ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Immigration Vacillation Spreads Among Republicans

[ Posted Tuesday, June 19th, 2012 – 16:38 UTC ]

Republican senators are backing up Mitt Romney's vacillation on the new changes in immigration President Obama announced last Friday -- with even more vacillation. To put it another way, Mitt Romney is effectively leading his party... into a morass of uncertainty.

The first inkling that President Obama's co-option of Marco Rubio's idea for a watered-down DREAM Act had created befuddlement in the Republican Party was, of course, Mitt Romney's waffling -- which we explored yesterday in great detail. Now the secondary ripples from Mitt's refusal to announce any sort of political stance or clear decision seem to be appearing.

Yesterday, Marco Rubio himself apparently told the New York Times that he was throwing in the towel, and would not introduce his bill at all. This is rather stunning, because it is a refutation of the only position Mitt Romney has so far managed to take on the issue -- that we need a "long-term" solution to the problem and that Obama's "stop-gap" solution wasn't good enough. One would think -- if this were actually true -- that the immediate response from Rubio would have been to introduce his bill on the Senate floor, decry Obama's stop-gap measure, press hard for an immediate vote on his own, and claim all kinds of political credit (which would be pathetically easy to do: "Finally the president has realized that Republican ideas are the way to go!").

Instead of doing so, Rubio cravenly caved. Now, if Romney is right and what we really need is a permanent solution, then the fact that Rubio just completely gave up on producing this solution means that the Republicans are back to square one on the entire question. Perhaps this is why the Romney team then leaked that they hadn't even bothered to begin vetting Rubio for the vice presidential slot on the ticket yet. Dark stormy phone calls behind the scenes between the two camps can easily be imagined, all weekend long, with such a broken result on Monday morning. At this point, Mitt's going to have to be mighty desperate to capture Florida's electoral votes to even consider naming Rubio as his running mate, one is forced to conclude.

Today, the confusion spread even further. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, when asked what the Republicans planned to do on the whole DREAM Act question, responded he was following his party's nominal leader Mitt Romney, and would be waiting to see what Mitt decided to do -- if and when Mitt actually does decide to make a decision. Or, maybe, not.

The band Rush had a song with an appropriate lyric, which begs to be quoted here: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Perhaps Mitt will have the whole thing figured out by Thursday, when he is scheduled to talk to Latino leaders. Perhaps the Obama team should put up one of those ticking clocks somewhere (call it a "3:00 A.M. clock," perhaps) which shows the time which has passed since the president's announcement that Mitt Romney has so far taken without figuring out some sort of position.

This issue was supposed to be a core issue for the Republican Party this election cycle. Marco Rubio thought he had the golden answer to the problems his party has had with Latino voters. This magic answer was to take the DREAM Act, and change it so that none of the Latinos covered by the legislation would ever, ever get a chance to vote in an American election (which terrifies the Republican Party no end), but which would also actually have a prayer of passing the Republican House. He soon found out this was harder than he had thought to actually do -- mostly because the Republican House was in no mood to court the Latino vote in any way, shape, or form -- but that doesn't change the fact that Rubio's idea was deemed so good that he was catapulted to the top of the short list for vice president.

Mitt Romney's team, to put it mildly, should have seen this coming. Not the fact that Obama co-opted Rubio's idea so brilliantly, but the fact that Romney was going to have to take some sort of solid position on it sooner or later. They've had months to do focus groups, conduct polling, and craft a message for Romney on the issue. They have -- quite obviously -- utterly failed to do so. Making this merely the latest in a long line of such campaign stumbles for Romney (the earliest, I believe, was Mitt being caught flatfooted on the question of releasing his tax returns, early in the primary season -- which also took him weeks to address, even though he should have seen it coming months beforehand).

McConnell's answer to questions about his stance on the issue was a wee bit telling, though. Call it a Freudian-Washington slip, if you will. From the Roll Call article which broke the story: " 'He [Romney] is the leader of our party from now until November,' McConnell said, explaining why he didn’t want to comment on the matter."

Really? Only until November? Do you know something the rest of us don't, Mitch? Just asking, since that's actually an awfully pessimistic statement for any party's leadership to make during an election season.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

66 Comments on “Immigration Vacillation Spreads Among Republicans”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Correction and Mea Culpa -

    I just watched PBS' News Hour tonight, which showed the full quote from McConnell. He actually ended the quote with:

    "...and beyond, hopefully."

    which completely changes the meaning. It also removes my rationale for the last two paragraphs of this article.

    So, while I am going to leave the article as it stands (as a monument to what happens when you don't do your homework correctly), I did want to set the record straight and apologize for misdirected snark there, at the end.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    You seem to be making a lot of hay over Obama co-opting Rubio's idea..

    There is a problem with that concept.

    The President DOESN'T make the law..

    He is the executor of laws, not the creator.. It is NOT the President's job to decide which laws he will enforce and which laws he will not..

    That is, if he wants to continue being President..

    You can take it to the bank that these actions will come back to bite Obama and the Democrats in the ass.. Either by a Shellacking Redux in November or by a GOP POTUS taking all the liberties that Obama has established precedent for.

    Most likely both..

    As an aside to our linguistic expert... When do you use 'precedence' and when do you use 'precedent'??

    Michale.....

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    The President DOESN'T make the law..

    Oh, do you know how I know this??

    Because OBAMA himself said so!!

    “This notion I can somehow just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively, but fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.”
    — Barack Obama, September 2011

    What's changed between then and now??

    If he could do it now, why couldn't he do it then??

    WHAT has changed between Sep 2011 and Jun 2012???

    Not one single person here has been able to answer those questions..

    Either he was lying in 2011 (he COULD change the law) or he is lying now...

    Michale.....

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    The band Rush had a song with an appropriate lyric, which begs to be quoted here: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

    Oh they simply stole that concept from Captain James T Kirk...

    "Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself. And it's usually the wrong decision to make."
    -Captain James T Kirk

    :D

    Michale.....

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    For me, what it all boils down to is this..

    I don't mind a President doing the WRONG thing for the RIGHT reasons.. Otherwise known as The Ends Justifies The Means.. Considering the actions of Obama ya'all have been giddy over, apparently ya'all are with me on that..

    I also don't mind a President doing the RIGHT thing for the WRONG reasons. I'll be a tad perturbed at the reasons, but I'll grudgingly give the POTUS credit for doing the right thing, at least...

    But what I cannot abide, what simply CANNOT, what SHOULD NOT be acceptable to anyone is a President that does the WRONG thing for the WRONG reason...

    And yet... Here we are...

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    This isn't a very good site on at which to practice "The Big Lie."

    No matter how often, or how loudly, you say it few here are likely to believe President Obama violated the law by deciding to prosecute illegal aliens who entered the country as adults instead of those who were brought in as children.

    President Obama hasn't changed any laws! There is no law that mandates children be prosecuted first. And nothing in President Obama's order reduces the number of illegals prosecuted and deported or the emphasis on prosecuting and deporting illegal aliens.

    The entire purpose for having a Chief Executive is to manage resources, which are never infinite, to accomplish the goals of enforcing the law. Your repeated and ridiculous assertions that President Obama has no right or constitutional authority to set the priorities for Justice are absurd on their face.

    Its one thing to disagree with the reasons for that decision or to disagree with the wisdom of that decision, those are matters of opinion open to serious debate, but proclaiming that he hasn't the authority just because you don't like the decision, or him, is simply a lie that deserves no respect at all.

    The President exercised his discretionary authority to institute a policy that possibly largely mirrors a legislative proposal under consideration in the House. Legislation would impose a permanent policy binding on all Presidents. President Obama's order is binding only within his administration. The two approaches are similar but not identical and each represent the exercise of unique constitution powers granted to the separate branches of government.

    If the President were constitutionally prohibited from acting unless or until Congress passed legislation, particularly this congress, the government might as well close up shop and go home until at least 2013.

    However, the idea that since the Republicans lost in 2008 there just won't be a government until they win control again is a Republican strategy not a constitutional mandate. Its the Republicans' abuse of their advise and consent role that's extra-constitutional, not President Obama's fulfilling his responsibilities as POTUS.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    This isn't a very good site on at which to practice "The Big Lie."

    No matter how often, or how loudly, you say it few here are likely to believe President Obama violated the law by deciding to prosecute illegal aliens who entered the country as adults instead of those who were brought in as children.

    Ignoring the fact that it has yet to be proven to be a lie, what makes you think it won't work??

    I mean, after all. The Left hysterically screamed and yelled that "Bush Lied" throughout the entire Bush years so loud and so often that they actually BELIEVE the lie...

    So, there is precedence.. Precedent???

    President Obama hasn't changed any laws! There is no law that mandates children be prosecuted first. And nothing in President Obama's order reduces the number of illegals prosecuted and deported or the emphasis on prosecuting and deporting illegal aliens.

    Talk about perpetuating a big lie...

    We're not talking about CHILDREN!

    We're talking about adults...

    The entire purpose for having a Chief Executive is to manage resources, which are never infinite, to accomplish the goals of enforcing the law. Your repeated and ridiculous assertions that President Obama has no right or constitutional authority to set the priorities for Justice are absurd on their face.

    So, you ARE saying that the POTUS could hand down a proclamation that says that the FBI will no longer pursue or prosecute those bank robbers who don't kill anyone..

    Because THAT is the kind of "discretion" that you are proposing..

    And we BOTH know that it's total and complete bullshit...

    President Obama HIMSELF said so!!

    “This notion I can somehow just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively, but fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.”
    — Barack Obama, September 2011

    In 2011, Obama himself said he does NOT have that kind of discretion..

    So, what changed???

    That's the ONE question (well, one of MANY) that no one will tackle..

    I can understand why, as it refutes the ENTIRE "obama has the authority to decide which laws he will follow and which laws he won't" BS argument...

    OBAMA himself said he doesn't have the kind of authority that you claim he does..

    So, who am I to believe?? The Constitutional Scholar...

    Or you??

    While I like you more, I have to go with the guy who, allegedly...ALLEGEDLY.... knows what he is talking about...

    Although, this IS the guy who said the Constitution allows him to force American Citizens to buy Acme Underwear, so who knows...??? :D

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    Jon Stewart already debunked this last night on his show:
    http://www.hulu.com/embed/cMpoD68vvuwChjXdLkBdXA

    For someone who claims to be "independent" (or NPA, as you like to state it) you sure do a good job of spewing talking points and not a lot of independent verification. You fool no one but yourself.

    CW,
    I am a long-time lurker here. I know my first comment was held for moderation, but I am good from here on out. ;-) Please, keep up the good work!

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ninjaf -

    Well, I can't very well say "Welcome to the site!" then, but I will say "Welcome to the comments!"

    :-)

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    ninjaf,

    "Welcome To The Party, Pal!!!"
    -John McClane

    :D

    Jon Stewart already debunked this last night on his show:
    http://www.hulu.com/embed/cMpoD68vvuwChjXdLkBdXA

    Your refutation is a comedian!?? :D

    For someone who claims to be "independent" (or NPA, as you like to state it) you sure do a good job of spewing talking points

    Actually, NPA is the official designation down here in FL..

    You also seem to treat "Talking Points" with disdain.. The seem to work well for the Left when it suits them..

    "Talking Points" *ARE* talking points for a reason... They convey complex facts in easy to understand language..

    and not a lot of independent verification.

    I have all the independent verification you could ever want. You need but ask...

    And, I can assure you, that my verification is a LOT more relevant than a late night comedian.. :D

    You fool no one but yourself.

    That's because there is nothing to fool anyone over. I condemn the Right just as I condemn the Left.. Since you are the long time lurker, you know this..

    Again, welcome to the party! :D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya see, here's the thing..

    It is ya'all's *OPINION* that Obama has the authority to do what he did.

    But, com'on, let's face it.. Ya'all have drank the kool-aid and you are not objective about Obama..

    "But Michale!", you say.. "You are not objective about Obama either."

    And you would be correct.. As much as I would like to think that I am and, as much as I try, I cannot be objective about Obama. He screwed me over and he has screwed this country over..

    So, it's a fair statement. Most times, I am not objective about Obama.

    But, here's the kicker..

    MY objectivity is not required..

    I am going on the FACTS..

    And the FACTS clearly show that, in 2011, OBAMA HIMSELF said he doesn't have the authority to do what he did in 2012..

    So, either Obama was lying and was wrong back in 2011, or Obama is lying and is wrong in the here and now...

    Which is it???

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's simply AMAZING how many times Obama's words come back to bite him on the ass...

    "Executive Priviledge was not a good reason to with hold information from Congress."
    -Senator Barack Obama, 2007

    What's even more amazing is the pass Obama gets from the Left...

    No red lines whatsoever....

    Fascinating....

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Your refutation is a comedian!?? :D

    But you link to FOX News all the time :D

    So, are you saying the Jon Stewart crew fabricated the end of the video or are you taking back comment #7's quote and all the other times you used that same quote recently?

    Here is the rest of the quote you continually fail to include:

    "The notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things is just not true. What we can do is to prioritize enforcement — since there are limited enforcement resources — and say, we’re not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who has been acting responsibly, and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the DREAM Act passed."
    — Barack Obama, September 2011

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    But you link to FOX News all the time :D

    Oh that's a load of crap.. I link to FNC about as often as I link to any other news source..

    I have even linked to Daily Kos and HuffPo MULTIPLE times..

    So that dog just won't hunt...

    So, are you saying the Jon Stewart crew fabricated the end of the video or are you taking back comment #7's quote and all the other times you used that same quote recently?

    Considering all the fabrication of video that the Left Wing MSM has done these last couple months, it wouldn't surprise me a bit...

    When the comedian's quote is displayed in a NEWS venue, not a COMEDY venue, I will give it it's due consideration..

    MY quote has been culled from SEVERAL news sources, not ONE of which was FNC...

    You'll simply have to try harder...

    Jon Stewart.... Seriously!???

    Yer off yer game... :D

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Jon Stewart's research and accuracy is usually much better than FOX News and evidently better than the "SEVERAL news sources" you got the quote from.

    And I see you are deflecting from rather than addressing the missing part of the quote. Interesting that.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jon Stewart's research and accuracy is usually much better than FOX News and evidently better than the "SEVERAL news sources" you got the quote from.

    He's a frak'in Left Wing comedian!!

    It's like me posting a Rush Limbaugh segment and calling it hard news!

    Seriously!! Has the Left sunk so low that they have to post Jon Stewart clips as evidence!???

    What's next!! YouTubes from Rosie O'Donnell???

    And I see you are deflecting from rather than addressing the missing part of the quote. Interesting that.

    Like Congress HAS addressed the DREAM ACT, I DID address your "evidence"..

    When the alleged "clip" is at a NEWS source and not a COMEDY source, come talk to me...

    Maybe you can have Rosie do the newscast, eh? :D

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note (since I am about to call it a night)....

    Anyone going to be around to live blog the CrapCare decision tomorrow???

    Tomorrow is my Monday, but I'll likely find time to hang out here, if anyone wants to do a blow by blow... :D

    Gotta go catch Drop Dead Diva now.. :D

    Michale...

  18. [18] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Still deflecting, eh?

    All those posts supporting Rush's statements about Sandra Fluke was comedy? Or just not to be taken seriously?

    The clip is linked up there. What's not accurate about it?

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    The clip is linked up there. What's not accurate about it?

    You mean, besides the fact that it came from a Left Wing Comedy show with absolutely NO corroborating support???

    Oh, not much.. Other than the fact that, from all appearances, it's fiction..

    What's next??

    Gonna offer skits from SNL as "hard news"?? :D

    Seriously, Bashi..

    Has ANYONE other than Jon Stewart put forth this clip???

    Have you even SEEN the title of Stewarts website???

    Let me share it with you...

    {title}The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - Political Comedy - Fake News | Comedy Central{/title}

    Let me repeat the relevant part:

    ***FAKE NEWS***

    Is this TRULY what you and ninjaf want to base your ENTIRE argument on???

    Seriously!???

    Why don't ya ask Rosie O'Donnell or Oprah Winfrey for some "news"... Likely be just as real news as anything else posted here...

    Ya been away too long, Bashi.... This isn't the top form comments I have come to expect... :D

    Considering all the splices and editing of video coming out of the Left Wing MSM of late, this appears to be simply more of the same... :D

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    I linked to Jon Stewart because I knew the clip would be succinct. But you can clearly see that the video clip has a wh.gov logo on it. If you want to see the whole video from what you consider a "legitimate" source, please dig around and find it there if you believe The Daily Show to be unreliable video editors.

    CW,
    Glad to be contributing!

  21. [21] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    The full video (50 minutes long).
    From the official transcript:

    MR. LERNER: Me again. On the DREAM Act that you mentioned before, and this is like a statement from New York City: Mr. President, I am an undocumented law graduate from New York City. I’m just writing to say that your message that you do not have a dance partner is not a message of hope. A real dancer goes out on the dance floor and picks out his or her dance partner. You’re just waiting. You have the facts, numbers, dollars and votes on the side of granting administrative relief for DREAMers. We are doing our part. It is time to do yours, Mr. President.

    THE PRESIDENT: I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.
    Now, what we can do is to prioritize enforcement, since there are limited enforcement resources, and say we’re not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who’s been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the DREAM Act passed.

    Nary a comedian in sight there.

  22. [22] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It's a fake news show. The news parodied is quite real and well researched.

    It's not my fault the MSM, especially the sites you frequent are too lazy to do their own research. Or maybe they knew quite well what's up but the truth would dull the axe they are grinding? You quoted this quite a bit lately as a lynchpin to your argument. I can see why you would be hesitant to let it go...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thank you ninjaf..

    NOW I can accept it as evidence.

    But it really doesn't change anything..

    In 2011, Obama stated he cannot change the law. And that is just what he did in 2012..

    Let me ask ya'all something. I doubt I will get an answer because ya'all have a tendency to ignore what ya'all can't refute..

    If Obama has the power, legally, morally and ethically to do what he did, WHY didn't he do it back in 2011??

    Because he SAID he couldn't...

    That's the point ya'all are missing??

    WHY now???

    I'll answer THAT one for ya'all as well..

    He did it now, because he is getting creamed in the eyes of American citizens..

    Funny thing is, what he did is only going to help him with a small percentage of voters...

    The Independents and NPAs see this for what it is. The most perverse form of pandering and in doing so, screws over 24 million Americans who are unemployed and underemployed..

    NOT ONE SINGLE person has been able to tell me why this is GOOD for Americans...

    Once again, ignoring the questions ya'all don't have the answers for.. :D

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    It's a fake news show. The news parodied is quite real and well researched.

    I can only go by what it says, Bashi...

    *FAKE NEWS*

    Not *FAKE NEWS SHOW*

    It's not my fault the MSM, especially the sites you frequent are too lazy to do their own research.

    Oh the do the research. They have to because they have to know enough to cover up what they don't want the American Public to see. They have to be able to alter video and audio so as to help out Obama and the Democratic Party..

    But I don't expect ya to see that.

    Ideological blinders you have..

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    NOW I can accept it as evidence.

    But it really doesn't change anything..

    In 2011, Obama stated he cannot change the law. And that is just what he did in 2012..
    It doesn't change anything, if you don't take the statement in its entirety.
    And the law has not changed. The administration is merely deciding how to appropriate a finite amount of resources by prioritizing which immigration cases will take priority.
    As for why this is good for our country, the first thing that comes to mind is because it is something that shows our American exceptionalism. Because we are confident as a nation, we can freely welcome people into our society who are here illegally through no fault of their own. They have adopted a foreign land as their own and assimilated so much that the country from which they came does not feel like their home.
    But then again, I like puppies and rainbows, too. :-)

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ninjaf,

    before i go into the substance, i have to say i really like your use of html in [20]. mind posting the code? (substituting brackets for carats of course)

    to be fair, the administration isn't "merely" deciding, they're circumventing the current immigration law in a way that mimics the effect of the law they want passed. Of course this is frustrating to those who don't want the policy to change.

    But i think your point is that such circumvention doesn't make the enforcement priority illegal or unconstitutional. The president is using his legal authority to enforce the law, and Congress is free to check that authority by passing a statute that allocates resources or addresses enforcement priorities more specifically.

    ~joshua

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    nijaf,

    And the law has not changed. The administration is merely deciding how to appropriate a finite amount of resources by prioritizing which immigration cases will take priority.

    Again, using that example, the President could cite diminishing resources and say that the FBI will no longer investigate Bank Robberies where no one was injured..

    How is THAT any different than what Obama did???

    And how would THAT go over with the rest of Americans???

    Like Joshua said, Obama is not using his discretion to allocate resources.. He is changing the law because Congress wouldn't give him the results he wanted... So, he circumvented Congress for the most perverse pandering ever seen in a POTUS...

    Joshua,

    That's a very good distinction, Joshua...

    It actually is very similar to what happened with Bush and torture...

    Bush felt he had the authorization to use coercive interrogations, based on the AUMF blank-check that Congress handed him..

    When the going got rough, Democrats cried FOUL and the SCOTUS said "No, you can't do that under the law.."

    So, Bush went before Congress and GOT himself a law that would allow him to do what he was doing before.. That beget the MCA...

    But the important point is that Bush WENT THRU CONGRESS..

    He didn't try an end run, he didn't ignore Congress and their actions, he worked with Congress and got the law he needed..

    Now, imagine that Bush would have said, "Screw ya'all.. I am going to use my discretionary authority and do what I want.."

    Democrats would have lost their frakin' minds!!

    The President simply CANNOT be the law..

    "I could not have broken the law!! I AM THE LAW!!!!"
    -Sylvester Stallone, JUDGE DREDD

    :D

    "That's gonna cost me."
    -Homer Simpson

    What irks me is that everyone here (present company excepted :D) is so drunk on the Obama kool-aid that they cannot see how everything they hated in Bush is epitomized TEN FOLD in Obama...

    Michale....

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    When the going got rough, Democrats cried FOUL and the SCOTUS said "No, you can't do that under the law.."

    So, Bush went before Congress and GOT himself a law that would allow him to do what he was doing before.. That beget the MCA...

    But the important point is that Bush WENT THRU CONGRESS...

    Has the SCOTUS ruled on the legality of Obama's enforcement actions? by the precedent Bush set, i think the court needs to rule before we can call this an end-run. Obama is essentially doing the same thing bush did, just later in the game.

    ~joshua

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is a difference, the SCOTUS getting involved, this is true..

    And it's possible (even likely) that had the SCOTUS not gotten involved, Bush *WOULD* have done what Obama did and say, "Screw Congress. Screw the American people and their representatives.. *I* am going to do as I please.."

    And how do you think the Left would have reacted???

    They would have lined up Impeachment proceedings before the echo faded...

    But whether Bush felt pressured to go thru Congress or whether he truly felt it was the right thing to do, the simple fact is, he DID go thru Congress...

    Which is what Obama should have done...

    But in the here and now, Congress says, "NO" and Obama says, "Fine. I'll do it anyways."

    King Barack The First....

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out (again) that Bush did what he did because he felt it was right for the country and it cost him votes...

    Obama did what he did because it was right for Obama and screw the country. And it will likely GAIN him votes...

    That's the biggest difference, in my book..

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Mchale [7]

    It is not a lie that this is about children. President Obama's directive applies only to children who entered the country illegally at age 16 or under and are now age 30 or less.

    This is not about adults although some adults would be impacted.

    The thirty year-olds would have spent at least half of their lives in America, been educated in America, grown up in America and likely know no other home other than America. The are probably as American as anyone else here in everything but on paper.

  32. [32] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Joshua
    ninjaf,

    before i go into the substance, i have to say i really like your use of html in [20]. mind posting the code? (substituting brackets for carats of course)

    I used the [blockquote] HTML tag to get the indented text with the border around it.

    To add a link to text, I use the [a] tag with an "href" attribute, like this: [a href="http://myurl.com"]link text[/a].

    Replace the square brackets here with the angle brackets () when you are trying to use it in a comment.

  33. [33] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    hahahaha...I was so careful and it still stripped out the angle brackets. Just because I am determined:
    (< >)

  34. [34] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [2] -

    OK, you hooked me at the end, there.

    "Precedent" is a noun. It's a thing. I'd define it as "something which happened in the past which is used to set the bounds for current or future behavior." Legally, it is a case which SCOTUS or some other court decided that everyone now cites.

    "Precedence" is closer to "precede". Something is usually said to have happened "without precedence" -- in other words, nothing preceded it.

    Um, it's late at night, maybe someone else wants to jump in here?

    I think Michale used "precedence" when he meant "precedent" but now, even I'm not so sure...

    [4] -

    Kirk quoted Rush? No, TOS was first, so maybe Rush got it from watching Star Trek...

    [5] -

    Ahhh... but "right" and "wrong" are totally subjective, aren't they, Grasshopper?

    [7] -

    OK, unsure on that precedence/precedent thing.

    Is a President allowed to decide which parts of the Constitution he follows, and which he does not? Well, then, please explain Bush and the warrentless wiretapping. You might want to review the 4th Amendment, first.

    [10] -

    Jon Stewart is the most trusted voice in news, according to polls. Scary, isn't it? More people get their news SOLELY from late night comedians than from folks like Brian Williams or any other source. And they're usually the ones who decide elections. Just had to say that.

    BashiBazouk [13] -

    Ooooh! Nice! Hadn't read the full quote, myself, but it sure does put it in another light, doesn't it?

    ninjaf [20] -

    Oh, score! Nice cite, and nice formatting of the whole thing. Facts are funny things, aren't they?

    :-)

    Oh, wow, you even got Michale to back down! That is, truly, the gold standard of commenting, here. Your "lurker" status has now been revoked. You are officially one of the CW.com Truth Patrol, now. No, I have no idea what that means, I just made it up on the spot. But you should still feel honored. Heh.

    Michale [22] -

    Here's a question for you. A while back, Berkeley, CA held a citizens' referendum and voted that their city's police should be specifically instructed that arresting people for smoking marijuana should be the ABSOLUTE LOWEST priority of ALL law enforcement efforts. Parking tickets were put on a higher priority, to put it another way. So -- was this action legal and proper for the town's citizens, or not? Setting priorities for police work? You can see where I'm going with this one...

    joshua [25] -

    You might also mention that under Obama, deportations are at an all-time high, and the border is more secure than it's ever been. Just a suggestion.

    Michale [26] -

    Or the president could declare that all the torture laws are not worth prosecuting, and that he won't be spending any resources upholding all of those laws. Cuts both ways, don't it?

    Oh, I didn't see the rest of your post before I wrote that. But you're wrong -- Bush did indeed go ahead with his own interpretation of the laws long before the SCOTUS got involved... which is just what Obama's doing.

    Now, imagine that Bush would have said, "Screw ya'all.. I am going to use my discretionary authority and do what I want.."

    But that is precisely what Bush actually did say, and do.

    Oh, dude, I was paying attention right up until the point where you credited Stallone (shudder) for Judge Dredd's most famous line. Seriously, please credit "2000 AD" in the future, and NOT Stallone. My wife will back me up on this one, and you don't want to mess with her, trust me. Heh.

    [28] -

    "King Andrew I" (slam on Andy Jackson). You're welcome.

    ninjaf [31] -

    For those who need further instruction, please see our Commenting Tips page. I don't know that I've ever tried a "blockquote" in the comments before, but I have to say it seemed to work out nicely on my browser. Well done!

    -CW

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    It is not a lie that this is about children. President Obama's directive applies only to children who entered the country illegally at age 16 or under and are now age 30 or less.

    Exactly.. Last time I checked, any person over 18 is no longer a child.

    Ergo, this isn't about deporting children.

    The thirty year-olds would have spent at least half of their lives in America, been educated in America, grown up in America and likely know no other home other than America. The are probably as American as anyone else here in everything but on paper.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    CW,

    I think Michale used "precedence" when he meant "precedent" but now, even I'm not so sure...

    It's hard to tell, because aurally, they both SOUND correct...

    Kirk quoted Rush? No, TOS was first, so maybe Rush got it from watching Star Trek...

    I was half joking. :D I am sure it's a common enough sentiment that the Trek writer lifted it from somewhere else. :D

    On the other hand, anything worthwhile can be learned by watching Star Trek.... :D

    Ahhh... but "right" and "wrong" are totally subjective, aren't they, Grasshopper?

    They can be.. But in certain areas and issues, they are absolute...

    For example, the idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is as ludicrous as saying one man's child molester is another man's soul mate...

    Sometimes things ARE black and white...

    Is a President allowed to decide which parts of the Constitution he follows, and which he does not? Well, then, please explain Bush and the warrentless wiretapping. You might want to review the 4th Amendment, first.

    I would simply quote the AUMF while pointing out how Obama has taken "wiretapping" to a whole new level.. Can you say, "surveillance drones"?? :D

    I would also be constrained to point out that taking actions in violation of the Constitution to safeguard this country is a perfect example of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

    Taking actions in violation of the Constitution to win re-election is a PERFECT example of doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason...

    Jon Stewart is the most trusted voice in news, according to polls. Scary, isn't it? More people get their news SOLELY from late night comedians than from folks like Brian Williams or any other source. And they're usually the ones who decide elections. Just had to say that.

    And yet, it's STILL "fake news"... At least according to Stewarts web site...

    And, I would point out that the polls are old. Any poll you look at in the here and now as far as Trusted Name In News would list FNC at the top..

    And that's just gotta hurt! :D

    Oh, wow, you even got Michale to back down!

    Ex-Squeeze me??? Baking Powder??

    Back down, my arse!!! :D I look at it as ninjaf finally realized that I wouldn't accept a COMEDIAN's report as factual.. :D

    But you say Potato and I say Alligator...

    Here's a question for you. A while back, Berkeley, CA held a citizens' referendum and voted that their city's police should be specifically instructed that arresting people for smoking marijuana should be the ABSOLUTE LOWEST priority of ALL law enforcement efforts. Parking tickets were put on a higher priority, to put it another way. So -- was this action legal and proper for the town's citizens, or not? Setting priorities for police work? You can see where I'm going with this one..

    If a government organization tasked with such authority, like say... ooo I dunno... CONGRESS.. gets together and makes such a determination, then it's perfectly acceptable...

    Now, let me use your example and turn it around.. What would you say if the Police Chief informed his troops one day that anyone carrying ANY marijuana at all would be arrested and fined $1000 (the fine, of course, paid directly to the Police Chief), even though the law says that only carrying more than 5 ounces would be a crime and no fine involved...

    You see the difference??

    In YOUR example, a government body TASKED with such authority and makes a change to the law..

    GOOD..

    In MY example, one man who's job it is to ENFORCE the law, not MAKE/CHANGE the law, takes it upon himself to change the law in a manner that benefits him and him alone..

    BAD..

    You might also mention that under Obama, deportations are at an all-time high, and the border is more secure than it's ever been.

    I'll give you the first, but the second is total and complete BS... That determination comes from the Obama Administration itself and is based on the number of arrests that have gone down.. But what the Obama Administration DOESN'T tell you is that those arrests are down because the Obama Administration has order BP to simply Turn South, rather than making arrests...

    This is documented fact...

    Oh, I didn't see the rest of your post before I wrote that. But you're wrong -- Bush did indeed go ahead with his own interpretation of the laws long before the SCOTUS got involved... which is just what Obama's doing.

    Ignoring for the moment that Bush did what he did for the security of the country and Obama did what he did for the security of his re-election, that isn't how it went down.

    Bush HAD the authority to do what he did, based on the AUMF.. When you can show me Obama's Congressional ATBK (Authorization To Be King) then you'll have an argument.

    But that is precisely what Bush actually did say, and do.

    Nope, he had the authorization from Congress.. Now, if he had said that *AFTER* the SCOTUS told him that the AUMF didn't authorize those actions, THEN you would have a situation CLOSE to what Obama did..

    I say "close" because even then, Bush is dealing with National Security issues where a LOT more leeway is given (as it should be) and Obama is doing what he is doing to get re-elected...

    To put it in another context, it's the difference between robbing a bank to pay for your child's kidney transplant and robbing a bank to buy that new Mercedes...

    Oh, dude, I was paying attention right up until the point where you credited Stallone (shudder) for Judge Dredd's most famous line. Seriously, please credit "2000 AD" in the future, and NOT Stallone. My wife will back me up on this one, and you don't want to mess with her, trust me. Heh.

    I knew that would get your attention.. :D Hence the Homer quote immediately after.. :D

    Michale.....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me give ya'all another example of how Obama's precedent (precedence?? ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!) can be used..

    Say in summer of 2016, President Romney goes before the American people and says,

    "Ya know what?? We have very limited resources to enforce campaign laws. We must prioritize our responses and our actions with regards to the campaign laws. Henceforth, I am directing my Office Of Campaign Law Enforcement to only pursue cases where Democrats have violated campaign laws. Thank you."

    Huh??? What's the screaming and bellowing???

    What's the beef?? President Romney is simply using his discretionary authority to allocate resources.. I thought ya'all were on board with that???

    What?? You say he is doing it SOLELY for partisan/re-election reasons??

    He is!??? Hmmmmmmmm

    Well, that precedent has been set, so.........

    So, I guess everyone is good on everything, right???

    {snicker, snicker} :D

    Michale......

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Exactly.. Last time I checked, any person over 18 is no longer a child.

    Ergo, this isn't about deporting children.

    the rationale for the dream act (and associated executive enforcement priorities) has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a child in the here and now. it's about a person's culpability for their undocumented status. if someone's family immigrated illegally when they were a child, the parents are responsible for the criminal act, not the children. even if those individuals are no longer children today, their undocumented status here and lack of ties to their parents' home country are not their fault. since they are not responsible for the commission of any crime, they should not be treated as criminals.

    Sometimes things ARE black and white...

    but not EVERYTHING is. although absolutes of right and wrong do exist, they are often misapplied to areas that are more ambiguous than they may seem. terrorists and child molesters do exist, but so do semi-legitimate actions that may be improperly painted with the same broad brush.

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Let's take Dr Bass for example, now, obviously I would have never knowingly put a convicted felon on the stand, I hope you can believe that, but what is the truth ?, that he is a disgraced liar ?, and what if I told you that the woman he was accused of raping was 17, he was 23, that she later became his wife, bore his children and is still married to the man today. Does that make his testimony more or less true?
    ~A Time To Kill

  39. [39] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Given an even distribution of ages only about 3% would be 30 year-olds and only about 32% would be legal adults. Even the adult, however, were children when their guardians, not the children themselves, committed the crime of entering the U.S. illegally. Now I was quite clear that some adults were also impacted while you persist in being untruthful, "Ergo, this isn't about deporting children."

    You also dishonestly and irrationally insist that the reaction to President Obama's lawful action is politically motivated because the unlawful actions of Republicans wouldn't have and don't receive the same reaction.

    Your hypothetical above, for example, would be a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It would be rightly criticized not because a Republican did it but because the law must be the same for everyone not a cudgel used to pummel opponents or those you've a prejudice against.

    You demonstrate a regrettable prejudice against President Obama. And, as is so typical of the prejudiced, you simply refuse to accept facts which challenge your preferred world-view and insist on misrepresenting facts in an attempt to validate your prejudice, even to the point of absurdity.

    You're all outraged over President Obama's supposed refusal to obey and enforce the law, because you're such a staunch supporter of the rule of law, just like the Republicans. Of coarse since the Constitution clearly gives the President the right to take the action he has and you are determined to fault any action the President takes, you just ignore the law and cry foul anyway, because you're such a staunch supporter of the rule of law, when it suits you, just like the Republicans.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    the rationale for the dream act (and associated executive enforcement priorities) has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a child in the here and now. it's about a person's culpability for their undocumented status. if someone's family immigrated illegally when they were a child, the parents are responsible for the criminal act, not the children. even if those individuals are no longer children today, their undocumented status here and lack of ties to their parents' home country are not their fault. since they are not responsible for the commission of any crime, they should not be treated as criminals.

    Once they became adults, they became responsible for their own status..

    If they didn't want to be criminals, they should have followed the proper channels to become a legal immigrant once they became adults.....

    Put it another way..

    Say, at the height of the Cold War, you had a husband/wife team with a kid that were Soviet spies. They come to this country and begin spying.. Once the kid got older, he or she began helping the parents spy on the US. This assistance continued, even after the child turned 18 and became an adult..

    Now, should the child be given amnesty because he/she had no choice to come into this country illegally and started spying against this country??

    Or would it be viewed more as that, once the child became an adult, he or she became responsible for their criminal actions...

    Same concept...

    but not EVERYTHING is. although absolutes of right and wrong do exist, they are often misapplied to areas that are more ambiguous than they may seem. terrorists and child molesters do exist, but so do semi-legitimate actions that may be improperly painted with the same broad brush.

    Agreed..

    But many of the discussions that we find ourselves in ARE black and white. Torturing terrorists, Violating the law to pander politically etc etc etc...

    Like my President Romney example above.. There's no ambiguity with that actions. It's black and white.. It's wrong as wrong can be..

    That's the kind of issues that we're discussing here...

    Pandering to illegal immigrants at the expense of American citizens is wrong..

    Why is it so evil to consider Americans first and illegals second??

    Michale.....

  41. [41] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    There are no proper channels for these children to use to gain citizenship once they become adults due to the refusal of Republicans to enact immigration reform.

    And your novel concept of inheriting culpability upon attaining the age of majority for the actions of others taken when you were still a minor is a simply mind-boggling concept. Instead, how about since holding children accountable when they become adults for the actions of their guardians is clearly unjust then those children have a legal right to defy any such laws?

    Since the idea that people have a right to defy unjust laws was a little before our time, 1776 in fact, let me just say that it was the rational of the lawbreakers who founded this country and is supposedly one the core principles underlying our system of government.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are no proper channels for these children to use to gain citizenship once they become adults due to the refusal of Republicans to enact immigration reform.

    I call BS...

    Are you telling me that an illegal immigrant has absolutely NO option in this country???

    Moose Poop!!!! I say again... MOOSE POOP!!!!

    And your novel concept of inheriting culpability upon attaining the age of majority for the actions of others taken when you were still a minor is a simply mind-boggling concept. Instead, how about since holding children accountable when they become adults for the actions of their guardians is clearly unjust then those children have a legal right to defy any such laws?

    No one said anything about inheriting culpability.. Anything done prior to adulthood at the behest of the parents is surely the responsibility (at least partially) of the parents..

    What I *DID* say is that, once a child reaches the age of 18 and CONTINUES to perform illegal acts, then THAT is on them...

    NOT on their parents..

    It's a quaint notion called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...

    Perhaps you heard of it..

    Since the idea that people have a right to defy unjust laws was a little before our time, 1776 in fact, let me just say that it was the rational of the lawbreakers who founded this country and is supposedly one the core principles underlying our system of government.

    And WHO gets to decide what laws are "unjust"?? The lawbreaker???

    Democrats???

    LIBERALS!??

    What a world THAT would be, eh? :D

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    The only channel I know of for these children to use in order to gain citizenship is to leave the country and then attempt to gain reentry to apply for it--and good luck with that!. That is not what I consider a proper channel.

    And I thought you were claiming these children magically break immigration law when they reach 21? Without having to actually illegally cross our borders or illegally enter our country? If you are not claiming they are become responsible for the illegal actions of their guardians when they were minors your contention that they are breaking immigration laws makes even less sense.

    And as to who gets to decide what laws are unjust—that would be us. Its why we have juries. And why its wrong to set up all these second-class legal systems for immigrants, workers, accused terrorists, ect. in a growing trend to circumvent the constitution and prevent the people from determining if the fault is with the law and not the law-breaker.

    The Constitution mandates the right to trial by jury, it doesn't say for citizens only, or on American soil only, or only if the government doesn't want to keep anything secret, it says if the federal government wants to prosecute someone then that person shall have a right to trial by a jury of their peers.

    Unfortunately we're such staunch believers in the rule of law we routinely and increasingly ignore the Constitution. But letting juries decide what's unjust used to be known as "the American way."

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only channel I know of for these children to use in order to gain citizenship is to leave the country and then attempt to gain reentry to apply for it--and good luck with that!. That is not what I consider a proper channel.

    Fortunately for the rest of us, you don't get to make that determination..

    If our laws are so draconian as you make them out to be, why are people dying to stay here???

    Catch 22 there, eh??

    They want to live in our country, use our resources without a ensemble of responsibility...

    How nice...

    We have a rule of law in this country. If one doesn't like it or doesn't want to obey it, then they should trip their asses right out the door...

    And I thought you were claiming these children magically break immigration law when they reach 21? Without having to actually illegally cross our borders or illegally enter our country? If you are not claiming they are become responsible for the illegal actions of their guardians when they were minors your contention that they are breaking immigration laws makes even less sense.

    They are illegally in this country.. Period.

    Once they turn 18, then that illegal act is on them...

    Again.. PERIOD..

    The Constitution mandates the right to trial by jury, it doesn't say for citizens only,

    So, you are saying that the US Constitution applies to non-citizens?

    Tell me you have more evidence than simply omission???

    Michale.....

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you are saying that the US Constitution applies to non-citizens?

    Tell me you have more evidence than simply omission???

    For the record, Captain Kirk's statement doesn't suffice.. :D

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [10]

    Since studies also show that people are more informed watching Jon Stewart than watching Fox News citing the comedian as a source might well be better than your citing Fox!

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further, I am inclined to point out that no one is advocating jailing these criminals or put them in front of a firing squad...

    We're simply deporting them back to their own country.. A free ride home...

    No jury is required as we are not incarcerating anyone....

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since studies also show that people are more informed watching Jon Stewart than watching Fox News citing the comedian as a source might well be better than your citing Fox!

    Which studies would those be?? :D

    Michale.....

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Have a family of immigrants move into your house, eating your food and using your toys....

    Would you wait patiently for a jury trial to see if they have the right to stay??

    Or would you call the local cops (ICE) and have them forcibly removed??

    This country is our house.. We don't like squatters... Especially when we have to support them...

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Yes the U.S Constitution applies to non-citizens. The Constitution mandates what the Federal Government can and cannot do, it does not qualify those actions based upon who the Federal Government wants to do them to.

    Once again, you only believe in the rule of law when it supports what you want to do and that is not the rule of law.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes the U.S Constitution applies to non-citizens.

    I am willing to concede the point.. But not with out established precedent... er... precedence... whatever......

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    You're talkin' to the wrong guy on that one. I don't believe this is still the 1700s or that a four page document was intended to explicitly state everything that was and was not legal but I also don't believe that SCOTUS is the law, just because the say so, so the actual text of the constitution is irrelevant, only SCOTUS rulings and precedents matter.

    SCOTUS abandoned the framers desire for a justice system in favor of a self-promotional legal system. But if the law is the law and its the letter of the law that matters and not justice, then the constitution itself is invalid and there can be no legal laws in this country since the constitution was established illegally by lawbreakers.

    Of course the right is untroubled by logical inconsistencies and hypocrisy. Me—I agree with the founders. I believe that government rules with consent of the ruled, that people have a right to defy unjust laws, that justice, not the law, is the appropriate determining factor for government action—but that's just me. Our legal establishment and conservative citizenry are firmly wedded to the might-makes-right school of governance, however more PC they may try to couch it.

  53. [53] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Let me also just mention that relying on SCOTUS decisions and "precedents," instead of what the law actually says and the case actually before you warrants, is not "the rule of law" either.

    For some reason I've never been able to fathom the proponents of "the rule of law" all seem to think it means making things up as you go along to get the results you currently desire (since the written law is subject to reinterpretation and precedents subject to change without notice) instead of establishing firm laws for everyone.

    They see "the rule of law." I see a corrupt justice system based upon the-ends-justify-the-means and might-makes-right, not the-rule-of-law.—Go figure?!

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    So..... What you're saying is that, if a family of illegal immigrants moved into your home and took over all of your property, you wouldn't have a problem with that... Because, after all, they are just protesting an unjust law.... The law that allows you to have a better life than theirs...

    Somehow, I don't think THAT is exactly what you want to happen...

    But that is exactly what you are advocating...

    There's a word for it...

    It's called.... ANARCHY...

    We have laws in this country...

    That is the beginning and the end of the discussion...

    And we don't get to violate those laws for personal gain...

    Which is EXACTLY what President Obama did...

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    I'm saying that if anyone moved into my home without my consent I'd call the police and have them arrested, and then they would have a right to their day in court where, provided they pull a jury of conservative Republicans determined to return us to the 50's, they may well win the right to stay in my house whether I like it or not and there wouldn't be a thing I could do about it! Because we're a country of laws, not justice.

    As I say, I do not believe in determining what's legal is based upon the outcome you desire. And your repeated attempts to make this about hypothetical immigrant behavior instead of the actual issue of Federal government behavior under discussion has finally bored me. I'm done here.

  56. [56] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So, how do you like your Red Herrings? Poached with a butter herb glaze or maybe fried with a Bearnaise sauce?

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm saying that if anyone moved into my home without my consent I'd call the police and have them arrested, and then they would have a right to their day in court where, provided they pull a jury of conservative Republicans determined to return us to the 50's, they may well win the right to stay in my house whether I like it or not and there wouldn't be a thing I could do about it! Because we're a country of laws, not justice.

    OK... I didn't really want to go this venue, but you really left me no choice...

    Forget about the family of immigrants....

    Let's call it a family of squirrels....

    They move into your home.. They eat your food, they chew on your wires, they basically make your home a mess and they cost you a fortune...

    So, being the animal loving liberal that you are, what do you do??

    Do you just let them live in your home, eating your food and consuming your resources???

    Or do you capture them humanely and deport them to the forest??? to THEIR home???

    Or, the third option is to let them stay in your home til there is a trial and a jury tells them they have to leave...

    Seriously, dood.... What part of ILLEGAL immigrant do you NOT understand???

    Once again, I am reminded of that totally inane and moronic claim that...

    "By and large, illegal immigrants obey the law."

    They are ILLEGAL.... PERIOD...

    Anything else is just sentimental solipsistic emotionalism claptrap bullshit...

    Again, I have to ask... WHY is it so evil to look after Americans first???

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, yer entire argument is based on one, very sentimental and simplistic, but oh so annoying premise..

    The criminal is the victim...

    Americans have had enough of that attitude...

    It's the attitude that has brought us to where we are today...

    Michale.....

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Basically, yer entire argument is based on one, very sentimental and simplistic, but oh so annoying premise...

    one could just as easily say the same about your premise that anyone who fails to follow any law, no matter what the circumstances, is a "criminal" and entitled to no more rights than any other criminal. this is the reasoning that allows you to make the leap from immigration to espionage or from people to squirrels. there may well be something wrong with a person being alive and in this country without the proper papers, even if it is their parents' fault for initially putting them in that position. however, it's not even in the same universe as such evils as espionage or investment banking.

    if we agree that something like murder and something like jaywalking are fundamentally different, then we cease to live in a universe of absolutes. some illegal acts are significantly less severe than others, and less in need of enforcement. if you insist that living here undocumented (even if it was your parents' choice, not your own) is more like murder and less like jaywalking, that's your right. but if we're going to demand deportation of anything foreign that comes in and does something illegal, let's start with the swiss bank!

    ~joshua

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    You make my point for me far better than I could.

    It must be the poet in you.. :D

    Yes, we can equivocate up the wazzooo and paint the criminal as the victim and pay homage to the criminal and acquiesce to the demands of the criminal until this country is on par with other 3rd world countries who have let the criminals become the law...

    Mexico is a good example...

    Or we could allow for the oh so radical concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and allow for that each person is responsible for their actions..

    I am all for compassion....

    But fer chreest's sake, let's blend some compassion with some common frakin' sense and don't cut off our arm to spite our heart..

    Again, I have to ask..

    WHAT, I repeat... WHAT is oh so wrong, so EVIL, that we look after our own first and the rest of the world second??

    I axe ya???

    Michale.....

  61. [61] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It's the attitude that has brought us to where we are today...

    The most powerful country with the largest economy in the world?

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    The most powerful country with the largest economy in the world?

    And a shell of our former glory, thanx to Obama and the Democrats..

    Yea, I know, I know.. It's all Bush's fault. :^/

    Michale.....

  63. [63] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Moving from Red Herrings to hyperbole?

    By what measure are we a shell of our former glory? It's not like this is the first recession the country has gone through in the last few decades...

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh I dunno...

    How high our deficit has gone just under Obama..

    Having a POTUS who never met a world leader he didn't want to bow down to..

    Gutting our military until it's a shell of it's former power..

    Losing influence in practically every sphere of the world..

    Screwing over every allied intelligence agency by sacrificing THEIR assets on the altar of WATCH ME SPIKE THE FOOTBALL..

    And, of course, making the US the laughing stock of the world with the LEAD FROM BEHIND strategy...

    Take your pick...

    2013 definitely can't come soon enough..

    Michale.....

  65. [65] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Hyperbole confirmed. OK, then...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope.. Just the facts....

    I can understand how you can confuse the two...

    A by-product of kool-aid binging.. :D

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.