What Obama Should Say Now
There is a very old tactic in American politics, used for decades after the Civil War, which is called "waving the bloody shirt." Without getting into the ugly details of Reconstruction (or the ugly details of the Democratic Party's own "Red Shirts," for that matter), the definition of "waving the bloody shirt" soon became akin to "using past injustices to divert attention from present-day issues." Holding a big grudge, in other words, and then milking it for all it is politically worth.
This was brought to mind by one of the metaphors the Republicans are deploying in a pre-emptive attempt to convince President Obama not to act on his own on immigration reform: "waving a red flag in front of a bull." There are others, including "poisoning the well," and "playing with matches," but the red flag one was the one that struck a historical chord with me.
President Obama is going to be the unquestioned leader of the Democratic Party for the next two years. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been relegated to minority status in Congress, leaving only one prominent voice to stand up for the Democratic agenda. How Obama chooses to do so in the next few weeks is going to set the tone for the next two years. It may indeed involve waving red flags or lighting fires under Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, since nothing's going to get done unless all three men agree.
What follows is my humble suggestion for what Obama should say when he returns from abroad. I realize it is a bit unrealistic, since the first part is simply not going to happen anytime soon in Congress. But Obama can get out in front of the issue and by doing so show the inside-the-Beltway punditocracy how ridiculous the whole "everyone's going to play nice now" theme (that they've been obsessed with since the election) truly is. The second item is also divorced somewhat from reality, since it merely reinforces a fantastical theme Republicans have been pushing, also since the election. There is absolutely nothing to stop Congress from legislating on immigration reform no matter what Obama does or does not do on the issue. But Republicans have seemingly convinced themselves that Congress either can't act or is precluded from acting by President Obama's own executive actions. This is preposterous -- if Obama acts, Congress can also act any time it chooses -- but this is the line Republicans have taken, so Obama should play into their artificial construct to make his own political point.
Obama needs to strongly show that no election instantly changes what the two parties believe, and that all this talk of waving red flags cuts both ways. Republicans can't play the angry bull if they're busy waving their own red flags at Obama, to put it another way -- and the media shouldn't let them get away with doing so. Congress, as an institution, could indeed act quickly to avoid some Obamacare chaos, but they likely won't. And just because Obama announces a new immigration policy, it doesn't preclude Congress from acting. What follows is my suggestion for how President Obama should present these two ideas (perhaps in a press conference), immediately after he returns to Washington.
Proposed speech for President Obama
I'm going to speak today about two issues: immigration reform and the Affordable Care Act case currently before the Supreme Court. But before I do, I'd like to address some recent comments about partisanship and gridlock. Some Republicans are saying any action I might do on immigration would be confrontational to them in the extreme -- that I would not be giving them a chance to be heard on the issue, and that it would be no more than sheer political provocation. I think what I'm going to announce today will take care of the first part of that, which I'll address in a minute, but I have to say one thing about the second part.
Why is there no equivalence between what Republicans call me provoking them, and what they've announced will be one of their first priorities in the new Congress? Why is making yet another futile attempt to "repeal Obamacare" not seen as provocative? The House of Representative has voted 50 times to do so -- not that the 50th was any more successful than the 49th... or the 48th... or the first, for that matter. Let me be crystal clear, right from the start -- if the new Senate votes on a repeal bill and puts it on my desk, it will be vetoed. Period. So any time or effort taken to do so should be seen as nothing more than, to use their metaphors, "playing with fire" or "waving a red flag in front of a bull." Or, to put it another way, a continuation of endless partisan gridlock.
There has been a lot of talk since the recent election about "getting Washington to work" and "getting things done" rather than pursuing endless partisan gridlock as if it were some sort of game or reality television show. Instead of spending weeks passing a repeal bill that will be vetoed, I instead call on Congress to make a very small technical fix to the Affordable Care Act -- a small fix that could avoid enormously disastrous consequences for millions of Americans. I think the American people want to see me and Congress work together to solve problems before they happen, and I am challenging them to show some good faith by doing so.
The Supreme Court has decided to take up a case which could have drastic consequences for millions of Americans who now have affordable heath insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The reason this case exists is, in essence, because Congress made a typo when drawing up the law. In one single instance, where they should have written "state and federal health insurance exchanges," they instead only wrote "state." Now, this isn't some esoteric legal argument about what was meant in one phrase of the Constitution by the Framers (who are long dead), this is a legal argument about the intent of a law passed only a few years ago. The people who drafted it are still very much alive, and they universally agree that what was meant was that subsidies would be available to all Americans, whether their state set up an individual exchange or whether their state deferred that responsibility to the federal government. It's really a no-brainer -- all American citizens should be treated equally, no matter what state they live in. This is why we're confident that the court will rule in our favor, if it comes to that.
But Congress could fix the problem, and save the Supreme Court some time. I call on the leadership from both houses of Congress to immediately pass a one-sentence bill which changes the offending typo to read what everybody meant it to read in the first place. That's all it would take -- a bill one sentence long. It would be the work of a single afternoon in Congress. By passing such a bill, Congress could solve the legal problem and the court case could easily be dismissed as no more than a moot point. If the Supreme Court were to rule that one typo -- a typo contradicted numerous times in other parts of the same law -- was the actual intent of the drafters, it would immediately throw the health insurance marketplaces into chaos. At this point, Congress would have to act one way or another. But this possible crisis can be easily avoided, by passing a fix now.
So, rather than just fanning the flames of partisanship for a lost cause that will be vetoed, why doesn't Congress actually work to get something positive done? Nobody in their right minds -- other than the lawyers who are paid to -- thinks that the people drafting the law meant to spell out any difference whatsoever between a Kentuckian who signs up for health insurance on Kynect and a South Carolinian who does so via HealthCare.gov. It's patently obvious that federal law should treat them the same, and treat their subsidies the same. Congress should take one afternoon, pass a one-sentence bill, and solve this problem so the Supreme Court can spend its time more productively.
The other subject I'd like to address today is my upcoming announcement on deportation policy and immigration reform. I will be making the final announcement of the new policy soon, so you'll have to excuse me for not revealing all the details right now, but what I can do now is speak to the issue of congressional involvement. What I am going to announce will be a change in policy that will begin on the first of May, next year. That is the deadline for Congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform, before my new policy takes effect. This gives both the outgoing lame-duck Congress and the incoming 114th Congress time to act, should they choose to do so.
Acting before the end of the year would be the easier of these two routes, because the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill almost a year and a half ago -- by an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of 68 votes. This bill can be taken up at any time in the remaining weeks of this year by the House, passed, and put on my desk. This bill doubles the size of the Border Patrol, which could have been accomplished by now if the House had acted in a timely manner rather than dither for over a year. I have been waiting a long time for action, but it seems that without a deadline hanging over their heads, nothing gets done in Congress these days.
Perhaps Republicans want the new Congress to tackle the issue instead of the outgoing Congress. Fair enough. But endless delay is no longer an option. I've heard more times than I can count: "Just give us some time, Republicans will come up with our own bill," immediately followed by nothing ever getting done. That is no longer acceptable. People have been in limbo long enough.
I will be announcing changes that I can legally make to federal policy, but these changes will not take effect for over five months. Congress can choose to take that time and formulate a policy that can pass both houses and which I can sign, or it can choose to spend its time on other things. It is entirely their choice. If Republicans think they've got a better solution to the problem, then I am always willing to listen. But my patience is nearing its end. Waiting two years or more after the Senate passed a bipartisan solution is too long for me to wait, and too long for the people affected to wait. Which is why my new policy will take effect if Congress does nothing before the first of May. That's their new deadline.
Mind you, I could have announced that the new policy will be taking effect tomorrow. That would indeed have been provocative, because it would not have allowed Congress time to react to the new policy. I will not do so, because I truly believe it would be better for America for Congress to be involved in the process. But I refuse to delay any longer on some vague promise that delay now could maybe possibly mean some future congressional action. I have heard promises like this before from Republicans in Congress, and they still have not acted. So my new policy -- and again, you'll have to wait for the details for a few more days -- will mark an end to the endless delays, one way or another.
Congress can choose to act, and put something on my desk that I can actually sign. Or they can choose not to act, in which case my new executive action will take effect next May. Either way, federal policy is going to change. The only question will be whether Republicans want any say in how it does change, and what it changes to. They will have ample opportunity to do so, and it shouldn't take all that long -- the issue has been endlessly debated for years.
Republicans in Congress can choose to get things done. Or they can choose not to. But they should bear full responsibility either way. If Congress chooses not to act to fix one typo in the Affordable Care Act, then an easily-avoidable chaos could be the result. Democrats do not want this chaos, they want to see every American treated equally by the law, no matter what state they live in. Republicans in Congress are now on notice that my upcoming immigration and deportation policy announcement will include the implementation date of next May. They have until then to act differently, if they want to see a different policy enacted. If they choose not to do so, then the consequences will be clear -- my new policy will take place instead.
Are Republicans serious about wanting to govern? We will see. They can dump poison in the well, or wave that red shirt if they want -- but the upshot is that they will achieve nothing more than a continuation of the gridlock the American people are so tired of. Or they could choose to participate in the process and pass their own ideas and plans on how to solve America's problems. They'll have to work with me, because I have my own principles that I am not going to abandon, and I have dusted off my veto pen in case they do send me any "red shirt" bills. I am willing to work with them up to a point. If they are willing to work with me, then we can get some things done. If not, then nothing much will get better in Washington for the next two years. The choice is entirely up to them.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I think his speechwriter should start with this and add a challenge to hold a vote on the AUMF for ISIS at the end. "Oh, by the way, you also will need to figure out how you're going to take care of this pressing constitutional necessity for putting Americans in harm's way."
When he returns from convincing China to do what they said China would never do, he should say:
The Chinese (even the non-scientists) have seen the light through the smog. God is still up there.
n (or the ugly details of the Democratic Party's own "Red Shirts," for that matter)
The poor, poor Security Officers...
"This mission to the planet is very dangerous. ONE of us likely won't survive. The landing party will consist of myself, Mr Spock, Dr McCoy and from Security, Ensign Ricky."
"Awww crap..."
-Family Guy
:D
There is absolutely nothing to stop Congress from legislating on immigration reform no matter what Obama does or does not do on the issue.
EXCEPT....
Except for the fact that Obama has proven time and time again (and is about to prove again) that he simply CANNOT be trusted to enforce ANY legislation as it is written..
Congress, as an institution, could indeed act quickly to avoid some Obamacare chaos, but they likely won't.
Why should Republicans bail out Obama??
Would Obama do the same??
And just because Obama announces a new immigration policy, it doesn't preclude Congress from acting.
And, if Obama would wait until this new Congress CAN act, this new Congress WILL act...
But it won't give Obama and the Democrats what they want...
Millions and millions of freshly minted new Democrat voters...
Why is making yet another futile attempt to "repeal Obamacare" not seen as provocative?
Let me answer Obama's question WITH a question..
"Why do you view Republicans obeying the will of the people as provocative??"
The people who drafted it are still very much alive, and they universally agree that what was meant was that subsidies would be available to all Americans, whether their state set up an individual exchange or whether their state deferred that responsibility to the federal government. It's really a no-brainer -- all American citizens should be treated equally, no matter what state they live in. This is why we're confident that the court will rule in our favor, if it comes to that.
Actually, this is 1000% in-accurate. The only quotes we have from THAT time overwhelmingly show that the intent was to force the states to set up their own exchanges by withholding subsidies..
The ONLY quotes from that time show this.. There is NO QUOTE from that time that indicate ANYTHING else..
Obama is right to be very afraid of the SCOTUS ruling.. The SCOTUS will rule against the administration.. This is all but an assured outcome...
As far as the Immigration thing.. NOTHING the GOP has done or can do will solve the problem of this current immigration debacle..
Because the problem is NOT with the GOP...
The problem is with Obama.
Let me lay it out succinctly..
HE... CANNOT... BE.... TRUSTED....
Now, do the GOP just feel this way on a whim??
Of course not.. There is so much evidence of Obama's lying and Obama's bad faith that I don't think ANYONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together would deny that the GOP has sufficient cause to feel this way..
Obama has lied time and time again. This is fact...
I know ya'alls first (and ONLY) inclination is to blame GOP first, blame GOP last and blame GOP always.. In ya'alls eyes, Obama and the Democrats are pure as the driven snow...
But, in this particular case, it's the GOP who are the side of the American people... Which is why they were overwhelmingly voted back into office by those same American people.
How many times do the American people have to tell Democrats, "WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THIS!??" before Democrats take the hint???
Apparently, at LEAST one more time.. In 2016...
Michale
n (or the ugly details of the Democratic Party's own "Red Shirts," for that matter)
The poor, poor Security Officers...
"This mission to the planet is very dangerous. ONE of us likely won't survive. The landing party will consist of myself, Mr Spock, Dr McCoy and from Security, Ensign Ricky."
"Awww crap..."
-Family Guy
:D
There is absolutely nothing to stop Congress from legislating on immigration reform no matter what Obama does or does not do on the issue.
EXCEPT....
Except for the fact that Obama has proven time and time again (and is about to prove again) that he simply CANNOT be trusted to enforce ANY legislation as it is written..
Congress, as an institution, could indeed act quickly to avoid some Obamacare chaos, but they likely won't.
Why should Republicans bail out Obama??
Would Obama do the same??
And just because Obama announces a new immigration policy, it doesn't preclude Congress from acting.
And, if Obama would wait until this new Congress CAN act, this new Congress WILL act...
But it won't give Obama and the Democrats what they want...
Millions and millions of freshly minted new Democrat voters...
Why is making yet another futile attempt to "repeal Obamacare" not seen as provocative?
Let me answer Obama's question WITH a question..
"Why do you view Republicans obeying the will of the people as provocative??"
The people who drafted it are still very much alive, and they universally agree that what was meant was that subsidies would be available to all Americans, whether their state set up an individual exchange or whether their state deferred that responsibility to the federal government. It's really a no-brainer -- all American citizens should be treated equally, no matter what state they live in. This is why we're confident that the court will rule in our favor, if it comes to that.
Actually, this is 1000% in-accurate. The only quotes we have from THAT time overwhelmingly show that the intent was to force the states to set up their own exchanges by withholding subsidies..
The ONLY quotes from that time show this.. There is NO QUOTE from that time that indicate ANYTHING else..
Obama is right to be very afraid of the SCOTUS ruling.. The SCOTUS will rule against the administration.. This is all but an assured outcome...
As far as the Immigration thing.. NOTHING the GOP has done or can do will solve the problem of this current immigration debacle..
Because the problem is NOT with the GOP...
The problem is with Obama.
Let me lay it out succinctly..
HE... CANNOT... BE.... TRUSTED....
Now, do the GOP just feel this way on a whim??
Of course not.. There is so much evidence of Obama's lying and Obama's bad faith that I don't think ANYONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together would deny that the GOP has sufficient cause to feel this way..
Obama has lied time and time again. This is fact...
I know ya'alls first (and ONLY) inclination is to blame GOP first, blame GOP last and blame GOP always.. In ya'alls eyes, Obama and the Democrats are pure as the driven snow...
But, in this particular case, it's the GOP who are the side of the American people... Which is why they were overwhelmingly voted back into office by those same American people.
How many times do the American people have to tell Democrats, "WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THIS!??" before Democrats take the hint???
Apparently, at LEAST one more time.. In 2016...
Michale
Whoaa!! How did THAT happen!!???
I guess the Weigantia gods felt my comment was SOOO important, it had to be posted twice... :D
Michale
JFC,
When he returns from convincing China to do what they said China would never do, he should say:
"Hello!! McFly!!!"
-Biff Tannen, BACK TO THE FUTURE
China hasn't DONE diddley squat!!
All China has SAID is that, "OK, we want you to cut your pollution emissions 50% by 2025. WE will continue our pollution emissions til 2030 and THEN we can discuss cutting back OUR pollution emissions.. Sound good??"
And Obama, desperate for ANYTHING after the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014, says, "Okie Dokey, that sounds great!!"
THAT is what transpired in China...
I must apologize to you.
I know how much you like to live in your own little dream world. I shouldn't be pulling you back to reality...
But hay... I gotta be me..
Facts and reality... That's me :D
Michale
MATT!!! Good ta see ya!! :D
I had thought after the GNSO2014, ya would have found the darkest deepest hole and pulled it in after ya!! :D
Glad ta see yer still with us... :D
I think his speechwriter should start with this and add a challenge to hold a vote on the AUMF for ISIS at the end. "Oh, by the way, you also will need to figure out how you're going to take care of this pressing constitutional necessity for putting Americans in harm's way."
Obama has stated he can use the Bush AUMF just fine..
So, we don't need another AUMF...
Talk about a waste of time...
Michale
How many times do the American people have to tell Democrats, "WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THIS!??" before Democrats take the hint???
With the exception of National Security or Public Safety, the American people are the final arbiter of what our leaders should and should not do..
The American people don't want Obamacare
The American people don't want Amnesty For Immigrant Criminals
I can't lay it out any plainer than that...
Michale
I mean, if ya'all need ANY more proof???
According to GALLUP, Obama's approval rating sits at 39%...
Republicans in Congress?? Their approval rating is at 42%...
Republicans are MORE POPULAR than Obama!!!
Now, if THAT is not a wake up call for Democrats...
NOTHING is...
Michale
“So basically it's the same thing. We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
-Jonathan Gruber, ObamaCare Architect
That's our Democrats.. All about exploitation...
Does anyone here honestly believe that TrainWreckCare is going to survive the SCOTUS???
Michale
n (or the ugly details of the Democratic Party's own "Red Shirts," for that matter)
The poor, poor Security Officers...
"This mission to the planet is very dangerous. ONE of us likely won't survive. The landing party will consist of myself, Mr Spock, Dr McCoy and from Security, Ensign Ricky."
"Awww crap..."
-Family Guy
https://i.imgur.com/Bgn9k.jpg
:D
Michale
. The reason this case exists is, in essence, because Congress made a typo when drawing up the law.
It's not a typo....
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits.
-Jonathan Gruber, ObamaCare Architect
It's the INTENT of the law....
The facts have been established..
The INTENT has been established..
Any other explanation is simply pure unadulterated partisan politics...
Pelosi said "We have to pass the law to find out what's in it.."
Well, Democrats passed it... The American people found out what was in it..
And the American people don't like it...
It's really THAT simple...
Michale
I will be announcing changes that I can legally make to federal policy, but these changes will not take effect for over five months. Congress can choose to take that time and formulate a policy that can pass both houses and which I can sign, or it can choose to spend its time on other things. It is entirely their choice. If Republicans think they've got a better solution to the problem, then I am always willing to listen. But my patience is nearing its end. Waiting two years or more after the Senate passed a bipartisan solution is too long for me to wait, and too long for the people affected to wait. Which is why my new policy will take effect if Congress does nothing before the first of May. That's their new deadline.
OK, I missed this part...
I am completely, unequivocally and 1000% on board with this...
I actually like it a LOT...
Obama goes on record as saying this, this and that will be done..
But it also gives the new GOP Congress time to put something down on paper..
The only drawback to this plan I see is that Obama will veto anything that doesn't give the Democrat Party tens of millions of fresh newly minted Democrat voters...
But, regardless of that caveat, I like what you propose, CW...
But Obama won't do it.. His own Party would bury him if he tried...
But, while Obama is issuing Executive Orders, here's another one he can issue..
Obama should issue an Executive Order, ordering Chuck to bring back to life, the hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans who have been killed by immigrant criminals...
If Obama issues THAT Executive Order and it is followed, I will support ANY Executive Order that Obama issues...
Michale
Michale,
China hasn't DONE diddley squat!!
On the subject of climate change, you would do well not to parrot the decidedly non-serious and anti-Enlightenment Republican line - doing so reflects very poorly on you.
On the subject of climate change, you would do well not to parrot the decidedly non-serious and anti-Enlightenment Republican line - doing so reflects very poorly on you.
I *ALWAYS* parrot the facts...
And, the fact is, China stated they wanted to "peak" there carbon emission in 2030... But they want the US to cut carbon emissions by 50% by 2020...
What that means is exactly what I said.. China wants to continue polluting until 2030 and THEN talk about carbon reduction..
I fail to see where I am not serious....
I also fail to see where I am wrong...
Just because I am saying the exact same thing logical and rational humans are saying doesn't make me (or them) wrong...
Just because it is not in keeping with the Left's fantasyland, doesn't make it wrong..
Michale
Ya gotta hand it to Jonathan Gruber...
He is singly-handedly doing what the GOP has failed to do in years.
Destroy TrainWreckCare.....
Is this a great country or what!!!??? :D
Michale
Ya gotta hand it to Jonathan Gruber...
He is singly-handedly doing what the GOP has failed to do in years.
Destroy TrainWreckCare.....
Is this a great country or what!!!??? :D
Michale
I *ALWAYS* parrot the facts...
That, I'm afraid, is a particular delusion of yours.
That, I'm afraid, is a particular delusion of yours.
With the utmost respect, madam.. The delusion is yours. :D
I only have to point to the recent mid-terms to prove my case.. :D
I can also point to hundreds of predictions of the Global Warming fanatics that never have come to pass...
When it comes to me and facts, the Global Warming group ain't even in the same galaxy... :D
It's like me and facts are in the Milky Way and the GW crowd is in the Pegasus galaxy...
Michale
But let's not get off on the GW tangent.. We all know that's a long and curvy road to nowhere...
I am much more interested in debating the merits of Amnesty for Immigrant criminals.
Could someone please remind me what this action will do for the COUNTRY??
Not the Democrat Party, but the Country...
What's in it for Joe and Jane Sixpack??
Michale
Republicans should save the clips of Jonathan Gruber and run them over and over again in the run-up to the 2016 election. This attitude that government is better at making decisions than you are because you are too stupid to know what is good for you is a hallmark of patronizing, arrogant and condescending liberalism.
-Cal Thomas
Amen to frakin' THAT!!!
Gruber's comments cannot be taken out of context. Cannot be spun.. They are clear, unequivocal and easy to understand...
And they herald the end of TrainWreckCare...
Michale
If you want to hear from a SUPPORTER of TrainWreckCare....
Obamacare's Foundation of LiesThere is only one kind of lie, it's apolitical, and it cripples the best of intentions.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obamacare-s-foundation-of-lies-20141112
Michale
Very nearly a perfect speech. It even has Obama like cadences. I'll be surprised if the presidential writers come up with anything as good.
If *I* were McConnell, here would be my response to the President..
Mr President,
The new Congress will convene in January and our first order of business will be to close the ObamaCare subsidy loophole..
IF.......
If you forgo Executive Action on immigration and give the new Republican Congress an opportunity to forge REAL immigration reform, starting with Border Security...
The ball is in your court, Mr President. You have to decide whether you want to help American citizens or whether you want to help illegal immigrant criminals...
We await your decision...
Sincerely,
Mitch McConnell
Let's see how much Obama really wants to help American citizens...
Or whether all he is interested in is helping the Democrat Party mint millions of fresh new Democrat voters...
Michale
And, for Democrats, the hits just keep on coming...
Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment on Jonathan Gruber's comments regarding the lack of transparency and the stupidity of the American voter...
Pelosi's response??
"I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill."
Yet, the New York Times stated explicitly that Gruber DID help write the legislation...
After Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.
nytimes.com/2012/03/29/business/jonathan-gruber-health-cares-mr-mandate.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1415911066-Jo8lZGW+5ktwufnRHRUqYw
So, that takes care of Pelosi's claim about Gruber not having a hand in writing the legislation..
Now, let's look at Pelosi's claim that she never heard of Gruber...
We're not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we'll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don't know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT's analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange.
-Nancy Pelosi, November 2009
Ya know.. It's always been my understanding that, when one is caught in a big hole of lies, the absolute worse thing one can do is to keep digging with MORE lies...
Apparently, Nancy Pelosi hasn't heeded that very sound advice...
TrainWreckCare is toast!!!
There is no way it's going to survive the SCOTUS....
Michale
Chris: love it!
I am much more interested in debating the merits of Amnesty for Immigrant criminals.
I realize this may tax your brain a bit, but in order for someone to be considered a criminal, more is required than an act that happens to break the law. the supreme court has ruled that lack of mens rea makes most instances of illegal immigration a non-criminal act. therefore your label is not only inflammatory, it is also inaccurate.
Could someone please remind me what this action will do for the COUNTRY??
just off the top of my head:
1. it differentiates between the actual criminals and the people who have obeyed every law except the one that says "keep out," so joe and jane know who's dangerous and who's benign.
2. it decreases black market jobs and tax evasion, reducing joe and jane's tax load.
3. it reduces the deficit, which means more government services for joe and jane.
4. it increases the availability of certain skilled workers for entrepreneurs like joe and jane's cousin bob to hire for his tech firm.
5. reduces the risk of joe and jane catching a dangerous illness due to sick people being afraid to seek medical care.
6. reduces joe and jane's chances of getting their car wrecked by an unlicensed driver with no auto insurance.
7. increases joe and jane's ability to seek semi-skilled employment, since their wages will be less likely to be undercut by off-the-books slave wages.
8. increases the likelihood that a witness to jane's unfortunate mugging will come forward to testify, since that witness will not fear deportation.
i'm sure there are more possible benefits, but that's what came to mind.
JL
I realize this may tax your brain a bit, but in order for someone to be considered a criminal, more is required than an act that happens to break the law. the supreme court has ruled that lack of mens rea makes most instances of illegal immigration a non-criminal act. therefore your label is not only inflammatory, it is also inaccurate.
Could you cite that reference??
Because illegals do not enter this country via legal means in violation of Title 18, which makes them criminals..
2. it decreases black market jobs and tax evasion, reducing joe and jane's tax load.
Which is offset by the amnestied criminals using up welfare resources which cost Joe and Jane tons more than they would save...
3. it reduces the deficit, which means more government services for joe and jane.
See above.. it will tax resources past the breaking point. This is an established fact with the previous invasion of illegals..
5. reduces the risk of joe and jane catching a dangerous illness due to sick people being afraid to seek medical care.
This ALSO has been proven false by the previous invasion of illegals..
1. it differentiates between the actual criminals and the people who have obeyed every law except the one that says "keep out," so joe and jane know who's dangerous and who's benign.
So, if Obama gives 5 million criminals amnesty, they are magically no longer dangerous??
How exactly does that work??
6. reduces joe and jane's chances of getting their car wrecked by an unlicensed driver with no auto insurance.
So, you think by magically being made legal, these criminals will magically get licensed and insured?? :D I speak from experience when I say that illegals don't get licensed and insured because they are illegal. They don't get licensed and insured because they send all their money home..
Making them legal won't change that...
There isn't ANY good reason for Americans to make 5 million criminals legal..
There are a buttload of reasons NOT to make them legal and just deport them..
Increase on welfare resources. More criminal activity. Illegals taking jobs away from Black Americans and legal Hispanic Americans...
The *ONLY* benefit of amnesty for immigrant criminals is that it makes millions of new freshly minted Democrat voters...
If the Republicans were the Free Ride Party and all these illegals voted GOP, Democrats would do their best to keep them out...
You DO realize that, right??
Regardless of ALL of the afore, here is the clincher..
The American people do NOT want Obama to give immigrant criminals amnesty...
That is the beginning and the end of the question...
Michale
OK, I'm going to get to some comments in a minute.
First, a word of continued thanks for your patience. Haven't had the time for comments because I'm still struggling with a programming issue with the site. I've tried solving it like 16 ways, and each time it works perfectly in test code but then doesn't do anything in the real PHP code. Sigh.
Anyway, it's been frustrating and incredibly time-consuming, and even when I get it fixed it will be totally invisible to you, as a user. So that's what I've been doing, at any rate -- slog work.
OK, enough pity party, let's get to some comments...
-CW
That's the important part that ya'all just won't admit..
The AMERICAN people are against this...
Don't there wishes count for ANYTHING???
How many shellackings must Democrats endure before they get the message???
Michale
OK, enough pity party, let's get to some comments...
Rut roh... NOW I'm in trouble!!! :D
Michale
Osborne Ink [1] -
That is a dandy addition. He's already said he wants this, and he should indeed press for it.
John From Censornati [2] -
Also a good point.
Michale [3] -
Read that passage again -- it points out that the people who drafted it ARE ALIVE and can tell the court exactly what it meant.
As for being certain which way SCOTUS will rule, as I recall you've been wrong about that one before a few times...
As for Obama's untrustworthiness, that's a great argument for Congress doing exactly nothing for the next two years. This is precisely what I expect from Republicans -- a whole bunch of nothing.
[5] -
Sorry about the bugs, see above comments on programming problems... sigh....
[8] -
OK, let's play that game. The American people want an increase in the minimum wage. The American people want pollution controls on power plants. The American people want legalized marijuana.
So, of course, that's what Republicans will be working on, right?
Don't make me laugh...
[9] -
Apples and oranges. Polls show Obama at around 41-42% on average. Polls show the "Republican Party" at slightly higher than Dems. Polls show "Republicans in Congress" at below 20%. Sorry to burst your bubble. When the polling gets specific to those in Congress, the ratings go down the toilet.
[13] -
Congress can act at any time, whether Obama acts or not. But if Republicans need a fake deadline to spur them, then Obama should indeed point it out. Glad we're in agreement.
As for "hundreds of thousands" dead... cite? I mean, really...
TheStig [23] -
Thanks for the kind words. I got a number of similar comments on HuffPost ("I could actually see Obama saying this...").
Whenever I sit down to write one of these, I always picture Obama in my head speaking. I don't know if I'm getting better at it after 6-7 years or if this one was particularly close to his style or what, but it's what I've always kind of aimed for, so your comments (and the HuffPost's) are appreciated!
:-)
Michale [24] -
You keep harping on about "minting fresh new Democratic voters". One, even the Senate bill wouldn't actually let anyone become a citizen for 13 years. Two, Obama is not going to announce a pathway to citizenship for anyone -- he can't. Three, has the Republican Party just given up all hope of convincing any Latino to vote for them? It sure seems like it...
Paula [26] -
Thanks! Good to see you here in the comments again!
:-)
nypoet22 [27] -
Good list. Numbers 5, 6 & 8 were the ones that sprung immediately to my mind, when I read Michale's comment.
Michale [28] -
Actually, many people here have overstayed a visa -- they entered legally. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but it's true.
Your reaction to nypoet22's points is pretty silly overall, but this stood out:
So, you think by magically being made legal, these criminals will magically get licensed and insured?? :D I speak from experience when I say that illegals don't get licensed and insured because they are illegal. ...
Making them legal won't change that.
Um, yes. Yes, it will. According to you, they don't get licensed and insured because they are illegal. Making them legal will indeed change that.
As for speaking for the American people, every single poll I've seen puts "give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" at 60% or above (sometimes quite a bit above). So where's your data which contradicts this? You know, data that shows what "the American people" really think.
-CW
As for being certain which way SCOTUS will rule, as I recall you've been wrong about that one before a few times...
I have, tis true..
But the circumstances here are MUCH different..
There was no conflict in the lower court rulings.. If the SCOTUS intended to side with the government, they didn't have to do ANYTHING..
The fact that the SCOTUS took the case is a pretty strong indication of how they intend to rule..
As for Obama's untrustworthiness, that's a great argument for Congress doing exactly nothing for the next two years. This is precisely what I expect from Republicans -- a whole bunch of nothing.
But, once again, the circumstances are different... The GOP has "effective" control of the entire Congress... That can offset Obama's lack of integrity a great deal...
Sorry about the bugs, see above comments on programming problems... sigh....
Check yer email...
OK, let's play that game. The American people want an increase in the minimum wage. The American people want pollution controls on power plants. The American people want legalized marijuana.
If the American people want all that so bad, why did they overwhelmingly vote in the GOP..
But hay, I am nothing if not consistent..
If polls show overwhelmingly and consistently that the majority of Americans DO want these things, then yes...
The GOP should do them...
But, there is a BIG difference between giving something that the American people want and screwing over the American people by forcing something on them that they DON'T want..
But, regardless of that, I completely agree.. Except for Public Safety and National Security issues, if the American people consistently and overwhelmingly are for something, than the government should acquiesce...
I am nothing if not consistent...
So, of course, that's what Republicans will be working on, right?
If that's what they American people want, then the GOP better be... If not, they are no better than Democrats...
Apples and oranges. Polls show Obama at around 41-42% on average. Polls show the "Republican Party" at slightly higher than Dems. Polls show "Republicans in Congress" at below 20%. Sorry to burst your bubble. When the polling gets specific to those in Congress, the ratings go down the toilet.
Gallup says different. I know, it's a single poll. But it IS the polling standard.. And if the poll was reversed, I am sure it would be touted here.. So.... :D
As for "hundreds of thousands" dead... cite? I mean, really...
Would it make any difference in your response or how you think about the issue if I provide the facts???
Cause, if it will, I'll give you the cite and the facts..
If it won't, then there really isn't much reason, eh?? :D
You keep harping on about "minting fresh new Democratic voters". One, even the Senate bill wouldn't actually let anyone become a citizen for 13 years. Two, Obama is not going to announce a pathway to citizenship for anyone -- he can't.
Obama "can't" do a lot of things that he has been doing...
And being a citizen has nothing to do with it. As has amply been proven in the run-up to the 2014, Democrats don't care if a person is a citizen or not. Thousands of illegals were on the poll rosters in NC...
Um, yes. Yes, it will. According to you, they don't get licensed and insured because they are illegal. Making them legal will indeed change that.
Uhh.. no...
I speak from experience when I say that illegals don't get licensed and insured because they are illegal. They don't get licensed and insured because they send all their money home..
Making them legal won't change that...
As for speaking for the American people, every single poll I've seen puts "give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" at 60% or above (sometimes quite a bit above). So where's your data which contradicts this? You know, data that shows what "the American people" really think.
We're not talking about "path to citizenship"...
We're talking Amnesty For Immigrant Criminals...
And the American people are overwhelmingly against that...
Michale
Americans’ Cellphones Targeted in Secret U.S. Spy Program
Fake Cellphone Towers on Planes Used to Target Criminals, but Also Sift Through Thousands of Other Phones
http://online.wsj.com/articles/americans-cellphones-targeted-in-secret-u-s-spy-program-1415917533
And the response from the Left???
{{chhiiirrrrrpppppp}} {chirrppppp} {{chiiiirrrrrppppppp}}
Where is the outrage??
Where are the cries of "POLICE STATE!!!" and "HANDS OFF OUR PRIVACY!!!"
Oh, that's right.. A Democrat is POTUS....
Party uber alles...
Michale
Here's another Democrat's view of TrainWreckCare....
http://online.wsj.com/articles/burke-beu-this-democrat-is-giving-up-on-obamacare-1415919619
The writing is on the wall, people... Might as well accept the inevitable...
Michale
We Democrats need to get over ourselves, start anew on a national health-care policy, and return to our progressive principles. We claim to be the party of the underdogs, but on ObamaCare we simply catered to a different set of fat cats.
We resent Republicans who act morally superior and pretend to have a monopoly on patriotism, but an elitist attitude doesn’t look any better on us when we refuse to admit that ObamaCare is broken beyond repair. Measurable outcomes and actual effectiveness are the honest indicators of a successful program, not good intentions or high hopes.
We say that we are the party of the people, but “the people” too often become a singular, monolithic concept for us. We speak for the people, don’t you know, because we can decide what is best for them so they really don’t need to speak for themselves.
The people decided otherwise on Election Day. I hope my party is listening. When the next Congress convenes in 2015, Democrats need to work with the new Republican majority, repeal ObamaCare, override a presidential veto if necessary, and start from scratch on health-care reform.
Truer words were never spoken...
If Democrats hope to have a chance in hell of prevailing in the 2016 elections, they better heed these words...
Michale
Hay CW,
Since we have you in a commenting mood.. :D
I am curious as to your thoughts on comment #24
Towhit,
Mr President,
The new Congress will convene in January and our first order of business will be to close the ObamaCare subsidy loophole..
IF.......
If you forgo Executive Action on immigration and give the new Republican Congress an opportunity to forge REAL immigration reform, starting with Border Security...
The ball is in your court, Mr President. You have to decide whether you want to help American citizens or whether you want to help illegal immigrant criminals...
We await your decision...
Sincerely,
Mitch McConnell
Michale
JL,
I realize this may tax your brain a bit, but in order for someone to be considered a criminal, more is required than an act that happens to break the law. the supreme court has ruled that lack of mens rea makes most instances of illegal immigration a non-criminal act. therefore your label is not only inflammatory, it is also inaccurate.
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any noncitizen who:[59]
enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents,
or eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents,
or attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.
The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.
You were saying something about my designation of "immigrant criminals" is somehow inaccurate???
:D
Michale
The simple fact is, there is absolutely NOTHING that benefits Joe and Jane Sixpack from amnesty for immigrant criminals..
And, has been aptly proven by the recent influx of illegals, when it comes to diseases, economic devestation and over-extending of limited resources, amnesty for immigrant criminals costs this country's citizens greatly..
The ONLY beneficiaries of the amnesty for immigrant criminals is the Democrat Party...
What is so wrong or evil about a country that takes care of it's own citizens first???
Michale
Oh Liz??? :D
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/14/the_us-china_climate_change_deal_is_terrible_fortunately_it_doesnt_matter_124658.html
Michale
That is a dandy addition. He's already said he wants this, and he should indeed press for it.
That's the problem here..
It's ALL about Obama.. It's all about what OBAMA wants..
What about the American people?? What about what the American people want??
Ya'all USED to care about that...
What happened??
Michale
On the election front...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/14/even-liberal-media-say-mary-landrieu-is-toast/
If Landru had an ounce of integrity and really cared about Americans and Louisianians (wow! Spelled that right the first time!! :D) she would concede the race right now and save everyone a ton of money....
She can't win.. And even if, by some fluke, she pulls it off, it won't matter a whit anywhere...
Michale
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.607989678081639856&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
Oh yea... Just what we need in this country...
More assholes....
Michale
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/working-for-ice-is-hell-right-now-as-obama-plans-amnesty-for-illegals/article/2556174
The contempt that Obama and Democrats show for hard working Americans is simply beyond belief...
Michale
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien"
just because a statute exists, doesn't mean that it applies to everyone. that's why there's case law. while illegal ENTRY is a misdemeanor (technically a crime, just like littering or public lewdness), that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of case law.
1. not all people who are here illegally entered illegally - 40% entered legally and stayed illegally, not a criminal act.
2. many more are children brought by their parents; not legally responsible due to minority status. even if they later stayed here illegally, that part once again does not fit the misdemeanor statute.
3. some were not aware that their entry was wrong, were misinformed at the time and can not have been reasonably expected to know. therefore they are not culpable for the initial act. since later acts of staying are non-criminal, they are not criminals.
4. some believe the law is unjust and are acting in peaceful protest. therefore said individuals are political dissidents rather than criminal actors.
5. all others are presumed innocent until it is PROVEN in a court of law that they entered illegally AND knew or could reasonably be expected to know that it was illegal.
therefore, only a very small percentage of illegal immigrants are criminals of any sort, a small percentage of those are felons, and a microcosm of a percent are dangerous felons. other crimes that stem from illegal immigration are mostly accidental, like someone writing a random social security number on a job application; if the number turned out to already belong to someone, until recently the individual could be charged with identity theft, even if the illegal used their own name and address. the supreme court struck down that practice, just as lower courts have struck down the criminalization of immigration violations.
(see u.s. v. munoz, u.s. v. lopez-martinez, u.s. v. flores-figueroa)
once you break down the percentages, there's probably a lower likelihood of joe and jane being in danger from an illegal immigrant than a natural born citizen; the danger would be lower still if the undocumented had a legitimate way to admit their mistake and pay restitution without being deported.
JL
just because a statute exists, doesn't mean that it applies to everyone.
It applies to everyone who violated the law...
Which is all I said in my original statement. You said that my calling them criminals is inaccurate..
I have shown that it is NOT inaccurate. It is, in fact, accurate..
while illegal ENTRY is a misdemeanor (technically a crime, just like littering or public lewdness), that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of case law.
We can discuss the meaning of "is" until the cows come home..
But you don't get to pick and choose which are laws and which are "really not REAL laws" based on political ideology...
It's the law... You may not think it's an "important" law. That is your opinion and your choice..
But that doesn't change the fact that it IS the law..
It's a crime to enter this country illegally..
If one does so, that makes them a criminal...
You can equivocate and mitigate all you want...
But that doesn't change the facts..
once you break down the percentages, there's probably a lower likelihood of joe and jane being in danger from an illegal immigrant than a natural born citizen;
yea?? tell that to all the hundreds of thousands of Americans who has a family member killed by an illegal immigrant..
Tell that to the MILLIONS of Americans who have been raped and sexually assaulted by illegal immigrants...
But here is what is very telling.. You are going WAY WAY overboard defending illegal immigrants..
Where is your compassion for your fellow Americans??
Let's follow that up with another telling question...
Would the Left be all fired up defending immigrant criminals if they over-whelmingly voted Republican???
I think we ALL know the answer to that question...
Regardless, here is the one point that no one here seems to want to address..
The American people are OVERWHELMINGLY against Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants....
Since when does the welfare of criminals more important than the safety and security of American citizens??
Oh, that's right. Since Obama and the Democrats NEED to mint fresh new Dem voters...
Michale
therefore, only a very small percentage of illegal immigrants are criminals of any sort, a small percentage of those are felons, and a microcosm of a percent are dangerous felons.
According to ICE reports, 59% of illegal immigrants in the US have been deported at least once..
Now, I dunno how it is in yer neck o the woods, but around these here parts, 59% doesn't constitute "a very small percentage".... :D
Basically what you are trying to say is that illegal immigration is a "victimless crime"...
I can point to hundreds of thousands of reasons and a MILLION more reasons why this is simply not the case...
I'll ask again...
WHY do illegal immigrants/criminals take priority over the safety and welfare of American citizens???
Doesn't it matter what the American people want??
Michale
Doesn't it matter what the American people want??
Let me ask it another way.. Maybe that will garner an answer..
What is a bigger priority??
The needs of the American people??
Or the needs of the Democrat Party??
Michale
What is a bigger priority??
The needs of the American people??
is this michale's concept of "the american people" or the actual entirety of the US citizenry? i don't think those are exactly one and the same. most u.s. citizens want more deportation, and most also want more paths to legalization.
The American people are OVERWHELMINGLY against Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants....
"amnesty" is a straw man. nobody, democrat or republican, is actually proposing legalization without restitution. even jeb bush, of all people, recognizes that the situation is too complex to just label the entire group en-masse.
It also won't be surprising if Republicans don't say anything on the subject. When Mitt Romney discussed "self-deportation" in a 2012 Republican presidential primary debate, the Republican National Committee called the comment "horrific." Former Florida governor Jeb Bush called crossing the border illegally for family reasons an "act of love," a comment that was quickly met with complaints. Karl Rove said Bush's remarks were "inartful." Good press usually does not follow when Republicans decide to talk about deportation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/07/americans-dont-want-mass-deportations-but-that-are-sort-of-ok-with-increased-deportations/
We can discuss the meaning of "is" until the cows come home..
But you don't get to pick and choose which are laws and which are "really not REAL laws" based on political ideology...
It's the law... You may not think it's an "important" law. That is your opinion and your choice..
But that doesn't change the fact that it IS the law..
it's not the meaning of "is" it's the meaning of the law, as interpreted by the judiciary. That's why courts exist, so there's an arbiter of what the law means in each individual case. that interpretation may not be exactly how you or i would decide, but the application of laws is not nearly as cut and dried as you'd like to think. i went to the trouble of finding some of the case law, so the least you could do is actually read about it.
JL
is this michale's concept of "the american people" or the actual entirety of the US citizenry? i don't think those are exactly one and the same. most u.s. citizens want more deportation, and most also want more paths to legalization.
Like CW, you change the subject to fit your argument.
We are not talking PATH TO CITIZENSHIP...
We are talking AMNESTY FOR IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS
I understand why ya'all insist on changing the subject...
Because ya'all simply cannot justify AMNESTY...
More later.. It's past my bedtime..
Michale
amnesty = straw man
most illegal immigration is a civil offense, not a criminal one. there are extremely few people who don't want restitution for that offense, so arguing against amnesty is kinda like arguing against smallpox. nobody has it and nobody wants it, except perhaps as a bogeyman to argue against.
less than 20% of immigration cases involve felonies, and that's not counting the individuals who are law-abiding enough never to attract the attention of the authorities.
therefore, painting illegal immigrants with a broad "criminal" brush absolutely is inaccurate, or at the very least imprecise.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/illegal-aliens-are-not-criminals/
amnesty = straw man
You wish!! :D
AMNESTY is the ONLY issue...
You WANT it to be a "straw man" because you simply cannot justify your position on it.. :D
most illegal immigration is a civil offense, not a criminal one.
Sorry, you are in error..
I have proven that illegal immigration is a CRIMINAL offense??
"ILLEGAL" should be your first clue.. :D
less than 20% of immigration cases involve felonies, and that's not counting the individuals who are law-abiding enough never to attract the attention of the authorities.
Yea.. And "By and large, illegal immigrants obey the law" :D
therefore, painting illegal immigrants with a broad "criminal" brush absolutely is inaccurate, or at the very least imprecise.
Talking about "straw man" arguments.. :D
I have already proven that illegal immigration is a crime punishable by 6 months in jail for the first offense and 2 years in jail for subsequent offenses..
You forget.. I used to take criminals to jail for Title 18 violations...
Ahhhh the good old days... :D
Michale
“There are criminal immigration offenses but mainly they are misdemeanors in most instances, although a lot are serious felonies."
This Morton guy (and you) apparently seem to think that just because a crime is a misdemeanor, it's NOT a "real" crime..
Misdemeanors are JUST as much a crime as felonies.. Just not as serious..
So, even your own link, shows that illegal immigration, "in most instances" is a crime and therefore illegal immigrants are "in most instances" criminals...
If the actual law didn't convince you of the validity of my position, your own link should...
Michale
nobody, democrat or republican, is actually proposing legalization without restitution.
Except President Obama...
Actually, many people here have overstayed a visa -- they entered legally. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but it's true.
But Obama is not proposing to give amnesty to THOSE people.. At least, if he is, I am not as concerned about that..
I am talking about giving amnesty to CRIMINALS who have entered the country illegally..
By DEFINITION, those people are criminals and deserve NO consideration.. Those people are a slap in the face to every LEGAL immigrant who followed the rules and waited their turn...
To date, no one has given a GOOD, SOLID and/or RATIONAL reason to give immigrant criminals amnesty..
The won't pay income taxes, they won't all of the sudden NOT become a drain on American's resources and they will still commit all the crimes, the murders and the rapes that they commit now...
The **ONLY** reason to give immigrant criminals amnesty is to insure millions of new freshly minted Dem voters...
The American people are OVERWHELMINGLY against Amnesty For Criminals...
Or maybe ya'all have already forgotten the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014... :D
Do you think that the American people overwhelmingly decimated the Democrat Party to make it EASIER for Obama to commit this very un-American act???
No, the American people voted the way they did to send a message...
Too bad Obama and the Demcorats gave up listening to the American people a long time ago...
Michale
JL,
Trying a different track here...
Looking for common ground instead of digging at differences...
What do you think of CW's idea to defer any action on Amnesty For Immigrant Criminals until 1 May 2015??
Michale
What do you think of CW's idea to defer any action on Amnesty For Immigrant Criminals until 1 May 2015??
personally? i don't think there should EVER be amnesty, because amnesty means forgiveness without strings attached. what i think is that there should be restitution, in some form other than having to leave the country. presuming someone has not committed any serious crimes...
(excluding for the sake of argument the "crime" of crossing the border without permission. i cited case law that mitigates the statute, which you summarily ignored and reiterated the statute. but i digress)
...they should be able to pay society back for the harm done by skipping ahead of others in line to immigrate. that's not amnesty, it's restitution.
JL
personally? i don't think there should EVER be amnesty, because amnesty means forgiveness without strings attached.
Well, jeezus, why didn't ya say so!!
(excluding for the sake of argument the "crime" of crossing the border without permission. i cited case law that mitigates the statute, which you summarily ignored and reiterated the statute. but i digress
I didn't ignore it... Yes, you have some case law that mitigates the statute. But you know that I am a law and order type guy who is not really big on mitigation or extenuation. I acknowledge the concepts, just not real big on them..
...they should be able to pay society back for the harm done by skipping ahead of others in line to immigrate. that's not amnesty, it's restitution.
Than you and I really have nothing to argue about.. :D
Michale
I didn't ignore it... Yes, you have some case law that mitigates the statute. But you know that I am a law and order type guy who is not really big on mitigation or extenuation. I acknowledge the concepts, just not real big on them..
It's not that I am not a compassionate guy... I am...
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.607989678081639856&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
It's just that assholes like that don't DESERVE compassion...
That picture right there epitomizes the entire illegal immigrant community...
"Fuck you! Fuck your country! Fuck your laws! We're entitled!!"
Hard to be compassionate with ungrateful morons like that...
Michale
Michale
Hard to be compassionate with ungrateful morons like that...
but not everybody has that attitude. i would venture to guess that only a vocal minority of the minority has that attitude. how about the quiet ones who are willing to step forward, admit they broke the law, apologize and pay their restitution? are those people going to be lumped together with the lady in your picture, or are they going to have a procedure in place that doesn't treat them as if they were the same?
JL
let's even assume for the sake of argument that i'm completely wrong, and it's actually a 70% supermajority who have the ungrateful, entitled attitude, while only 30% are good people quietly waiting for some way to make up for their transgression without throwing their whole world into disarray. if you gave that 30% what they wanted, the 70% would either change their ways and pay society back, or continue living as an underclass. what's the harm?
JL
but not everybody has that attitude.
Agreed.. But enough are to mess it up for the few that aren't....
how about the quiet ones who are willing to step forward, admit they broke the law, apologize and pay their restitution?
THOSE ones should be applauded...
And it would also help if they would condemn the loudmouthed morons as well...
are those people going to be lumped together with the lady in your picture, or are they going to have a procedure in place that doesn't treat them as if they were the same?
I am all for that if they take steps to differentiate themselves from the morons..
But, more often than not, they DEFEND the morons, just because they are of the same race...
Such defense of the indefensible does not win them a place in my heart...
if you gave that 30% what they wanted, the 70% would either change their ways and pay society back, or continue living as an underclass. what's the harm?
The harm is that the 70% will tell their scumbag friends on how bad they screwed over the gringos and pretty soon we would have hundreds of thousands more scumbags acting like entitled jerks...
What's wrong with looking after Americans first???
Michale
What's wrong with looking after Americans first???
the problem with nativism, and make no mistake, that's the essence of what you're proposing here, is that it doesn't account for individuals. whether it's catholic immigrants in the 1830's, chinese immigrants in the 1880's or latinos today, a nativist attitude operates on stereotypes and does not give credence to the variety within all communities.
in my experience, the ratio of awesome people to regular people to total jerks is about the same among every race, creed, color and ethnicity. i would personally rather look after decent, considerate people first, no matter what color their skin is or what language they speak.
JL
in my experience, the ratio of awesome people to regular people to total jerks is about the same among every race, creed, color and ethnicity. i would personally rather look after decent, considerate people first, no matter what color their skin is or what language they speak.
Again, I completely agree... Of the immigrants, look after the more deserving first...
But I see nothing wrong with putting Americans first, in America. Just as I would see nothing wrong with putting Germans first, if I lived in Germany.. Or Brits first if I lived in the UK...
And what irks me most about this whole thing is WHY...
I could handle if Obama and the Democrats were doing this because they honestly cared about the plight of the illegal immigrants.. I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I *WOULD* respect it....
But Obama and the Democrats are NOT doing it for ulturistic reasons.. They are doing it for the most crass and nefarious reasons imaginable...
To keep themselves in power...
THAT is simple unconscionable..
THAT is the lowest of the low...
Because of that, Obama and the Democrats don't DESERVE to be in power...
A point the American people made VERY VERY clear a couple weeks ago..
Michale
Just as I would see nothing wrong with putting Germans first, if I lived in Germany
you brought germany into it, not me.
you brought germany into it, not me.
hhehehehe Touche'
But totally NOT for the reason you think...
I spent some time in Stuttgart and other points in Bavaria...
But, com'on... we're not talking about Nazi nationalism...
If Americans are starving and Americans are desperate for jobs, ANY jobs, it's not wrong to put their needs before the needs of illegal immigrants...
ESPECIALLY when such immigrants are represented by scumbags who make it clear they HATE America..
Like that utter moron who thinks that patriotic cries of "USA!! USA!! USA!!" is racist, yet she heads an organization called "THE RACE"....
It seems that racial pride is only acceptable for every race by the caucasian race...
Personally I think *ANY* kind of racial pride is moronic and stoopid... But when you throw a healthy dose of hypocrisy in it, it REALLY becomes asinine...
I mean, honestly... Why is it that those who falsely scream "RACIST!!!" the loudest are some of the biggest racists on the planet!??
If people actually PRACTICED what they preached, this world would be a lot better off, no???
Michale
It seems that racial pride is only acceptable for every race by the caucasian race...
It seems that racial pride is only acceptable for every race but the caucasian race...
It's late and I have been going since 0300 EST...
Michale
Michale [33] -
Actually, it only takes 4 votes on SCOTUS to take up a case. So that doesn't mean they're going to rule in any particular way.
If the American people want all that so bad, why did they overwhelmingly vote in the GOP..
True, but it might have been different if Democrats had actually stood up for any of those things...
What Gallup poll? I'm not dispuuting you, just want a cite, that's all...
Also, "hundreds of thousands", please, provide cite. I always have an open mind, if the data proves something.
[34] -
Yeah, I'm tracking that, will write about it soon, promise. Personally, I'm outraged.
Michale [37] -
Oh, puh-LEEZE. Why should anyone trust Mitch McConnell at this point? We'll see what he does... nevermind what he says...
[38] -
Something like 40% of all immigrants who are here without papers overstay their visas. They enter the country 100% legally, then just don't go home. How do they figure into your reasoning? Remember, we're talking about millions of people.
[39] -
Here's a mantra to chant:
"THESE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY HERE!"
They will not "flood the borders" or "attack the Americanness of everyone already here" because they ALREAEDY LIVE HERE.
Deal with it. The only question is whether the GOP is going to try to deport them or not.
Michale [46] -
Ever exceeded the speed limit? Just curious as to whether you are an "illegal" or not...
-CW
Actually, it only takes 4 votes on SCOTUS to take up a case. So that doesn't mean they're going to rule in any particular way.
Actually, the 4 votes are already lined up for taking down TrainWreckCare.
Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas...
Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote that saved TrainWreckCare.... I doubt he will save it a second time..
Two factors indicate this..
1. The mere fact that the SCOTUS took the case.
2. Roberts' ruling in the Voting Rights Case.
Sure, it's not a done deal. But I am putting the odds of the subsidies being thrown out at 80%-90%....
And I am willing to wager!!! :D
True, but it might have been different if Democrats had actually stood up for any of those things...
According to Joshua, they did...
There really is no way to spin the elections of 2014, other than to say it's a complete and utter repudiation of Obama's policies...
Obama himself said so...
Yeah, I'm tracking that, will write about it soon, promise. Personally, I'm outraged.
Of course, YOU are.. You are a man of integrity after all...
But the blatant hypocrisy of the Left in general never fails to piss me off...
Oh, puh-LEEZE. Why should anyone trust Mitch McConnell at this point? We'll see what he does... nevermind what he says...
The Left never waits to see what Obama does but rather just heaps praise and praise based solely and completely on what he SAYS?? The man won a NOBEL BASED SOLELY on what he said, fer chreest's sake!!
Something like 40% of all immigrants who are here without papers overstay their visas. They enter the country 100% legally, then just don't go home. How do they figure into your reasoning? Remember, we're talking about millions of people.
Those people are not the people we are talking about. Those people are not the people that Amnesty is targeting.. The one's being discussed for amnesty ARE the ones who entered this country illegally..
They will not "flood the borders" or "attack the Americanness of everyone already here" because they ALREAEDY LIVE HERE.
And when you give amnesty to THOSE criminals, 10 times that number will make a beeline towards are borders.. Can't you see that??
Yea, this country MIGHT be able to handle 4 million freshly minted new Demcorat voters and drains on societies resources, but what about the 40 MILLION that come later???
And, since Obama has already established precedence, what is to stop him from giving amnesty to THAT 40 million??
THAT is the point no one can address.. What is to stop Obama from giving ALL immigrant criminals amnesty???
What's to stop him??
Ever exceeded the speed limit? Just curious as to whether you are an "illegal" or not...
"Infraction" vs "Misdemeanor"...
Big difference... BIG... HUGE....
But, let's go with your analogy.. Let's say that my exceeding the speed limit kills hundreds of people and wounds thousands more...
All of the sudden, exceeding the speed limit is not the victim-less crime ya'all would like to think it is, eh???
Michale
Ya'all go on and on about the consequences of Obama ignoring the will of the American people and ignoring the opportunity to work with the new GOP Congress and implementing his Amnesty For Immigrant Criminals program..
"How much worse could it get??" ya'all ask...
Are you willing to find out???
Is it worth the threat to this country to find out???
What's more important??
The country???
Or the Demcorat Party???
Are ya'll Americans first and foremost?? Or Democrats first and foremost??
Michale
According to Joshua, they did...
i think i was taken out of context. what i said was that democrats stood up and won on social issues like marriage equality and contraception. On issues of economic equality, democrats either vanished, hedged, or openly joined the other side. to me, that's not exactly "standing up" - it's stirring the opponents base and disheartening one's own base - not exactly a recipe for success.
JL
i think i was taken out of context. what i said was that democrats stood up and won on social issues like marriage equality and contraception.
Contraception?? Mark Uterus ran on "contraception".. He lost..
Besides, I wasn't referring to that.. I was referring to the Min Wage Increase that passed in a couple states..
Michale
THAT is the point no one can address.. What is to stop Obama from giving ALL immigrant criminals amnesty???
Just curious....
Michale
Besides, I wasn't referring to that.. I was referring to the Min Wage Increase that passed in a couple states..
That was not enacted by legislators, it was voted in by citizen initiative.
THAT is the point no one can address.. What is to stop Obama from giving ALL immigrant criminals amnesty???
"We have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship. We’ve got to lay out a path — a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally. That's only fair."
President Barack Obama, January 29, 2013
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration/earned-citizenship
Maybe I misunderstood CW's point...
Yep, apparently, I did...
My bust... Apologies..
"We have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship. We’ve got to lay out a path — a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally. That's only fair.
Yea, that's what Obama said in 2013..
But Obama ALSO said that he doesn't have the power to grant amnesty.. Yet he did..
Obama ALSO said that illegal immigrants place a huge burden on American workers..
Practically everything Obama has said in the past, he has flip-flop'ed on in the present..
So, quoting Obama is probably not your best debate option. :D
Michale
So, quoting Obama is probably not your best debate option. :D
Because, if there is one thing that is constant, that is a fact beyond all dispute....
Using Executive Order on Immigration, Obama Would Reverse Long-Held Stance
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/by-using-executive-order-on-immigration-obama-would-reverse-long-held-stance.html
.... it's that Obama ALWAYS talks out of both sides of his ass....
Michale
Michale [68] -
You are absolutely wrong. There is no distinction between how people got here, when you're talking about either Obama's possible upcoming actions or the Senate bill.
40% of the 11 million did NOT enter this country illegally. They are a large chunk of the population we are talking about. Here, I even found a conservative news story so you'd believe it:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323916304578404960101110032
I mean, I don't really draw a distinction, personally, but you seem to for some reason.
Perhaps all the people in your area who are immigrants fit one certain cookie-cutter mold, I don't know. In Silicon Valley, what you'll find is engineers who overstayed H-1B visas. Wide disparities exist, depending on region.
But your claim is just 100% wrong. Neither Obama's law nor the Senate bill differentiate at all how anyone got here.
And only conservatives are talking about "amensty." So please be more specific in your complaints -- are you talking about the Senate bipartisan bill, co-authored by your own senator, Marcio Rubio, or are you talking about speculation on what Obama might do? Please be specific -- I mean, call it "amnesty" to your heart's delight, after you specify what you're opposed to, but let us know what you're talking about.
For instance: if the House had passed the Senate bill (which got 68 votes, 17 GOP I think), by now the Border Patrol would have doubled in size, and 700 more miles of fence would be under construction or built. How is not doing any of that a better scenario? Why hasn't the House managed to pass even that one piece of the Senate bill? Because Republicans love to fearmonger about the problem, not do anything about it.
[74] -
Maybe I misunderstood CW's point...
Yep, apparently, I did...
My bust... Apologies..
Wait... what??? Um, a little more detail, maybe? These moments are so rare, I like to know what they're all about, after all.
:-)
-CW
For instance: if the House had passed the Senate bill (which got 68 votes, 17 GOP I think), by now the Border Patrol would have doubled in size, and 700 more miles of fence would be under construction or built.
That is assuming that Obama actually FOLLOWED the law as it is written..
But, if recent history is any example, Obama will ignore the provisions for Border Patrol and fencing and just implement the parts he wants.
All under the bullshit guise of "Prosecutorial Discretion"..
I have always been supportive of the Senate Immigration legislation..
But I have stated that Obama simply cannot be trusted to implement the legislation as it is written...
A statement that NO ONE has been able to refute..
This whole kerfluffle has ONE cause and one cause alone..
Obama cannot be trusted....
It's THAT simple...
Michale
I have always been supportive of the Senate Immigration legislation..
But I have stated that Obama simply cannot be trusted to implement the legislation as it is written...
A statement that NO ONE has been able to refute...
it's impossible to refute speculation, because there's nothing there to refute. every president from andrew jackson forward has pushed the authority of the executive to enforce laws the way they see fit - if obama couldn't be trusted in that respect, neither could Lincoln, FDR, Ike, Reagan or George Dubya. I foresee a "...but y'all would have crucified GWB for doing the same thing," and in that respect you'd probably be right. Just understand that you're doing the same thing.
JL
it's impossible to refute speculation, because there's nothing there to refute.
Allow me to clarify...
In the post, Obama has blatantly lied to the American people solely for political gain and has shredded the part of the Constitution about faithfully executing the laws of this country..
And yes, all Presidents have stretched the truth and lied.. But NONE in recent history have blatantly lied to the American people solely and completely for political gain.... Well, except for Clinton..
And no President in recent times (say, since 1962) has so blatantly defied the will of the American people except in areas of Public Safety and National Security, where such is allowed...
Hope that clarifies things.. :D
The bottom line is that Obama has PROVEN beyond any doubt that he cannot be trusted to put this country before his Party...
Would you agree with that?
Michale
JL,
If you need a reminder of the total lies that Obama has told, just with regards to immigration??
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/obamas-immigration-amnesia/
Michale
I foresee a "...but y'all would have crucified GWB for doing the same thing," and in that respect you'd probably be right. Just understand that you're doing the same thing.
How so??? I have been entirely consistent in my dealings with a POTUS... I praise Bush AND Obama when they do similar things that warrant praise.. And, more importantly, I condemn Obama AND Bush when they do things that warrant condemnation...
Yet, I can list a dozen things that Obama has done that were very similar if not identical to the things Bush has done.. And, here in Weigantia, Bush rates the condemnation and Obama, none at all...
Consistency is the key...
Michale
i read the article, and it doesn't sound like obama was lying either time. inconsistent, yes. in the earlier quote he called it "very difficult to defend legally." perhaps now he finds it not quite as difficult to defend. some presidents adapt their views to suit changes in the political climate, others take the same stance on monday and wednesday, no matter what happened on tuesday. i don't think that means one is lying or the other is delusional, it's just two different ways of problem-solving.
you'll have to pardon my brevity, i have errands to run and am still coping with feelings about the jerusalem knife attack.
JL
i read the article, and it doesn't sound like obama was lying either time. inconsistent, yes.
The lying part comes when Obama said that he hasn't changed his position.
Clearly he has...
you'll have to pardon my brevity, i have errands to run and am still coping with feelings about the jerusalem knife attack.
My condolences.. Sincerely..
Michale