Thought this http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/19/usa-today-capital-download-with-tom-coburn/19263969/ was kind of an interesting link. Is this the new America? Everyone threatens to commit violence if they don't get an outcome they believe is correct?
Of course when there is no rule of law one can only expect lawlessness. Just because the president disagrees with congress, who’s absolute right it is to set immigration policy, gives him no right to ignore those laws. Some people have equated this presidential action with Lincoln’s Fort Sumter. Lincoln couldn’t start the civil war so he goaded and provoked the south until they did. Both Lincoln and this president in large ways, vacated their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States but at least Lincoln has some defensible moral ground to stand on….
ReplyDeleteLiberals who have backed his defiant policy did so because… purportedly… the obstructionist house was only in place because of gerrymandering. That premise ended the day after mid terms. The truth is that liberals are losing the argument among Americans in general and blacks in specific and the only way to remain relevant is to become heroes to people who have no right to be in this country. Believe me, when blacks start shooting because of the absolute shitstirring of prominent liberals, perhaps your ‘I voted for Obama’ pin will save you… but I doubt it. But then again, the self loathing of most liberal whites would dictate that they got what they deserved.
Your views on Lincoln are quite curious. I'm sure that the wealthy business owners in the North who didn't have slave labor had nothing to do with his decision. I think it's a little silly for anyone to be equating this Lincoln.
DeleteI watched the speech and was underwhelmed. I understand that for some, who see the world in the sharpest of black and white colors, what Obama said is a mind stunting outrage. You asked me on several threads back what I think should be done and I answered, and you left it at that. The only point I can really understand in what you are saying here (and gotta below) is that Obama has openly said he is going to pick and choose who to deport.
This has nothing to do with gerrymandering TS. The senate passed a bill with bipartisan support, the country STILL wants something done, and Boehnor refused to let the bill come up for a vote because, by all accounts, it would have passed with bipartisan support and Boehnor was not going to let that happen before an election. In a black in white, lawyer like way, you have your point TS. You aren't wrong that Obama is not following the letter of the law. However, neither are you acknowledging reality of where the country stands on this issue. Americans WANT reform, even Republicans. Understandably, there is a segment of America who is so incensed and out of their freaking minds on this issue that they are willing to spend a gazilliionbilltionshitrillion dollars on building a wall and putting freaking lasers on fish in the Rio Grande to keep out the Mexicans and equally willing to spend the same amount to roll through America with post Boston bombing like efforts to blockade cities and demand papers from everyone until they have rounded up every last illegal Mexican and sent them home or blown their head off. This is a ridiculous desire.
Something else, in our ridiculous, hyperpolarized state, there is a small segment of America who is convinced that they have a metaphysical link to the spirits of the founding fathers and they are convinced the founding fathers are rolling in their graves with contempt and what the country has become. My disagreement is cemented in a belief that we get to decide for ourselves what we want the country to look like. Presently, we've had these stupid f'n cock fights between the leadership of the houses with a result that nothing at all is getting done. I see nothing defensible in that. We could have had something passed on immigration a long time ago. Boehnor does not have any special plan on this. He simply refused to let the bill from the senate go through the house because of polilitical reasons. Namely he didn't want to be seen as an appeaser. I see nothing glorious in Obama's plan. Maybe Boehnor and McConnell will now act like adults and pass something. I guarantee TS, you will not be happy with the outcome when it finally does come despite the fact it will be passed with almost no input from Democrats
DeleteAmerican want reform however they want the border closed first.
Deletehttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/24/cnn-poll-border-crisis-impacting-public-opinion-on-immigration/
A poll from 2010
A further challenge for Democrats is that public disapproval over how President Obama is dealing with immigration has edged higher, with 51 percent of all respondents -- and 56 percent of political independents -- giving him negative ratings on the issue. 67 percent of those who see inadequate federal action on the border favor the new law, compared with 31 percent of those who see sufficient enforcement along the 1,954-mile frontier.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/06/17/ST2010061700014.html?sid=ST2010061700014
With over 11 million in the country, he chooses virtually no one to deport. Curious isn't it.
As to the house, passing something would then send the bill to reconciliation. Something would come out not intended to come out. How is that what the people want? Gerrymandering? That has been the excuse of the last year when people do not like the results.
Why do we need another 3000 page bill where you have to pass it to find out what's inside. How about a number of simple laws, a page or 2, start with border enforcement, when that is complete move to the next. Why is a law broken when the executive branch past and present refuses to enforce it?
Something the Senate bill didn't do.
LOL… It has everything to do with gerrymandering Max. Were it not for the unscrupulous republicans, the House would be as true blue as the Senate is… er.. was… and Boehnor would not have been in any position to use his position to block the vote. To your contention that Boehnor was afraid to bring it to a vote because it would pass… I give you the democratic option of forcing the vote called a discharge petition which they did not use because they did not have the vote.
DeleteLook, Boehnor and indeed most republicans have been clear since the 1986 amnesty that security and enforcement where and are their number one priority. It was not taken seriously at all until 2006 but Bush sr., Clinton(4 times) and Bush jr. all broadened the exceptions which helped lead to the problem we have today. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act showed its flaws when thousands of children showed up at our boarder either with direct support of this administration or by chance that traffickers just happened to be watching C-Span when it was reauthorized(after a two year lapse) as a rider on the Violence Against Women Act. Boehnor addressed this problem directly with Obama but Obama made no mention of a fix when he asked congress for border security money. Democrats of course are against any changes to it.
You are correct… the American people want action on this issue but the vast majority want the action on the security and enforcement side of the issue while it is clear that the presidents open border views are focused on changing both the character and completion of this country. This bill does exactly what the last one did… amnesty immediately with enforcement mechanisms to be developed for deployment in some four years. This isn’t just an issue for Obama. Bush attempted to build similar legislation in cooperation with democrats. As it turns out no one liked it because for republicans the enforcement was the issue while predictably democrats were unhappy that it only effected immediate family members rather than aunts, uncles cousins and 2nd cousins twice removed.
“In a black and white, lawyer like way, you have your point TS.. You aren’t wrong that Obama is not following the letter of the law” In a lawyer like way? I think that immigration law on the books is fairly clear and I don’t think that even in a layman like way he is enforcing immigration law any more than he is enforcing federal drug laws. I think that the drug laws are insane but rather than showing us by example that laws you don’t like mean nothing, laws he vowed to enforce, he should be leading the discussion to change the law… and I damn well haven’t heard him make a strong case for national sovereignty. Yes, Americans want reform…. But that doesn’t mean they want millions of illegals who knowingly bypassed our legal entry processes or anchor babies that will continue to create this problem in the future given that you clearly believe that securing our border is an impossible task.
To your comment about the founding fathers… No, I have no clairvoyance as to how they might see America today but I am pretty certain that they would be appalled by the liberties taken to create the way America looks given that they were damn clear about the process required to change the basic law of the land when we, in sufficient numbers, what to change the way the country looks. It was made difficult for a reason.
Lost in the hoopla of President Obama’s enormous administrative amnesty affecting mostly Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants is that he also implemented a special protective order allowing people from Ebola nations to stay in the United States.
DeleteIt’s amnesty on steroids! The special Ebola reprieve was issued separately—and quietly—via a Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a humanitarian program that’s supposed to be short-term. Instead, we’ve seen the provisional benefit grow into a continual U.S. residency plan for illegal aliens under both Republican and Democratic presidents. Besides those who have entered the U.S. illegally, TPS has also helped foreigners who have overstayed their visa permanently evade deportation. That makes the phrase “temporary” deceiving and somewhat of a joke.
It also means that we might as well add the African Ebola folks to the official amnesty bandwagon. For now, the administration is designating Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone for TPS for 18 months. That’s how it always starts—for a short period of time then it grows into years. Before you know it, illegal aliens who benefitted from TPS for humanitarian reasons are legal residents enjoying all the generous perks—free education, food stamps, medical care etc.—that Uncle Sam has to offer.
This scenario has been repeated over the years. In fact, just a few weeks ago the administration extended TPS for tens of thousands of Hondurans and Nicaraguans. The order was originally issued more than a decade and a half ago after a hurricane (Mitch) hit the Central American countries and has been renewed over and over again, illustrating that there’s nothing temporary about these reprieves. “There continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in Honduras (replace the word with Nicaragua) resulting from Hurricane Mitch, and Honduras remains unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals,” according to the government announcement posted to the federal register in mid-October.
Another recent example is the TPS the Obama administration gave to nearly 50,000 Haitians after the 2010 earthquake. In mid-2011 the president’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, renewed it through 2013 and when that temporary order expired the Haitian TPS got extended yet again until the end of January 2016. “The Secretary has determined that an extension is warranted because the conditions in Haiti that prompted the TPS designation continue to be met,” according to the latest extension announcement. “There continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in Haiti based upon extraordinary and temporary conditions in that country that prevent Haitians who have TPS from safely returning.”
This week’s TPS du jour was issued “due to the outbreak of Ebola virus disease in West Africa” and officially takes effect today, according to the government’s announcement. Besides nationals of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, it also covers “people without nationality who last habitually resided in one of those three countries,” the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) document states. Not only will these folks not be removed from the United States, the agency assures, they are authorized to work in this country like all other illegal immigrants benefiting from TPS.
Obama has gone completely rogue at this point, nothing short of a tyrant. He took an oath to defend the Constitution and uphold U.S. law the took a massive shit on everything the President is supposed to stand for. He should be tried for treason.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive-orders-2014-11
Deleteyeah Mick, but they reluctantly did it. Obama does it simply because he likes wiping his feet with the constitution. No matter what the scenario is, it's always different when Obama does what other presidents have.
DeleteApparently amnesty without sealing the border didn't work out so well as here we are again only times 2 or 3 or 4.
DeleteWhy is it these people get a free pass and the rest of the world waiting in line doing it by the rules wait 10 years or more. It's estimated 40 million people are legal immigrants, how much of the US population should be new citizens?
Mick… While executive orders are certainly a point of contention within the actual powers of the executive and while they have been used administratively in one form or another since Washington it is only in recent history that they actually pretend to have the lawful ability to write law. While I have great problems with the way the 1986 amnesty was executed, each and every executive order actually dealt with the law passed by congress. Some of them similar in effect to what Obama has done is quite rightly true but all of the executive orders extending the 1986 law increased ‘legal’ provisions by about 1.5 million. That of course was supposed to be in tandem with the enforcement provisions that never seemed to materialize, particularly with Clinton. Obama’s executive order by contrast creates new law where none existed. This is a huge departure from all previous executive orders with the exception of Lincoln or exemptions condoned under various war time situations. This is a big deal. Not only for the deliberate attempt to force the change of character on this country’s citizens but more so the massive shift in power from the checks and balances that are meant to keep this country from caesarism government.
DeleteComparatively, Obama still lags behind both Bushes and Reagan in executive orders.
DeleteDeportations under Obama have been higher than they were under Bush
We have spent billions starting under Bush and continuing under Obama to seal our border. I believe personally that at some point, we've spent enough billions to prevent Mexicans from coming and taking jobs Americans don't want.
Again, the point is not lost on me that nothing short of rigid attention to the letter of the law means Obama is not following the law. Like everything else in life, those who are twisted about this are not going to get a rigid letter of the law solution. In my opinion, the Mexicans would not come here if they were not employed by businesses. Never, in my lifetime, have I seen a demand from Republicans or Democrats that we should ruthlessly crack down on businesses who employ them, which is as I have said before, it's like dropping bombs on south America for sending cocaine here to feed our addiction or bombing the middle east because they threaten to obstruct the flow of our oil. Republicans are just as willing to grant amnesty because of this reality.
Obama deportations, ROTFLMAO.
Delete"In FY2013, out of more than 12 million illegal immigrants in our country, and 368,644 alleged deportations/removals, ONLY 133,551 illegals were deported/removed from the interior of our country. That is a 10% drop from 2012, and equal to deportation levels of the 1970's.
The other 235,093, so-called deportations/removals, were border turnarounds. Until Obama, border-turnarounds have never been counted as deportations, nor should they be.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.
The administration has argued it is tougher on illegal immigration than previous presidents, and immigrant-rights groups have excoriated President Obama, calling him the “deporter-in-chief” for having kicked out nearly 2 million immigrants during his five-year tenure.
Obama, the deporter in chief, a myth like hope and change.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/04/deportations-under-obama/
Deletehttp://www.cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations
Thought this was interesting reading. I'll concede the point Lou that perhaps the numbers are inflated by catching people at the border, but judging from the first article, it doesnt' look like there are really any solid numbers that clearly state the difference by president going back any further than 2008, although the second article seems to have some chart in the middle. I would still look at the increased number being caught at the border as a good thing and a sign that our border is not the open waiting line to free shit that so many are convinced it is. Many think otherwise.
Really doesn't matter what happened before as it cannot be changed unless you just want t make comparisons.
DeleteThe Immigration and Naturalization Service is proud to state that the increase in illegal alien traffic has been less than 275,000 a year. No, that is not the number of illegals crossing the border, that is the modest increase in the yearly number of illegals crossing the border.
In 1965, the number of illegal aliens apprehended by the US Border Patrol was 110,000. In fiscal year 1996 that number was 1,650,000. The number of apprehensions is not the number of people who entered the country illegally. The number apprehended is the number of illegal aliens the US Border Patrol actually caught. For every illegal alien caught, the US Border Patrol estimates that they miss four. The good news in this equation is that some of the illegal aliens the US Border Patrol catches are quickly deported only to quickly try again. Thus the real number of illegals actually being caught (subtracting the multiple attempts) might be as low as 1,200,000. Yes, the US Border Patrol may only be capturing a little over a million illegals a year. So instead of possibly 6.5 million illegals getting through the real number may only be 4.8 million.
There is a certain level of insanity to all of these numbers. Because, it seems, showing that large numbers of illegal aliens are entering the country may alarm the populace (especially today), and so the numbers are to be kept low. How are the numbers kept low? The US Border Patrol Agent in the field is tacitly encouraged NOT to apprehend illegals. Yes, just let them through. The logic is that if the statistics show a low apprehension rate then -- by multiplying by four -- the number of illegals entering the country must also be lower and thus the US Border Patrol is doing its job.
http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol901_7.htm
4 slipped through for everyone caught. Say it's a 2 to 1 ratio, still unacceptable at least to me. How many are to many Max? When do we reach the point where states can no longer support their social systems as the number of illegals continues to increase? Is that the final breaking point? I really don't think it's free shit but better living conditions, a bit higher pay. They do not track repeat offenders so some may be caught more than once. Which like the number of illegals in the country is unknown.
The question remains why should people from Mexico / S America get preferential treatment? Why should we relegate American citizens, our teens and minorities to no work to accommodate the illegals. You can say no one wants to pick fruit however we have no fruit in Denver and we have more than our fair share.
Not to mention were there as many illegals in the US in 2008? 2005? No one knows however we can assume we have more each year.
DeleteIn 2012, Representative Lamar Smith (R., Texas), then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, discovered that the Obama administration was counting a certain number of “returns” as “removals.” Immigrants apprehended at the border are often times referred to ICE and subsequently processed as a removal. This has the effect of artificially inflated the number of removals, or deportations, by at least 50,000 per year. It is also a reason why what the administration refers to as “border apprehensions” are near historic lows: People are in fact being apprehended at the border, but their cases are grouped as removals in the statistical record.
Smith said in a statement at the time, following a committee review of internal ICE documents:
Since 2011, the Obama administration has included in its year-end deportation statistics the numbers from a Border Patrol program that returns illegal immigrants to Mexico right after they cross the border. It is dishonest to count illegal immigrants apprehended by the Border Patrol along the border as ICE removals. And these “removals” from the Border Patrol program do not subject the illegal immigrant to any penalties or bars for returning to the U.S. This means a single illegal immigrant can show up at the border and be removed numerous times in a single year — and counted each time as a removal. When the numbers from this Border Patrol program are removed from this year’s deportation data, it shows that removals are actually down nearly 20 percent from 2009. Another 40,000 removals are also included in the final deportation count but it is unclear where these removals came from.
Immigration expert Jessica Vaughan made the same argument last year when she testified on behalf of ICE agents suing the Obama administration in federal court. Vaughan analyzed the administration’s enforcement statistics and found that the actual number of illegal-immigrant removals had dropped 40 percent since June 2011.
Chris Crane, president of the union representing more than 7,000 ICE agents and officers, has accused the Obama administration of “knowingly manipulating arrest and deportation data” to create a false impression of its enforcement record. “We just don’t see it in our offices,” “Every year we supposedly break the record for deportation, and we can’t figure out what’s going on. We don’t believe these numbers.”
Max, as I said previously, you can write 10,000 executive orders that manage the various departments that exist under the Executive in the execution of enforcing the laws that the president is duty bound to enforce… or you can write and execute 1 single executive order that upends the constitution, usurps the powers designated to congress and generally tells the American citizen to F..off. It ain’t the number… it’s the content. One Patriot Act cancelled out a whole lotta bill of rights..
DeleteYou know the old saying of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…. For the 20 years previous to 2006 prevention at all levels was ignored and we went ostensibly from near zero illegals after the 86 amnesty to … well, we really don’t have a clue how many…