Popular Post chuckd Posted December 25, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted December 25, 2014 It took the federal district court judge in Washington less than 24 hours to throw the case out on its ear in what was essentially a summary dismissal. The Gallup surveys show 76% of Americans support the provisions of Prez Obama's executive action to deal effectively with immigration. The consensus in the mainstream legal community is that the president's executive action is both legal and constitutional. Mainstream America supports the president and the actions of the judges in dealing with this tombstone Arizona cowboy sheriff and his dry gulch lawyers. Check it out.... Judge throws out Arizona sheriff's immigration suit against Obama A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit brought against Barack Obama by an Arizona police chief who called the president's sweeping immigration reforms unconstitutional, saying the plaintiff lacked legal standing in the case. Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the demand by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a preliminary injunction to halt the policies. Arpaio, who calls himself "America's Toughest Sheriff," filed the case last month, saying Obama had overstepped his powers by bypassing Congress and ordering the changes himself. An Arizona federal judge in May 2013 ruled that deputies of Arpaio's office had racially profiled Latino drivers. The judge ordered that race no longer be used as a factor in law enforcement decisions and appointed a court monitor to oversee Arpaio's operations. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/chi-arizona-sheriff-immigration-suit-20141223-story.html Amidst all the hue and cry from the liberal left about Bush judicial appointees, this interesting little tidbit came to light. From the cited article... "Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the demand by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a preliminary injunction to halt the policies. Permit me to clear the air just a smidgen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama’s Judge Gives Him A Win On Immigration 9:01 AM 12/24/2014 NEIL MUNRO White House Correspondent A former top aide to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy tossed out an anti-amnesty lawsuit by claiming the plaintiff lacks the “standing” needed to oppose President Barack Obama’s rewrite of immigration law. “The role of the Judiciary is to resolve cases and controversies properly brought by parties with a concrete and particularized injury — not to engage in policymaking better left to the political branches,” said district judge Beryl Howell, who worked from 1993 to 2003 as a top legal advisor to Leahy, a liberal supporter of higher immigration. Howell was appointed to the district court by Obama in 2010. http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/24/obamas-judge-gives-him-a-win-on-immigration/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So let me get this straight. It is bad for a Bush appointee to rule against an Obama action, but it is fine for an Obama appointee to rule in favor of one of Obama's actions. Hypocrisy in action. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 An off-topic post has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 It took the federal district court judge in Washington less than 24 hours to throw the case out on its ear in what was essentially a summary dismissal. The Gallup surveys show 76% of Americans support the provisions of Prez Obama's executive action to deal effectively with immigration. The consensus in the mainstream legal community is that the president's executive action is both legal and constitutional. Mainstream America supports the president and the actions of the judges in dealing with this tombstone Arizona cowboy sheriff and his dry gulch lawyers. Check it out.... Judge throws out Arizona sheriff's immigration suit against Obama A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit brought against Barack Obama by an Arizona police chief who called the president's sweeping immigration reforms unconstitutional, saying the plaintiff lacked legal standing in the case. Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the demand by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a preliminary injunction to halt the policies. Arpaio, who calls himself "America's Toughest Sheriff," filed the case last month, saying Obama had overstepped his powers by bypassing Congress and ordering the changes himself. An Arizona federal judge in May 2013 ruled that deputies of Arpaio's office had racially profiled Latino drivers. The judge ordered that race no longer be used as a factor in law enforcement decisions and appointed a court monitor to oversee Arpaio's operations. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/chi-arizona-sheriff-immigration-suit-20141223-story.html Amidst all the hue and cry from the liberal left about Bush judicial appointees, this interesting little tidbit came to light. From the cited article... "Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the demand by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a preliminary injunction to halt the policies. Permit me to clear the air just a smidgen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama’s Judge Gives Him A Win On Immigration 9:01 AM 12/24/2014 NEIL MUNRO White House Correspondent A former top aide to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy tossed out an anti-amnesty lawsuit by claiming the plaintiff lacks the “standing” needed to oppose President Barack Obama’s rewrite of immigration law. “The role of the Judiciary is to resolve cases and controversies properly brought by parties with a concrete and particularized injury — not to engage in policymaking better left to the political branches,” said district judge Beryl Howell, who worked from 1993 to 2003 as a top legal advisor to Leahy, a liberal supporter of higher immigration. Howell was appointed to the district court by Obama in 2010. http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/24/obamas-judge-gives-him-a-win-on-immigration/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So let me get this straight. It is bad for a Bush appointee to rule against an Obama action, but it is fine for an Obama appointee to rule in favor of one of Obama's actions. Hypocrisy in action. So let me get this straight. It is bad for a Bush appointee to rule against an Obama action, but it is fine for an Obama appointee to rule in favor of one of Obama's actions Who here may have said that, where and when...post number(s) please thx. As for moi, I simply point out that the sitting federal district court judge in Texas, Andrew Hanson, who ruled against the Obama administration in another aspect of immigration and ruled rather harshly, was appointed by G.W. Bush with the advice and consent of the two Republican party US Senators from Texas. Judge Howell, whom you focus on, was sponsored by the Democratic party senior US Senator from the PRVermont Patrick Leahy who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and cosponsored by the other US senator from the PRV Bernie Sanders. Both Judge Hanson and Judge Howell took the normal and regular route to become federal judges. That's how the system works. Which means I will ID your party judges and you if you like can ID my party's judges. Which makes us even steven or at least I'd say so. The US justice system is an adversarial system to pursue a desired outcome...it has little to do with justice per se. And here I'd thought you knew that. After all, in 2000 in the Supreme Court decision of Bush v Gore, the five Republican party appointed justices voted for Bush for president and the four Democratic party appointed justices voted for Gore. Bush won by one vote and in the name of the Fourteenth Amendment, a dubious claim at best. Had the lineup of justices been the reverse -- 5 D's and 4 R's -- I'd have considered that justice wuz done and that the 14th Amendment hadn't been raped.... In the present immigration case, the country already has a sitting president so the judges and the justices can afford to focus on what the constitution says and what the laws provide, which means I expect things this time around will turn out for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Well, all that verbiage certainly explains the 5-4 vote that upheld Obamacare when the SCOTUS called a penalty a tax. 4 D's + 1 R = 5 4 R's + 0 D = 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Well, all that verbiage certainly explains the 5-4 vote that upheld Obamacare when the SCOTUS called a penalty a tax. 4 D's + 1 R = 5 4 R's + 0 D = 4 Yes, it went rather well I thought..Chief Roberts being the one R justice to side with the new law. Supreme Court bloggers see Roberts as invested now it doing the same on this new challenge to Obamacare. As to immi, the ultimate SCOTUS vote on the executive action litigation by the R party states presently looks like 4 D's + 2 R's = 6 (Kennedy, Roberts) 3 R's + 0 D's = 3 O wins again, this time decidedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 (edited) My long time Harvard lawyer friend back in the states sent me a kind of Xmas present which causes a change in the SCOTUS voting lineup and totals in the 24-state Repbulican party immigration case against the president. Add as pretty likely to join the already 6 Justices of the Supreme Court we figure as likely for Prez Obama a likely two more to conceivably make it 8 of the 9 justices on his side. You notice I overuse the qualifier "likely" because no one really knows definitely, definitively, for sure. But add nonetheless as really pretty likely for the president and the constitution Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. As I'd indicated, if that comes to fruition, it would mean 8 of the 9 justices are on the side of Prez Obama. The ninth justice, Samuel Alito has only agreed in part with the opinions of the other 8 justices in the matters of executive actions and also political arm wrestling between the congress and the executive. So Alito might yet make it a 9-0 shutout, or Alito might make it a one run loss for the 24 Republican party states, 8-1. So right now it looks like a Supreme Court ruling for Prez Obama of 8-1 or possibly a shutout of the 24 states, 9-0. It is in fact a tradition at the Court that when 8 of the justices agree on a case, the odd one out opts in for the sake of institutional comaraderie and effectiveness....8-1 just looks awfully odd to just about everyone. The Court's 1954 unanimous Brown v Board school desegregation case originally and in chambers was 8-1 but the odd justice capitulated to the will of the others in the interest of brotherhood among justices and a unified court on such a monumental issue. Here's why we should add Justices Scalia and Thomas to Obama's team on the Court in this particular immigration executive action case.... First the narrative... "We also know that in order for federal courts to even hear the case, they would have to get over their long-standing aversion to getting involved in political disputes between the legislative and executive branches when other means are available to resolve them. Dellinger uses a dissenting opinion from Justice Antonin Scalia in Windsor to hammer this point home." And now Justice Scalia makes himself clear in the matters that overlap directly to this immigration case.... "If majorities in both Houses of Congress care enough about the matter, they have available innumerable ways to compel executive action without a lawsuit—from refusing to confirm Presidential appointees to the elimination of funding.But the condition is crucial; Congress must care enough to act against the President itself, not merely enough to instruct its lawyers to ask us to do so. Placing the Constitution’s entirely anticipated political arm wrestling into permanent judicial receivership does not do the system a favor.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2704–05 (Scalia, J., joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas and questioned in part only by Justice Alito). . So, the new math might well be.... 4 D's + 4 R's = 8 1 R + 0 D's = 1 OR 4 D's + 5 R's = 9 0 R's + 0 D's = 0 Edited December 26, 2014 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaacorp Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Fine. Let them all register under Obama's executive amnesty. Then, the next president can easily cancel it, and we will then have the advantage of knowing where all these people are living, working illegally, and avoiding payroll taxes illegally. Next step, jail, fine, and deport them. And confiscate their ill-gotten loot. Yeah good idea. We could also ask them to wear a distinctive symbol on the chest to recognize them easily... Do I have to remember you the history of USA and from where 90% of the population come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Do I have to remember you the history of USA and from where 90% of the population come from? They came to America LEGALLY and they were needed at the time. The world has changed since then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 There's always been anti-immigrant feelings of bias, prejudice, fear of losing jobs and much more that always has been overcome sooner or later. This time around however the opposition is to immigration itself, immigration being a pillar of American Civilization. The political fringe over on the right want to shut down the United States to preserve its dwindling WASP demographics. Futile indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 This time around however the opposition is to immigration itself, immigration being a pillar of American Civilization. Utter nonsense. The opposition is to ILLEGAL immigration. Legal immigrants are welcomed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 This time around however the opposition is to immigration itself, immigration being a pillar of American Civilization. Utter nonsense. The opposition is to ILLEGAL immigration. Legal immigrants are welcomed. Nonsense. The opposition is to Prez Obama...anything he does, wants, likes, advocates, represents, tries to do etc etc. It's the rule of men over the rule of law....the rabble in the Congress doing it continuously, incessantly. I continue to expect the federal district judge in Texas to rule against the president and the constitution in this case, an act that will bring much celebration from the political right. While there's an outside chance he might chicken out due to aversion to being overturned, I expect this particular guy to charge forward...or sideways actually. I'd also expect the federal appeals court to read the Supreme Court accurately and to shut down its errant district court judge. If not, the president has the option to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Guess who the SCOTUS single justice is that would get the emergency appeal for that appeals circuit?...Yep, Justice Antonin Scalia who has made himself clear in this matter, in favor of the executive branch. I'm cheerfully not a lawyer and I'm certainly no judge of any sort, but this is what the Supreme Court blogs say whether the bloggers are on the left or the right. One really never knows what a judge, jury, a court will do. But on this immigration executive action the handwriting is across the sky in awfully big letters to instead end up seeing it go sideways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Probably the same handwriting that was across the sky before Chief Justice Roberts decided that a "penalty" was actually a "tax". Opinions are like <deleted>...everybody has one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 This time around however the opposition is to immigration itself, immigration being a pillar of American Civilization. Utter nonsense. The opposition is to ILLEGAL immigration. Legal immigrants are welcomed. Until the next time. Undocumented aliens today, documented ones tomorrow when you hope there will be a Republican president with a Republican congress that will completely stop this rabble from south of the border coming north to supposedly suck the United States dry. You people whether here or there certainly have made yourselves absolutely and unmistakably clear about what you think of immigrants from south of the border. You're full of the myths and the standard horror stories about welfare assistance, food stamps, taking jobs, crime, how Latino and Asian immigrants vote for the Democratic party after they gain citizenship and all the rest of it. It's written all over your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 It is not about legal Hispanic immigrants. It is about ILLEGAL ones, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Probably the same handwriting that was across the sky before Chief Justice Roberts decided that a "penalty" was actually a "tax". Opinions are like <deleted>...everybody has one. I said legal opinions are an uncertain nest of chickens in the coop that can't be counted until they are hatched. I've also said how the nine justices of the SCOTUS have ruled on previous questions of this sort, which is the best available legal guide to how they might rule in this Republican party lawsuit brought by the 24 states that have Republican party governors, attorneys general and/or legislatures. Such heavy handed partisanship seldom cuts the mustard in the constitutional system that we have. The Supreme Court ruling in United States v Nixon was 9-0 against him to include two justices Nixon himself appointed and five Republican party justices overall, the majority of the nine justices (to include the Republican chief justice). That however doesn't necessarily stop the most partisan and in this instance the most anti-immigration extremists from constantly trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 It is not about legal Hispanic immigrants. It is about ILLEGAL ones, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise. It is written all over your posts for everyone to read. Legal immigrants that are Latinos and Asians will be shut down next, after you finish with the undocumented ones. You guys have already taken that to the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 (edited) It is not about legal Hispanic immigrants. It is about ILLEGAL ones, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise. It is written all over your posts for everyone to read. Only if the reader is completely delusional. America needs educated immigrants with special skills - no matter where they are from. Edited December 28, 2014 by Ulysses G. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 How's this as not only evidence but as proof of a paranoid against the immigrant hordes swarming in from south of the border....this post not only casts a broad net, it is a sweep against people who aren't even immigrants whether legal or illegal, and probably includes a number of immigrants who have become citizens....the numbers are so huge and OTT that almost anyone can be included in this dragnet... Can you see the mass of government agents fanning out across the country in the para-military operation....can you hear the government agents pounding on the doors in the middle of the night, crashing into people's homes tossing stun grenades into their beds while flashlights slash through the darkness.... Posted by JDGRUEN on 2014-11-16 10:18:12 in World News The Trojan Horse of the incessant bulldozing of the idea of Comprehensive Immigration Reform - a.k.a. Amnesty is a term called "Chain Migration". Chain Migration is from an old Federal Court ruling that has the weight of law... Chain Migration allows newly anointed American citizens to sponsor - over many many years ALL of their blood relatives back in their home country and become American citizens... I think readers are already getting the picture here... But it gets worse... The LIE that there is only about 7-8-9 Million Illegal Aliens in America -- is ridiculous. Back in 2005-2006 when this current fight over immigration began proponents claimed 6 million Illegal Aliens. That claimed number was only 1/2 or less of the number of illegal aliens in America at that time. The number now is closer to 20 million illegal aliens. The picture gets a lot clearer ... If over several years 20 million illegal aliens gain U.S. Citizenship, they will then near immediately begin sponsoring their relatives to come to America under Chain Migration.. No matter how one calculates it - the numbers in 10 to 20 to 30 years become monstrous. In 10 years - a total of 30 million new mostly Hispanic Mexican / Central Americans. Then in 20 years - perhaps a total of 40 million - counting the original 20 million. In 30 years perhaps a total of 50 million new citizens in 30 years... Hispanic illegal aliens have not shown any interest is assimilating to Americanism.. They have shown little interest in learning English... Once 20 to 30 Million Illegal Aliens and their relatives become Voting Citizens -- there will never be a Republican President ever again. The two party system will evaporate... Coupled with other minorities - they become the majority voting themselves every government benefit that they possibly can get... Note: My growth numbers are a conservative estimate -- could turn out to be a underestimate. Again, for emphasis as if emphasis were needed...... Once 20 to 30 Million Illegal Aliens and their relatives become Voting Citizens -- there will never be a Republican President ever again. The two party system will evaporate... Coupled with other minorities - they become the majority voting themselves every government benefit that they possibly can get... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 (edited) How's this as not only evidence but as proof of a paranoid against the immigrant hordes swarming in from south of the border....this post not only casts a broad net, it is a sweep against people who aren't even immigrants whether legal or illegal, and probably includes a number of immigrants who have become citizens....the numbers are so huge and OTT that almost anyone can be included in this dragnet... Can you see the mass of government agents fanning out across the country in the para-military operation....can you hear the government agents pounding on the doors in the middle of the night, crashing into people's homes tossing stun grenades into their beds while flashlights slash through the darkness.... Posted by JDGRUEN on 2014-11-16 10:18:12 in World News The Trojan Horse of the incessant bulldozing of the idea of Comprehensive Immigration Reform - a.k.a. Amnesty is a term called "Chain Migration". Chain Migration is from an old Federal Court ruling that has the weight of law... Chain Migration allows newly anointed American citizens to sponsor - over many many years ALL of their blood relatives back in their home country and become American citizens... I think readers are already getting the picture here... But it gets worse... The LIE that there is only about 7-8-9 Million Illegal Aliens in America -- is ridiculous. Back in 2005-2006 when this current fight over immigration began proponents claimed 6 million Illegal Aliens. That claimed number was only 1/2 or less of the number of illegal aliens in America at that time. The number now is closer to 20 million illegal aliens. The picture gets a lot clearer ... If over several years 20 million illegal aliens gain U.S. Citizenship, they will then near immediately begin sponsoring their relatives to come to America under Chain Migration.. No matter how one calculates it - the numbers in 10 to 20 to 30 years become monstrous. In 10 years - a total of 30 million new mostly Hispanic Mexican / Central Americans. Then in 20 years - perhaps a total of 40 million - counting the original 20 million. In 30 years perhaps a total of 50 million new citizens in 30 years... Hispanic illegal aliens have not shown any interest is assimilating to Americanism.. They have shown little interest in learning English... Once 20 to 30 Million Illegal Aliens and their relatives become Voting Citizens -- there will never be a Republican President ever again. The two party system will evaporate... Coupled with other minorities - they become the majority voting themselves every government benefit that they possibly can get... Note: My growth numbers are a conservative estimate -- could turn out to be a underestimate. Again, for emphasis as if emphasis were needed...... Once 20 to 30 Million Illegal Aliens and their relatives become Voting Citizens -- there will never be a Republican President ever again. The two party system will evaporate... Coupled with other minorities - they become the majority voting themselves every government benefit that they possibly can get... Sadly, it is more likely Mr. Gruen's prediction will come true rather than the one you posted in your usual overwrought fashion. "Can you see the mass of government agents fanning out across the country in the para-military operation....can you hear the government agents pounding on the doors in the middle of the night, crashing into people's homes tossing stun grenades into their beds while flashlights slash through the darkness...." "crashing into people's homes tossing stun grenades into their beds while flashlights slash through the darkness...." might be a qualifier for an "It was a dark and stormy night" Award. Edited December 28, 2014 by chuckd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 How's this as not only evidence but as proof of a paranoid against the immigrant hordes swarming in from south of the border....this post not only casts a broad net, it is a sweep against people who aren't even immigrants whether legal or illegal, and probably includes a number of immigrants who have become citizens....the numbers are so huge and OTT that almost anyone can be included in this dragnet... Can you see the mass of government agents fanning out across the country in the para-military operation....can you hear the government agents pounding on the doors in the middle of the night, crashing into people's homes tossing stun grenades into their beds while flashlights slash through the darkness.... Posted by JDGRUEN on 2014-11-16 10:18:12 in World News The Trojan Horse of the incessant bulldozing of the idea of Comprehensive Immigration Reform - a.k.a. Amnesty is a term called "Chain Migration". Chain Migration is from an old Federal Court ruling that has the weight of law... Chain Migration allows newly anointed American citizens to sponsor - over many many years ALL of their blood relatives back in their home country and become American citizens... I think readers are already getting the picture here... But it gets worse... The LIE that there is only about 7-8-9 Million Illegal Aliens in America -- is ridiculous. Back in 2005-2006 when this current fight over immigration began proponents claimed 6 million Illegal Aliens. That claimed number was only 1/2 or less of the number of illegal aliens in America at that time. The number now is closer to 20 million illegal aliens. The picture gets a lot clearer ... If over several years 20 million illegal aliens gain U.S. Citizenship, they will then near immediately begin sponsoring their relatives to come to America under Chain Migration.. No matter how one calculates it - the numbers in 10 to 20 to 30 years become monstrous. In 10 years - a total of 30 million new mostly Hispanic Mexican / Central Americans. Then in 20 years - perhaps a total of 40 million - counting the original 20 million. In 30 years perhaps a total of 50 million new citizens in 30 years... Hispanic illegal aliens have not shown any interest is assimilating to Americanism.. They have shown little interest in learning English... Once 20 to 30 Million Illegal Aliens and their relatives become Voting Citizens -- there will never be a Republican President ever again. The two party system will evaporate... Coupled with other minorities - they become the majority voting themselves every government benefit that they possibly can get... Note: My growth numbers are a conservative estimate -- could turn out to be a underestimate. Again, for emphasis as if emphasis were needed...... Once 20 to 30 Million Illegal Aliens and their relatives become Voting Citizens -- there will never be a Republican President ever again. The two party system will evaporate... Coupled with other minorities - they become the majority voting themselves every government benefit that they possibly can get... Sadly, it is more likely Mr. Gruen's prediction will come true rather than the one you posted in your usual overwrought fashion. "Can you see the mass of government agents fanning out across the country in the para-military operation....can you hear the government agents pounding on the doors in the middle of the night, crashing into people's homes tossing stun grenades into their beds while flashlights slash through the darkness...." "crashing into people's homes tossing stun grenades into their beds while flashlights slash through the darkness...." might be a qualifier for an "It was a dark and stormy night" Award. Sadly, it is more likely Mr. Gruen's prediction will come true That is what the immigration issue is all about. Exaggeration and OTT thoughts and ideations about the hordes of immigrants swarming in from south of the border. You clearly share the view as do the majority of Republicans and the posters here that current immigration policies need to be stopped and all immigrants rounded up. The Obama administration has said the US would only have the resources to mass deport some 400,000 immigrants annually, if that's what were to be done, so the president has to set enforcement priorities, as in the executive action, because under Obama that will not be done. I'd guess a Republican president would double those resources, or triple them, to ship out a million a year until there aren't any more immigrants. What's to stop you guys once you get it going....nothing I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 If they are ILLEGAL immigrants, they should not be in the country by definition. They will be taking jobs from low-skilled Americans if legalized. They should have been stopped long ago, but better late than never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 National immigration policy of the past 40 years has resulted in a greatly and fast increasing Hispanic electorate and the Republican party elephant is on an anti-immigration stampede. An Awakened Giant: The Hispanic Electorate is Likely to Double by 2030Aging, Naturalization and Immigration Will Drive Growth The record number1 of Latinos who cast ballots for president this year are the leading edge of an ascendant ethnic voting bloc that is likely to double in size within a generation, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis based on U.S. Census Bureau data, Election Day exit polls and a new nationwide survey of Hispanic immigrants. The nation’s 53 million Hispanics comprise 17% of the total U.S. population but just 10% of all voters this year, according to the national exit poll According to Pew Hispanic Center projections, Hispanics will account for 40% of the growth in the eligible electorate in the U.S. between now and 2030, at which time 40 million Hispanics will be eligible to vote, up from 23.7 million now.2 http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/14/an-awakened-giant-the-hispanic-electorate-is-likely-to-double-by-2030/ According to Pew Hispanic Center projections, The following charts help a great deal to explain the Republican party stance on immigration... The Hispanic Vote in Presidential Elections, 1980-2012 Pew Research Center ^ | 11/7/2012 --1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21 --1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24 --1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39 --1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36 --1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51 --2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27 --2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18 --2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36 --2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Lots of talk on this thread about not funding the Department of Homeland Security because of the president's executive action. Considering what's happening in Paris at the moment, that clearly wouldn't be a prudent decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zydeco Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Lots of talk on this thread about not funding the Department of Homeland Security because of the president's executive action. Considering what's happening in Paris at the moment, that clearly wouldn't be a prudent decision. Considering what is going on in Paris, as you say, makes me want to pursue and deport every illegal alien even more vigorously. And perhaps rescind and revoke the green cards of a few million more. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Lots of talk on this thread about not funding the Department of Homeland Security because of the president's executive action. Considering what's happening in Paris at the moment, that clearly wouldn't be a prudent decision. The Republicans can fund it without any problem. They simply have to use the "None of the funds" clause and pass the spending bill funding everything they think should be funded. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Lots of talk on this thread about not funding the Department of Homeland Security because of the president's executive action. Considering what's happening in Paris at the moment, that clearly wouldn't be a prudent decision. The Republicans can fund it without any problem. They simply have to use the "None of the funds" clause and pass the spending bill funding everything they think should be funded. You really need to get better educated on how laws are written and passed in the US. I've recently offered you a couple of tutorial civics lessons, but (quite frankly) it's not my responsibility to relieve you of your ignorance. However, I will not leave you with something that is likely your speed: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Government-Politics/dp/1592578535/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420946078&sr=8-1&keywords=US+civics Edited January 11, 2015 by up-country_sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chuckd Posted January 11, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Lots of talk on this thread about not funding the Department of Homeland Security because of the president's executive action. Considering what's happening in Paris at the moment, that clearly wouldn't be a prudent decision. The Republicans can fund it without any problem. They simply have to use the "None of the funds" clause and pass the spending bill funding everything they think should be funded. You really need to get better educated on how laws are written and passed in the US. I've recently offered you a couple of tutorial civics lessons, but (quite frankly) it's not my responsibility to relieve you of your ignorance. However, I will not leave you with something that is likely your speed: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Government-Politics/dp/1592578535/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420946078&sr=8-1&keywords=US+civics Some of our posters try to cover up their lack of intelligence with sarcasm. You, sir, have mastered that art. The recently passed and enacted CROmnibus spending bill had more than 450 instances of that exact phrase being used. It is a specific phrase that has been used in legislation for years detailing the exact instructions issued by Congress on the expenditure of government funds. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, Congress can stop Obama's immigration action BY BYRON YORK | DECEMBER 15, 2014 | 12:17 PM All money spent by the federal government is under the ultimate control of Congress. If they choose, lawmakers can issue exquisitely detailed instructions on how federal dollars are spent. For proof, look no further than the 1,695-page spending bill passed by Congress over the weekend. A particular phrase, "none of the funds," appears in the bill more than 450 times. In each case, Congress used those words to dictate how money can and cannot be spent. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-congress-can-stop-obamas-immigration-action/article/2557399 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The linked article goes on to provide instances of the use of the None of the Funds clause, providing this specific example: "None of the funds available to the Farm Service Agency shall be used to close Farm Service Agency county offices," the bill says. In addition, "none of the funds available to the Farm Service Agency shall be used to permanently relocate county-based employees that would result in an office with two or fewer employees without prior notification and approval of the Committee on Appropriations." That's pretty specific. The Agriculture Department can't close Farm Service Agencies or reorganize them, if the result is an office with fewer than three employees, unless specifically approved by Congress. That's using the power of the purse to dictate precisely what a government agency can do." Perhaps I am not the one needing some education around here. Edited January 11, 2015 by chuckd 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ulysses G. Posted January 11, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 11, 2015 Some of our posters try to cover up their lack of intelligence with sarcasm. A very valid point and unwarranted sarcasm at that. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NeverSure Posted January 11, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 11, 2015 Only one of two conclusions can be reached. 1. up-country_sinclair isn't an American. 2. up-country_sinclair is an American who didn't do well in school. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 If they are ILLEGAL immigrants, they should not be in the country by definition. They will be taking jobs from low-skilled Americans if legalized. They should have been stopped long ago, but better late than never. At least you seem to acknowledge that legal immigrants in the US are not a burden to society, in contrast to the misperceptions you have concerning the undocumented aliens you are so aggressive about. So apparently you share the view legal immigrants do not collect food stamps, cash assistance, strain hospital emergency rooms and other medical facilities or resources, don't take jobs from Americans, are not drug lords or criminals, are not the economically poor or low class arrivals from foreign countries that undocumented aliens in your view are, don't kill US border guards in shootouts etc etc...that legal immigrants to the US are not these things or worse. That then would be good, or do I overstate your relatively positive view of legal immigrants..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now