he Department of Homeland Security has just released new "Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants." Designed to fill in the details after President Obama's announcement that at least four million currently illegal immigrants will be given work permits, Social Security numbers and protection from deportation, the DHS guidelines are instructions for the nation's immigration and border security officers as they administer the president's directive.

The new priorities are striking. On the tough side, the president wants U.S. immigration authorities to go after terrorists, felons, and new illegal border crossers. On the not-so-tough side, the administration views convicted drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders as second-level enforcement priorities. An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/after-obama-action-dhs-sets-new-immigration-rules-drunk-drivers-sex-abusers-drug-dealers-gun-offenders-not-top-deportation-priorities/article/2556517

 

[Koya]

They rent apartments and twenty of them will live in one room. They dominate certain parts of Los Angeles like Huntington Park, where you can drive for miles and not see a sign in English. I could go on ad nauseam. One issue I don’t want to leave out is that the porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

I won't bother delving into the (very apparent) undertones at play here. Have to deal with that enough with small minded locals that think along these lines. To the issues:

1. What is wrong with renting apartments? Seriously. Not to mention, didn't the Germans, Italians, Jews, Irish (I could keep going) "rent apartments" - as if that is in any way a bad thing.

2. Living in one room? If localities actually enforced their laws (zoning, public safety etc) this wouldn't be an issue, so you are talking to the wrong audience. And hey, didnt those Germans, Italians... you get my point. Not that overcrowding should be allowed, but let's not lose site of the historical realities and benefits our parents, grand and great grandparents have provided to us while some look to deny others of giving their children the American dream. Sometimes it just feels freakin' selfish.

3. WTF is wrong with Huntington Park? And do you come here to rail against areas with Korean or Chinese and not English? And for that matter, do you not realize that free speech also means no gov't sanctioned language? Or are you one of those "big government" people who want gov't to limit freedoms and infringe on perhaps our most essential right?

4. Shut up. No, seriously. No need for a freakin' non sequitor here. For two reasons. For one, immigration over the boarders has SLOWED (if this is no longer the case, please let me know but that's what I read, last). Second, stop it - the issue being discussed here is not security... if you believe your case has merit, don't insult us by distraction and other issues.

 

[Koya]

It's almost as if some don't recognize the real history of immigration here in the U.S. because now many speak the same foreign language. Working in some majority-minority communities, I've really learned a lot about this over the last 10 years... back in the day, those Italians spoke italian, the Germans, German, the Jews, Yiddish... etc. They could remain in their small community with native tongue, and often the oldest generation would do just that. However, for an Italian to talk to a German, they HAD to take on English sooner rather than later.

Today, you could be from Mexico, El Savador, Chile, and you can all speak Spanish. Not really different than in past eras, but there is an additional grander world made up of various immigrant cultures that can go from native tongue to English over a longer transition because it's such a wider audience within that native tongue.

Just a thought / observation.

 

[Koya]

If you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Plenty of times law's evolve and in many other instances amnesty is granted for laws broken.

More importantly, this is at least SOMEthing of a legitimate objection. Not that they are Spanish speaking squatters who flaunt their lack of English who are taking over some of our neighborhoods while opening our nation to more terrorism utter BS.

 

[jamny]

so why didn't Boehner put Senate immigration bill to a vote?

Since the mid 90s, the House, with very few exceptions, has required a majority of the majority party to support a bill for it to be brought up for a vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

Thanks for that.

In December 2012 Boehner told his caucus in a conference call "I’m not interested in passing something with mostly Democrat votes" and that did not have the support of the majority of the Republican caucus.[15][16] Nonetheless, Boehner allowed a vote on January 1, 2013 on the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (also known as the "fiscal cliff bill") with only 85 out of 241 Republicans in favor (a support level of only 35%) and the bill passed with the support of 90% of Democrats (172 out of 191).[17][18] The bill's passage marked the first time in more than ten years that a measure passed a Republican-controlled House when opposed by a majority of House Republicans.[19] In response, former House Speaker Hastert criticized Boehner for not adhering to the "majority of the majority" governing principle by saying, "Maybe you can do it once, maybe you can do it twice, but when you start making deals when you have to get Democrats to pass the legislation, you are not in power anymore."[20][21]

 

[Loan Sharks]

You are so full of crap. NONE of the hookers on Pacific speak english.

I have literally been in hundreds of hispanic homes in Huntington Park and you like usual are a flat out liar.

Friend of the community?

Eh business. I was a insurance adjuster, then fraud investigator in Los Angeles for 15 years for a Insurance carrier whose largest demographic was hispanics. I took in person statements, depositions and examinations under oath on every claim. Tim once again doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

I would be happy to give my opinions on this if anyone cares. But its Friday afternoon so I imagine most people are fishing at this point.

i believe you, Loan Sharks. You've obviously spent time there. But please don't tell me that you believe Boots' generalizations about 20 to a room and drive for miles with no signs in English. Because you know that's not true.

No of course not but they exist a LOT more than you are willing to admit. And Huntington Park as far as vibrant goes, come on.

There are a lot of things you don't understand about the hispanic community, and inner city communities. I bet you think I am a giant republican racist as well.

I have been in them and still don't get it. What you are not getting is, how many people can you pack into Huntington Park? Personally I already consider the families of citizens and non citizens as Americans, they aren't going anywhere, more illegals or legals for that matter are going to take jobs from Americans, the American immigrants that are already here.

Lefties like to say that immigrants don't take jobs from Americans, what they are saying is whitey. Immigrants most definitely strain labor market on the Americans (hispanics) that are already here who ARE doing the jobs the quote unquote americans don't want to do.

 

[ericttspikes]

so why didn't Boehner put Senate immigration bill to a vote?

Since the mid 90s, the House, with very few exceptions, has required a majority of the majority party to support a bill for it to be brought up for a vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

Thanks for that.

In December 2012 Boehner told his caucus in a conference call "I’m not interested in passing something with mostly Democrat votes" and that did not have the support of the majority of the Republican caucus.[15][16] Nonetheless, Boehner allowed a vote on January 1, 2013 on the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (also known as the "fiscal cliff bill") with only 85 out of 241 Republicans in favor (a support level of only 35%) and the bill passed with the support of 90% of Democrats (172 out of 191).[17][18] The bill's passage marked the first time in more than ten years that a measure passed a Republican-controlled House when opposed by a majority of House Republicans.[19] In response, former House Speaker Hastert criticized Boehner for not adhering to the "majority of the majority" governing principle by saying, "Maybe you can do it once, maybe you can do it twice, but when you start making deals when you have to get Democrats to pass the legislation, you are not in power anymore."[20][21]

So basically "bi-partisan" is lip service.

 

[timschochet]

You are so full of crap. NONE of the hookers on Pacific speak english.

I have literally been in hundreds of hispanic homes in Huntington Park and you like usual are a flat out liar.

Friend of the community?

Eh business. I was a insurance adjuster, then fraud investigator in Los Angeles for 15 years for a Insurance carrier whose largest demographic was hispanics. I took in person statements, depositions and examinations under oath on every claim. Tim once again doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

I would be happy to give my opinions on this if anyone cares. But its Friday afternoon so I imagine most people are fishing at this point.

i believe you, Loan Sharks. You've obviously spent time there. But please don't tell me that you believe Boots' generalizations about 20 to a room and drive for miles with no signs in English. Because you know that's not true.

No of course not but they exist a LOT more than you are willing to admit. And Huntington Park as far as vibrant goes, come on.

There are a lot of things you don't understand about the hispanic community, and inner city communities. I bet you think I am a giant republican racist as well.

I have been in them and still don't get it. What you are not getting is, how many people can you pack into Huntington Park? Personally I already consider the families of citizens and non citizens as Americans, they aren't going anywhere, more illegals or legals for that matter are going to take jobs from Americans, the American immigrants that are already here.

Lefties like to say that immigrants don't take jobs from Americans, what they are saying is whitey. Immigrants most definitely strain labor market on the Americans (hispanics) that are already here who ARE doing the jobs the quote unquote americans don't want to do.

i don't think you're a racist at all. I also don't think Walking Boot is a racist though he subscribes, unfortunately, to some racist stereotypes- but most people do to some degree, including myself. You make a lot of interesting points and I respect your views.

 

[timschochet]

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. But I put a little different emphasis on these ideas: simply put, I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history. I have a strong sense of what is right and wrong, and this was given to me by Tims Lord and mine some four thousand years ago on Mount Sinai. I hold murder to be immoral. I hold rape to be immoral. I hold stealing to be immoral. These are absolutes that I think and hope even Tim would agree with, and in order to live in a civilized society, we must have law and order to prevent these crimes from happening. As you said, in discussing the law that makes these people illegal, maybe we should change the law. Well, thats your right to have that opinion. I dont agree with it, but perhaps you can convince enough people to change the laws and allow open borders between us and Mexico. But until you can get the law changed, it is what it is, and people have no right to break it. I say that if they do, theyre making a mockery of all of our laws.

you get a lot of things wrong here: 1. I'm not a liberal. My views on illegal immigration are based on a capitalist belief in free trade.

3, I do not believe in moral relativism. I absolutely believe in good and evil, right and wrong, but I am cautious as to where it should be applied . You seem to think it should be applied to the law, so you think like Javert. I hold it should be applied to morality, so I think like Valjean. To me it is quite simply wrong to deport parents who have children here. I don't need.a law to tell me that's OK. It never will be OK.

3. I don't believe in God.

 

[SacramentoBob]

If you outlaw immigration only outlaws will have immigration.

 

[Jim11]

To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. But I put a little different emphasis on these ideas: simply put, I would not want to live in a society where everything is subjective. The sort of moral relativism that Tim proposes led in the 20th Century to some of the worst regimes in history. I have a strong sense of what is right and wrong, and this was given to me by Tims Lord and mine some four thousand years ago on Mount Sinai. I hold murder to be immoral. I hold rape to be immoral. I hold stealing to be immoral. These are absolutes that I think and hope even Tim would agree with, and in order to live in a civilized society, we must have law and order to prevent these crimes from happening. As you said, in discussing the law that makes these people illegal, maybe we should change the law. Well, thats your right to have that opinion. I dont agree with it, but perhaps you can convince enough people to change the laws and allow open borders between us and Mexico. But until you can get the law changed, it is what it is, and people have no right to break it. I say that if they do, theyre making a mockery of all of our laws.

you get a lot of things wrong here:1. I'm not a liberal. My views on illegal immigration are based on a capitalist belief in free trade.

3, I do not believe in moral relativism. I absolutely believe in good and evil, right and wrong, but I am cautious as to where it should be applied . You seem to think it should be applied to the law, so you think like Javert. I hold it should be applied to morality, so I think like Valjean. To me it is quite simply wrong to deport parents who have children here. I don't need.a law to tell me that's OK. It never will be OK.

3. I don't believe in God.

I guess two outta three ain't bad. Number one is certainly false.

 

[Jim11]

And the fun begins. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-tech-workers-successfully-win-standing-to-sue-on-alleged-illegal-issuance-of-stem-related-work-authorization-283535001.html

In a case that could have implications for President Obama's "executive actions" on immigration, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that Washington Alliance of Technology Workers can challenge in court the legality of administrative extensions of work authorizations to non-immigrants increasing competition for American workers.

 

[jonessed]

This country was founded by slaveowners responsible for acts of genocide and then "grown" by the robber barons. This "law" thing you're hung up on is comical.

 

[fatness]

Just so I have this straight, is there such a thing as amnesty that would be constitutional?

Of course. Nobody is challenging that. Republicans are challenging the ability of the President to take the actions he is doing by executive order instead of working with Congress.

the issue is that Obama has usurped the power of Congress to make law, by using Executive power to legalize 5M immigrants. IN this case it was because of Congressional "INACTION"

which is your precedent.

previous Presidents have made executive decree's to resolve Congressional "ACTION", ie to tweak unintended results of laws Congress passed.

so assuming you keep this new power to make law via the Executive, then all future Presidents can use this new power to make law and then claim it was due to Congressional "inaction".

if Fatness is correct in his posts then your assertion is false. Reagan did not issue an order to correct unintended consequences; the consequences were deliberate and fully intended, and Reagan issued an order to reverse it. So he is the one who set the precedent not Obama.

not false:

it left President Reagan with a moral dilemma. Congress’ amnesty was large—just shy of 3 million people—and it had the unanticipated effect of splitting up freshly-legalized parents from their illegally-present minor children who did not qualify for relief.

So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law.

Congress, though it had desired to grant amnesty, had not considered and not included the spouses and children. Importantly, nor had it excluded them. So Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 filled that statutory gap. “What do we do with spouses and children?” INS asked. “Well,” the executive branch leaders said, “defer their deportation. Decline to exercise your lawful authority for the particular cases that are related to those Congress has offered amnesty.”

at the bolded. Nice verbal fellation by the Federalist. "Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace".

The part about the unanticipated "family unity" problem is just false. http://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7254361/family-fairness-immigration

when the Senate Judiciary Committee sent the Reagan bill to the full Senate, it wasn't vague at all — despite what Schumer claimed later. It made it clear that it didn't intend to legalize the families of IRCA beneficiaries. Here's what the Judiciary Committee report said (as quoted, in full, in a court case from 1988, in which an IRCA applicant's spouse was denied relief):

It is the intent of the Committee that the families of legalized aliens will obtain no special petitioning right by virtue of the legalization. They will be required to "wait in line" in the same manner as immediate family members of other new resident aliens.

The executive actions that Reagan and Bush took didn't let anyone jump the line — they just allowed them to stay in the US until they could actually get in line for legal status. But it's worth noting that the people Reagan and Bush protected had specifically been left out.

In July 1989, the Senate passed an Immigration Act which would have given legal status to the children and spouses of IRCA beneficiaries (while doing a bunch of other things as well). But the bill languished in the House for several months.

When President Bush decided to expand the Family Fairness program to its 1.5-million immigrant size in February 1990, he was acting to protect people who would have gotten legal status in a bill that had passed the Senate but not the House. And both chambers, at the time, were controlled by the president's opposing party: the Democrats.

Technically, that's the situation Obama is in right now — he's giving protections from deportation to a fraction of the people who could have gotten legalized under the bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate last year. That bill never got taken up in the House, which, like the House in 1990, is controlled by the opposite party to the White House.

The difference is that Bush took action while there was still time left for the House to take up the bill — and the House wasn't wildly opposed to doing so. This time around, there's little hope that House Republicans will pass an immigration bill, much less one that can be reconciled with the Senate, and Republicans in both chambers are reacting to Obama's proposed action with fury.

The red part is what's different this time around.

 

[squistion]

1. I'm not a liberal. My views on illegal immigration are based on a capitalist belief in free trade.

I guess two outta three ain't bad. Number one is certainly false.

Puleeze! Tim is not a liberal. I can't think of any prominent progressive or liberal political figure who is calling for open borders, like Tim. Neither I, nor any liberal I know is in favor of that as it would lead to anarchy and chaos. And what kind of liberal thinks the minimum wage should be abolished?

I am not sure how to label Tim, but none of the progressives/liberals here consider him one of us, even though we do occasionally agree on some issues.