MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
for Obama's immigration plan. Krugmann in his column today get's it right, as he usually does.
Surprising lack of comment here.
Comments
This is an unlawful diversionary action by Obama, and the Tea Party has an answer for him.
Chairman of the Supreme Presidium of the URPS Boehner has rightly pointed out that this is sabotage, a wrecking activity, destroying any chance for agreement with the revolutionary Central Committee of Union of Republican Prosperity Spreaders who hold an iron grip in Congress.
Comrade Coburn has warned Obama, this is counter teavolutionary, a terrorist act which can only lead to violence and anarchy.
by NCD on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 3:02pm
It seems that the Republicans want to go to court, impeach, whine, etc.
Of course they could just pass an immigration bill, but that would require that they do their jobs.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 3:08pm
Was the reason Obama didn't make this amnesty announcement before the election, was because more Democratic seats would have been lost?
Suggesting to me, Obama waited to shove this down the throats of the majority of the electorate, who does not favor amnesty.
People who wanted stricter border enforcement and the deportation of criminals who violated our immigration laws.
The Open borders crowd exploited/ took advantage of our compassion.
Why not send the good ship lollipop, to Bangladesh and bring back not 5 million but 5 billion more mouths to feed and care for, because our compassion knows no bounds,
Feed a strangers family while our own American families suffer and this salves the proponents of amnesty, conscience?
by Resistance on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 4:09pm
Americans support immigration reform and a path to legal citizenship. Those same Americans reject legal status for immigrants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/20/americans-stro...
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 4:39pm
Sure they do....... GET IN LINE like all the others who have sought citizenship the LEGAL WAY .
How dare, some think they are above the law and those who follow the law are the chumps for not entering illegally.
by Resistance on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 6:58pm
The point is that the responses are inconsistent.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 7:02pm
While there are some inconsistencies that you have been pointing out I don't think we know if this is one. Its just a poorly worded poll question that tells us almost nothing. Often poll questions don't tell us much without some background information about how individuals interpreted the question and why they gave their answer. Legal status isn't well defined so there are many ways one might interpret it and answer differently. Or some might think there should be a path to citizenship and therefore answer no to legal status. I'm someone who would likely answer that way.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 7:29pm
Please explain how a path to citizenship leads to an illegal status.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 8:19pm
It doesn't and I never claimed it did. Reread my comment and if you have a question that isn't incredibly stupid I'll be happy to answer it.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 8:33pm
No need to be insulting
I truly do not understand how a path to citizenship would not confer legal status.
I really don't find how one could be for one and not the other.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 9:41pm
My apologies, I thought you were being snarky. This illustrates my first point, legal status is not well defined and could be differently interpreted by individuals. Of course citizenship is a form of legal status. But I have never seen the term used that way in any article I've read on this subject. In context it always means some form of legality less than citizenship. It clearly states that in the article you linked, "The very same poll, though, also asked people whether they support legal status -- shy of citizenship -- for illegal immigrants." I and perhaps others see problems with most of the proposed paths to legal status shy of citizenship.
This may be similar to what happened with polls on Obamacare. Early polling showed a majority not supporting the law. Subsequent polling in greater depth showed that a significant minority of those no's were from the left who thought it didn't go far enough. They were resigned to it as the best that we could get out of this president, they didn't want it repealed, but they didn't support it.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 11:52pm
Receive your treasures in heaven, while the Capitalists get their treasure now?.
Krugman wrote “Today’s immigrant children are tomorrow’s workers, taxpayers and neighbors.
This is the objective of the Capitalists, they don’t care about todays unemployed workers, it is their objective, to pit the working class one against the other.
“Tomorrows workers” will fight for the same crumbs that fall from the Masters table; as does all of the other members of the North American Labor movement.
Should these “New workers of tomorrow” make too many demands upon industry or cry about economic disparity, tomorrow’s manufacturers and their capitalistic friends will see to it, that another 5 million more “workers of tomorrow” will receive amnesty also.
Of course, the Capitalists don’t care about the ethical treatment of the working class, or how many wounded, the bleeding heart liberals will feel compassion for.
That’s not the problem of the money changers, who only want to increase their purses and increase the amount of labor available, to be exploited.
Not ever allowing conditions to improve, for the benefit of the working class, who with a reduction in the amount of labor available might be able to extract concessions and narrow the gap of income inequality
5 million more illegals, will be given amnesty tomorrow, the day after and after that, in order to keep labor supply high and demands to a minimum, for the benefit of the Capitalists.
How do you propose to get concessions from manufacturers and industry, when GI JOE has to compete against 5 million Jose’s?
Screw the working class. Cut your own throats; compassionate dummies?
Receive your treasures in heaven, while the Capitalists get their treasure now.
Paul Krugman Destroys All Arguments Against Obama's Immigration Action | Alternet
by Resistance on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 3:48pm
Krugman: What is not normal is the desire to punish innocent children, who are already here, for their parents' decision to bend the rules to give them a better life.
Mr. Scrooge Resistance: Are there no orphanages? Their parents must go because they compete for jobs and are here illegally!
Wondering if you would also like to see the government strip away the citizenship of those kids born here. No need for the orphanages then, but you would have the problem that they'd then be stateless, no big deal?
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 7:56pm
The American people were put in this position, by the liars and asses in DC with the help of the Racists and folks lke La Raza
Instead of securing the border, like so many AMERICAN citizens had asked for and were assured would happen ever since Ronald Reagan's first amnesty.
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 –
Instead our Nations immigration laws were enfeebled, blocked, ill financed and unenforced.
Now you have the audacity to question or insult many citizens; who have always opposed illegal immigration, placing the burden on those who foresaw the problem in the first place and warned of this problem.
We are in a class war;
Business against labor and the sooner the American workforce. wakes up to what is going on; and that in all wars there are casualties.
The sooner the war is won, the winners; the poor and the middle class will have less victims.
What is it you don't understand about the predatory practices of the capitalists, whose only concern is money.
Todays compassion will only be met with more victims; until the stupid liberals figure out the schemes of the opposition.
Business throwing the burden of caring for others; onto their victims.
Manufacturing and Industry like an opposing army; Better to shoot and maim, than kill, it ties up the opposing forces who have to deal with the victims on the battlefield
There will never be a progressive agenda; only an oppressive one; unless the American working class wakes up and resists the dummies in their ranks.
by Resistance on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 8:33pm
You conveniently went off on a rant so as not to answer about what should be done with these kids.
Theoretical rants about protecting American jobs from illegal immigration, while fine and dandy, just don't solve that problem. Tell us what you would do with those kids if you were president now, after they had already been born here. Not imagining a theoretical world where they don't exist and none of the illegal immigration ever happened. Something to think about:if their parents were deported, taxpayers would end up supporting them to adulthood.
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 8:42pm
You and others put the burden on the rest of us American citizens, because Idiots failed to listen to us in the first place.
We cant feed the whole world, but you evidently have no problem picking which ones we should feed?
What can we do? We are forced to have to deal with the problem created by the lack of security at our borders and at our workplaces.
How did these illegals support their families all these years, when according to the conditions of the Reagan amnesty, it was illegal for them to be hired and to enter the country illegally.
The kids stay, they were born here.
But that sure undercuts immigrants who had no kids; but toughshit
Change the anchor baby law so that in the future there will be no misunderstanding.
I suggested months ago, that there was land in Southern Arizona by Yuma that could have been used to resettle these immigrant families so that they could stay together.
They could call this Land of Goshen 2
Another suggestion
Tell Mexico, we are through with their in attentiveness to the problem
Annex the State of Sonora and Baja California Norte make it a protectorate of the United States
Put this new population, to work building canals and water delivery systems to address not only their needs but also Americas water needs.
Instead of them leaching off of the fruits of what the hardworking American labor force achieved for themselves and their higher standard of living, before cheap labor undercut our gains .
Instead of building schools and hospitals in Afghanistan and Iraq. We take care of those in our own sphere of influence.
Rocky Point Mexico On The Sea of Cortez 60 ... - Arizona
by Resistance on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 9:42pm
Previously you argued that we were to bow to the Superior Authority. The Superior Authority used an Executive Order.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 8:23pm
I was wondering along different lines, about why a fervent believer in end-times theology would ridicule this idea: Receive your treasures in heaven, while the Capitalists get their treasure now just to make a rhetorical point about one issue.
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 8:30pm
Obama had no problem bringing his religious views into the arena, good thing he didn't provide a snippet though or he 'd have been attacked by some on the left.
The biggest threat to families today is the job insecurity.
Fathers or mothers having to leave home to find work traveling great distances, in order to feed their own kids, and yet how many jobs would be closer to home, if not for cheap immigrant workers competing for the available jobs and now this dickhead wants to add 5 million more workers into the mix.
by Resistance on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 9:50pm
Obama had no problem bringing his religious views into the arena, good thing he didn't provide a snippet though or he 'd have been attacked by some on the left.
The biggest threat to families today is the job insecurity.
Fathers or mothers having to leave home to find work traveling great distances, in order to feed their own kids, and yet how many jobs would be closer to home, if not for cheap immigrant workers competing for the available jobs and now this dickhead wants to add 5 million more workers into the mix.
by Resistance on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 9:50pm
I was trying to avoid the more direct religious question.
He has argued that people who actively criticized government were not following certain religious tenants. In one post, he put up a cartoon showing American workers on a slave auction block as a criticism of corporations and their government ties. In another case of slavery, he argued that the slaves should be happy and content. Abolitionists were not following the faith because they were advocating against the government.
I don't expect consistency from him.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 9:51pm
When someone quotes freely from both Paul the Apostle and Debs the Socialist without a second thought given to their mutual incongruity, they have broken the bounds of rational discourse and are free to say anything without fear of contradiction.
by moat on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 10:37am
Really!?
If I were you; I wouldn't brag about your knowledge of Constitutional law.
by Resistance on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 9:07pm
I wasn't bragging and I don't pretend to be a Constitutional expert
I do note that previous Presidents have used Executive Orders on immigration
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2014/11/17/impeachable-18-immigration-execu...
I also note that even members of the Conservative Federalist Society agree that Obama's Executive Orders are legal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/federalist-society-obama-immigr...
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/21/2014 - 10:14pm
Sure you did promote yourself by your reply
It is clear, you have no clue, that the Executive branch is not the Superior Authority, under our system of government..
Most students in school, understand the Superior Authority is the LAW
LAW: The Constitutional Law intended to prevent the Executive branch from making tyrannical decrees.
It is clear; "Superior authority" is a concept you'll never understand. I don't know if there will ever be a way to fix that.
by Resistance on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 2:21pm
As I noted, Executive Orders have been used by previous Presidents and are considered Constitutional by legal scholars. Here is another group of Constitutional scholars noting the legality of Obama's action. All Congress has to do is craft a bill if they disagree with the Executive Order.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/are-the-presidents-action...
How does something Constitutional break away from your interpretation of Superior Authority?
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 3:33pm
Hmn. Sorry ,I complained about the lack of comment.
Interesting that Boehner now feels like he can't bring an Immigration bill to the floor because of Obama's initiative.
Reminds me of Saki's Aunt. Whenever he misbehaved when visiting she told him he couldn't have any cake because he'd been bad. When he didn't misbehave she never mentioned cake.
by Flavius on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 9:13am
WTH, you afraid of confronting the reality; that people in America are sick and tired of the lemmings who won't confront the corruption and the self serving politicians who don't give a crap about the people; Most Americans recognize politicians pander to Capital formation and not the needs of the working class?
Each year, more and more voters are coming to the realization there is no real choice.
The message sent "None of the Above"
Evidently the small r's (democrats) want to blame the voters for their losses, rather than face the reality, people are not buying what they're selling
Liberals offer nothing but whining about their conditions and then putting on the badge of compassion so they can pat themselves on the back.
Badge of Compassion because they lack the "Red Badge of Courage" crying about wage inequality is easier than taking direct action against policies that promote wage inequality.
Then he cuts the American working classes throats, instead; favoring immigrant workers and the Obamabots believe this mans BS, that he really intends to help American workers.
NAFTA - LIES
Obamacare - LIES
Defender of American workers - LIES
by Resistance on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 1:01pm
That is the plan; Nothing is ever going to get done. Both Capitalist parties R and small r , play the same game, "this time you play the good cop and I'll play the bad cop; next time we''ll reverse the roles".
Either way, they both know; breaking American Labors clout and prevent a third party candidacy and no one will be able to interrupt this lucrative advantage.
Democrats get Hispanic voters and manufactures and industry get cheap labor.
Giving credit to the advancement of Amnesty; will improve the economy; promotes a condition that will make Wall Street happy, as business profits will improve because of cheap competitive labor.
Putting more money in the hands of American workers, would accomplish a far better result for Labor Unions. Who would and could use the power, wealth provides.
While people like the KOCH brothers influence the elections with their money while the progressive causes of American Labor, remains in shambles, as American workers will continue to suffer as they try to compete in a low wage economy.
DAHM Liberals
A win / win for both capitalist parties.
by Resistance on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 1:51pm
The executive branch is not the law maker. His oath states, he shall defend the laws;
His job is not to make the laws, in hopes of whipping any of the other branches into doing his bidding.
Without a change in the law, then it was incumbent upon this President to enforce the laws already on the books.
Whether this President or one party decides it doesn’t like the law, as presently written and instead ignores facts already determined;.that without strict enforcement, we continue to go from one crisis to another and more people are given amnesty to address the problems due to lack of enforcement.
The House was under no obligation to consider the Senators request, especially if the House members liked the original law, but only desired the laws be enforced.
The House of Representatives isn’t compelled by a dictator, to change the law because the non-compliant President, the usurper of delegated powers ; creates a condition that questions the law as written and does all he can to undermine the law.
Condition: Ignore the enforcement aspects of the original law written. Enfeebling the desired results in favor of seeking a different result not intended.
12 million undocumented immigrants were ALLOWED to escape Congresses intent of restricting illegal immigration creating the problem the first law intended to control through enforcement .
Just because this President finds that enforcement aspects of the law, is not something he wants to execute, doesn’t mean the original intent of Congress should be ignored and replaced by another law more acceptable to those who opposed the first.
This president did not faithfully execute the law; instead this President purposely allowed a breach to occur, by turning a blind eye to the enforcement aspects of the law, in order to claim a new crisis requiring a new law, more to the dictator and his supporters liking.
Logic dictates
Eventually enforcement needs to be adequate, or we will see this crises repeat itself over and over again, against the wishes of American citizens.
This President and Party obstructed the law and failed to execute the law that required enforcement.
They created the crisis, this President and Party now use as an excuse to change the law.
by Resistance on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 5:41pm
Resistance, you are giving a legal opinion. Are you a lawyer? I provided opinions from the Federalist Society and academic Constitutional scholars.You are free to have your opinion, but it does not reflect a legal analysis.
By the way George Washington signed eight Executive Orders.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/table-every-presidential-executive-o...
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 5:42pm
I am not giving a legal opinion
As should have been obvious to knowledgeable observers.
If I had given a legal opinion on the matter, I would have included snippets of the controlling precedents of established laws.
You should be embarrassed, by your lack of knowledge of the most basic tenants of delegated powers.
Emperor; King Obama abused his authority.
He should pay a heavy price for such arrogance.
Are you going to use the same lame excuse, heard so often "He's not as bad as the other guy" to justify overreach by the Executive branch?
by Resistance on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 6:50pm
You sound like you're ready to get on the impeachment train; if so Fox News wants you.
He's going to keep doing it, by the way, whatever you define it as (Resistance definition: overreach of the executive branch; National Journal definition: Democratic priorities.)
by artappraiser on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 7:05pm
Why should I be a follower of Fox news?
Let Fox news report what patriotic Americans think about authoritarian government.
This being the same "usurper of power" "overlord" who wanted to weaken the Bill of Rights/ Second Amendment.
Pitting the working class against each other, while refusing to prosecute the banker class sufficiently, to prevent future abuse.
With the eventual outcome being; the enslavement of the working class to serve the interests of the Robber Barron's.
by Resistance on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 9:08pm
From your link
Had the President have acted then, their would be no veto prove majority in the coming Congress.
IMO; had the President Obama; been up for reelection he would have been fired.
This unilateral declaration; his going it alone. is evidence of an arrogant man whose idea of bi partisanship; is his way or the highway.
The majority soundly rejected Obama's cries of obstruction by the Republicans; when all along the majority of the people wanted Obama to work with Republicans and now he is determined to poison the idea of working together, as was the will of the 2014 mid term voters, (except of course his minority group of liberals and illegitimate/ illegal citizens love him)
His in your face defiance of the will of the American people, should be grounds for removal. The voters never intended for a President, to ignore the will of the majority on something less than National Security concerns.
The only National Security issue that mattered most to the American public, was this President and a Democratic leadership fighting enforcement of the law, putting the concerns of Non - Americans ahead of Legal residents.
It was Democratic priorities that took the thumping, it turns out that his Chicago acceptance speech was nothing but lies when he was going to be President of all the people Red and Blue States. Republicans never bought into that line of crap.
He disbanded his army and now in his sixth term he finds the balls to shove it in Congress' face; not for American workers and their families but foreign workers and their families.
Edited to add
Maybe the whole things is just theater, to keep the stupid working class from seeing the real objective. Giving the appearance of "choice" really does make a difference.
How convenient, the next 2 years will continue to give the appearance of acrimony between the two parties, but in the end the objective of moneyed interests are served.
Obama can appear to have found his huevos, and if not for the Republicans the working class would have been served BS
by Resistance on Sat, 11/22/2014 - 11:34pm
Did you help Newt write these Tweets reproduced over at The Weekly Standard? Sounds just like you!
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/04/2014 - 8:50pm
There's a good article at The Atlantic on the Constitutional issues written by someone who teaches Constitutional law:
A reminder that Obama used to do the same (teach Constitutional law).
His summary the way I see it: When Congress dawdles on governing problems and doesn't pass any laws to address them, the president is allowed to do stuff to handle the problem until they do their job. This has been happening more and more lately and its not a good thing but it's what we got.
by artappraiser on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 12:42pm
Thanks for the link. All Congress has to do is pass a bill.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 1:12pm
Why does Congress have to pass a bill?
There is already a law in place and just because Obama doesn't want to enforce that law; doesn't change the fact there is already a law in place.
What good is the law, if the Executive sworn to uphold the laws, decides he'll ignore the laws the executive dislikes.
Blackmailing the House to give this President a new law; when its obvious the problem exist because the previous law was enfeebled by the Executive Branch who hoped this enfeeblement would produce a different law.
by Resistance on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 4:10pm
In what way is Obama not enforcing the law?
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 4:15pm
If you are going to relieve the President of the burden of "The Buck Stops Here" then he'll always have an excuse.
Here is an example of the more current egregious incidents of lack of sufficient security.
Lack of enforcement or enfeeblement?
Burdening the States with the affects, but denying the States the ability to respond
Who should we blame? The National Guard on our Border? I.C.E.? The Attorney General? The President?
Someone has failed to enforce the laws already passed.
What is a NEW LAW going to do, to ensure enforcement of the laws?
NOTHING BUT GIVE AMNESTY to millions who bypassed the lines full of other hopefuls, who are legally seeking life in America.
Laws intended to protect American citizens.
Enforce the existing laws and the system wouldn't be so broken and wouldn't need a blackmailing President to twist the House of Representatives arms to write a new law.
A new law that will face the same problems as the old. Lack of sufficient enforcement to accomplish it's purpose by those opposed to immigration laws.
He is failing to enforce the laws already on the books, but instead wants another law written, to allow him to pander for the Latino voters; knowing full well the New Law will be enfeebled and unenforced like all the other previous ones.
Kicking the can down the road onto another cowardly President, unwilling to take the heat, will again grant the next group of illegals amnesty again.
by Resistance on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 5:50pm
Congress has appropriated enough money to deport about 400,000 a year. Obama has deported about 400,000 every year he's been president. He's enforcing the law. People will not work for free. Obama can't hire twice as many border agents to deport twice as many people and not pay them. Obama can't cut the pay of congress and use that money to hire more border patrol agents. If congress, or you, wants more deportations they have to pass a low appropriating more funds.
21% of those deported are repeat offenders. 55% are convicted criminals. If congress wants more repeat offenders deported they can pass a .law requiring that more repeat offenders are deported and either less convicted criminals are deported or appropriate more money to do it.
Obama is deporting as many people as the law allows him to deport. He's deported more than twice the number Bush did. If anything Obama is enforcing the law as passed by congress and Bush did not.
So again I ask, in what way is Obama not enforcing the law?
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 5:51pm
You are arguing facts.
Resistance argues his personal opinion of reality.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 6:32pm
Yeah I know its a waste of time to discuss this subject with Res. I just got tired of ignoring his silly rants. I guess I'm bored.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 7:39pm
Where was the United States Border Security, with enough manpower to have interdicted the migration, before we needed to employ the tool of deportation?
There used to be a saying on the farm "Shut the door before the flies come in"
But I suppose some fools believed it better to let them come in and then they would control them.
State Governments tried to enforce the laws but were rejected.
Volunteer groups had offered to patrol the Southern Border but were also rejected
From mine and many other citizens concerned about the illegal alien invasion. it was clear to us, The Federal Government of, by and for business interests had no intention to stem the tide.
A Federal government who put a party of Open Border advocates, ahead of the will of the Nation
The evidence is clear; the supporters of Open Borders used the Shock and AWE method
Shock and Awe
"impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on ... [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels.
The dupes: "However can we deport millions now" we must grant them amnesty"
The plan of the Open Borders crowd, was to overwhelm the immigration system and any action taken by volunteers or State government, was to be paralyzed. by the actions of the Federal Government, who were already controlled by the lobbyists of the Open Border Crowds agenda. Amnesty for millions of migrants Open the Borders
by Resistance on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 7:48pm
Where was the United States Border Security, with enough manpower to have interdicted the migration, before we needed to employ the tool of deportation?
Congress allocated money to hire border patrol agents. That money was spent hiring agents. If you feel that money was insufficient its not the president's fault, its the congress. The president can not hire more people than congress allocates money to hire.
The vast majority of the 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the US arrived before Obama was president. He can't be blamed for that. The previous presidents spent the full amount allocated by congress to hire border patrol agents. So those presidents can not be blamed.
So again in what way is Obama not enforcing the law?
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 7:50pm
A suggestion
The Commander and Chief should have declared an Executive order?
Claiming National Security had been compromised "give me more money to deal with this problem"
Problem for American workers and those opposed to this invasion, Obama had no plans to deal with the problem, other than give Amnesty to millions of tomorrows workers
by Resistance on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 8:47pm
Look dude, you posted an ignorant rant stating that there's no need for a new law and that Obama is refusing to enforce the law. I'm simply trying to address that comment. You claim Obama is using that lack of enforcement to blackmail the congress. Everything you wrote is totally false.
Resistance posted:
There is already a law in place and just because Obama doesn't want to enforce that law; doesn't change the fact there is already a law in place.
What good is the law, if the Executive sworn to uphold the laws, decides he'll ignore the laws the executive dislikes.
Blackmailing the House to give this President a new law; when its obvious the problem exist because the previous law was enfeebled by the Executive Branch
None of this is true. Every sentence is completely false. I'd call you a liar but I think you're so ill informed and ignorant that you believe it.
So once again, In what way is Obama not enforcing the law? Stop trying to obfuscate. Either answer the question or admit you're wrong.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 8:55pm
Obama is refusing to enforce the law.
His policies reflect that determination.
Not only does he refuse to enforce the law; he tramples upon them by refusing to accept his limited delegated powers; conferred upon him by the People and their Constitution and its safeguards from authoritarian rule. A president can't confer privileges to illegals. A king can do that. not a President of the United States
Obama Anti-Enforcement ...
Granting 5 + million amnesty, is not enforcing the laws, it is a dereliction of his duty to enforce the law.
BTW The decree by his Highness through his Executive decree, will apply by default to all 12-20 million illegals in the country as well as the millions more who will now come here to enjoy the permanent cessation of borders and sovereignty.
Just as his DACA order led to an influx of minors to our borders, requiring Biden to address the issue after its enactment.
To draw to a conclusion, further insults by you DUDE .
Was it ignorance on your part that you couldn't type in "Obama anti enforcement".
Or is your boredom satisfied by insulting others?
In the future, if you can't be civil.... KMA
by Resistance on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 10:23pm
OK, I read your link. First a lawsuit is not proof of anything. It may be thrown out of court. Right wing idiots have been fileing lawsuits for the past six years for example: claiming Obama is not eligible to be president because he was born in Kenya. They have all been thrown out of court because they are lies. This lawsuit might also be false.
But let us assume it's true. This lawsuit does not claim the ICE or Obama is not enforcing the law. The lawsuit claims some lawyers were harassed "for not implementing "prosecutorial discretion"" to their boss's satisfaction. It claims that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's chief counsel in Houston ordered "attorneys to review all new, incoming cases and thousands already pending on the immigration court docket and to file paperwork to dismiss any that did not meet the agency's "top priorities.""
" ICE legal offices across the country were encouraged to consider measures to better use the agency's limited resources to target dangerous criminals."
Not only is prosecutorial discretion legal it is absolutely necessary as congress has not allocated sufficient resources to prosecute all illegal immigrants. Since only 400,000 out of 11.4 million can be deported I favor focusing on dangerous criminals. How do you think the limited resources should be deployed, against illegal immigrants with a parking ticket?
I suppose it's possible that some attorneys were harassed for not obeying directives on how to use the agency's limited resources. Harassment, especially sexual harassment is unacceptable. But a directive on the manner in which limited resources are deployed does not in any way even suggest that the law was not being enforced. I suspect that you didn't bother to read your own link, or more likely, you are too ignorant to understand it.
You posted, "BTW The decree by his Highness through his Executive decree, will apply by default to all 12-20 million illegals in the country as well as the millions more who will now come here to enjoy the permanent cessation of borders and sovereignty."
That too is false. All reporting on Obama's executive order clearly states that it only affects people who have been in the country more than five years. I'm sure that there is a specific date in the order, as that's the way such legislation is written.
When people choose to spout off in public they should remember Lincoln's maxim, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." If anyone here was in any doubt as to your foolishness your posts in this thread has removed all doubt.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 11:36pm
Removed duplicate
by Resistance on Mon, 11/24/2014 - 4:50am
Wikipedia:Civility
Prosecutorial discretion
I guess this explains why the Obama administration will not investigate, prosecute and seek convictions against:
Banksters, torturers, intelligence community liars, those who violated privacy laws, police who violate civil rights laws or IRS harassment
Appears to me ”Prosecutorial discretion” allows the President (any President), to escape the charge, of not enforcing the law.
As I wrote, Obama refused to enforce the law, and all your insults and excuses of why; doesn't change that fact.
Edited to make changes and add
Should the Republicans find him more money, or do you think the Executive can't find cuts in other areas?
Or maybe some of the money allocated to Border Security should have gone for that purpose rather than lawyers, for the surge of unaccompanied minors, as a result of DACA . Or money asked for Border Security, instead was going to be directed towards fighting fires.
"Prosecutorial discretion" BS
A tool used by autocrats to circumvent the law ?
An autocrat gets to decide what laws they'll enforce?.
by Resistance on Mon, 11/24/2014 - 9:24am
Discretion is a fact of life in government from top to bottom. We experience it everyday. For example Most of us speed or if not us we see people speeding. And in most cases speeders don't get stopped or ticketed. Its not the chief of police who's at fault. With limited resources many crimes must be ignored or lightly enforced. The chief of police could order all city cops to focus totally on stopping people speeding and put no resources on arresting murderers, rapists etc. Even if all the city's cops did nothing but ticket speeders they still could not catch them all. Some choices must be made to allocate those limited resources.
We have disagreements over matters of opinion. For example I favor a path to citizenship, you want all illegal immigrants deported. That's a matter of opinion. Then there are matters of fact. The fact is Obama is enforcing the law to the limit that it is possible given the amount of money congress has allocated. There is only enough money to deport 400,000 illegal immigrants a year. If you want more deportations congress must pass a law authorizing more resources. We disagree about what that law should be, that's a matter of opinion. That a new law must be passed for there to be changes in immigration beyond shifting limited resources around is a matter of fact.
These facts are irrefutable. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can see that. Anyone sane would admit their error. I have some patience for those so lacking in intelligence they can not see these simple facts. I have no patience what so ever with people who are so attached to their ego they are incapable of admitting an error.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/24/2014 - 3:34pm
Obama asked Congress for $3.7 billion
Why should Congress, vote to approve a request by a President, whose main agenda was not Border Security but instead; the President was going to squander over 2/3 of the requested $3.7 billion on a NON - Border Security agenda.
Of the requested $3.7 billion; $1.8 billion was to be directed towards basic necessities like food and shelter for unaccompanied immigrant children;
As I wrote earlier, I suspect these unaccompanied immigrant children was always a scheme/ design to overwhelm the Border and to enfeeble immigration enforcement;
By design, very little money to be directed towards Securing the Border and then overwhelm the system, Then claim "see it's broken, we need a new one" .
Of the requested $ 3.7, at most; $1 Billion dollars would actually be applied for Border Protection.
Your claims of “discretion” are true.
What would a new law do, to remedy non- compliance by a President who could claim discretion? His discretion over the Will of the People?
So please don’t give us this BS, that Congress wouldn’t allocate the money.
The American people are not as stupid as His majesty Obama believes, we know how Washington works.
How long before this President and Democrats figure out; the House is not going to squander taxpayer money on the President and his Party’s agenda.
Blackmailing the House of Representatives and the American taxpayers
President: “Give me money for what I want and I’ll think about Securing the Border”
House of Representatives: Mr. President you swore and oath to defend the United States from invaders and to faithfully execute the laws deliberated and enacted by the Congress
President: “Screw that, I am the executive and I’ll decide what laws I’ll defend”
Illegals: To hell with the immigration laws.
Obama: To hell with the immigration laws.
Open Border advocates. “Right on Mr. President, you have our full support”
by Resistance on Mon, 11/24/2014 - 11:22pm
Your illustration is so ridiculous.
America was invaded and you want to put it on par with speeding tickets?
Ego?
by Resistance on Tue, 11/25/2014 - 12:00am
The immigration system is broken. The current law is ineffective. The Republicans and the Democrats realize that we are not going to collect and deport millions of people. A law is needed to address our current situation because the current law is outdated
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 4:16pm
I don't get why there's any excitement about this executive action from either side. Congress only appropriates enough money to deport about 400,000 a year. Since there's about 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the US with or without Obama's action 11 million will not be deported. There is no chance that either the republicans or the democrats will appropriate additional funds to deport all 11.4 million illegals. So with or without Obama's action only 400,000 people will be deported and 11 million will not be deported.
So 5 million will be protected from deportation. Well the vast majority of them wouldn't get deported anyway. There are 6 million that aren't protected. Well the vast majority of them won't be deported even without the protection. I suppose knowing you won't be deported is marginally better than knowing the odds of getting deported is near zero. This is little more than a symbolic gesture.
Clearly law enforcement has to make a decision as to which of the 3% will be deported and which of the 97% will not. Should it be random? Or would it make more sense to focus deportations on those who have committed crimes?
Obama has deported many more illegals than Bush in the foolish belief that if he was vastly more strict than Bush the republicans wouldn't be able to call him soft on deportations and would be receptive to passing immigration reform. One more example of how naive Obama is.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/23/2014 - 2:14pm