Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[Tep]

1. You are an Aussie commenting about American illegal aliens entering the USA which you know little about.

A. By boat from Cuba and Haiti hundreds of thousands.

You wrote, "You responded to a humorous comment about not needing boats to send back refugees to Mexico with an hysterical attack on the poster with accusations of ignorance" I did not. Please quote me if I did. You are in error.

You wrote, " I challenged your ignorant statement on Cuba with some facts, to wit, actual law on the issue." You did not. What statement did I make on Cuba that was incorrect?

You wrote, "I have posted research on other threads that demonstrate that immigration results in a net fiscal benefit to the host economies. Instead of posting ignorant diatribes on the impact of immigrants on American taxpayers, you might do well to familiarise yourself with these studies." If you want me to comment post your research for all to see in this thread. I'm not a mind reader.

You can post anything you like. If I don't agree with it I'll tell you. So far I have no idea of your position on the issue that is the topic of this thread.

Very simple. The quote is attached above as an excerpt because the multiple quotes are getting lengthy. Conveniently your points one and two are answered by the same quote. You responded to the quip about boats to Mexico with the statement indicated by the numeral 1. You clearly stated that the poster in your view, knew 'little' about the subject. I did not bother to search where you first used the word ignorant. Since this is clear for all to see, I accept your apology for accusing me of being in error.

Your second point about Cuba is demonstrated in the sentence above indicated by the letter 'A'. You say illegal immigrants (from your statement appended with the numeral 1) come from Cuba in their hundreds of thousands. The US policy on Cuban immigrants is clear in the laws that I quoted. They are not illegal. Cuban nationals who set foot in the US are expedited to legal status.

On your third point, I am not interested in your comment. I have seen your comments. They are dross. I took exception to your attack on another poster, accusing that poster of ignorance while your post contained elements of ignorance. I took exception with your dictat that this and other posters may not express their opinion because they are not Americans. I am not interested in your opinion because I doubt you will add anything to the body of knowledge, scholarly knowledge, on the fiscal impact of immigration. My advocacy of such research should be a sufficient enough indicator of my position on immigration. But you did not seem to be interested in my position or that of other posters because we are not American or we are naturally ignorant because we are not American.

My views on immigration and illegal immigration are not synonymous. My views on US immigration and UK or Australian immigration are also not synonymous. It is a complex issue that is cheapened by partisan diatribe. I will go so far as to say I cannot see any intelligent or rational argument against legitimising the group of undocumented immigrants that were the intended subjects of the now dead DREAM Act and are expected to benefit from this Executive Order. I heard the arguments about anchor babies and similar nonsense but just from a purely humanitarian point of view, those individuals surely should be regularised. They will make significant contributions to the future of America.

By the way, I have lived and worked in America. I have also paid taxes in America. It was a long time ago. It was in one of the most beautiful parts of a beautiful country; North West Oregon on the coast. I have returned many times. I do not claim any right or privilege as a result of this.

[chuckd]

1. You are an Aussie commenting about American illegal aliens entering the USA which you know little about.

A. By boat from Cuba and Haiti hundreds of thousands.

B Refugees coming to the USA from South America not Mexico (the latest surge) hundreds of thousands under the same circumstances of as refugees anywhere.

C. You wrote, " While I see someone has mentioned studies where illegal entrants in the US are recipients of some sort of welfare, I'm not convinced that is why they come. They want to work and not get a welfare cheque." The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent). See, thats the problem when you write about stuff and don't have a clue what you are writing about. http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

You wrote, "Australia actually runs a migrant labour scheme for workers which allows people to come from the Pacific Islands to work seasonally. It was started as a trial perhaps nearly a decade ago."

The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural/industrial jobs. A U.S. employer,a U.S. agent as described in the regulations,or an association of U.S. agricultural producers named as a joint employer must file Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective workers behalf.

I could take apart the rest of your post but this is getting long.

Sorry Samran but you don't have a clue about USA immigration policies and should not be writing about them.

The Dems want the immigrants because they vote Democratic and they do so because the majority of them draw some form of government benefits. Sorry but thats the truth.

If Australia sends refugees to Cambodia they won't have a problem like the Americans do with refugees from Latin America, Haiti and Cuba. If you don't eventually you will face the same situation that Florida faces from the boats landing on the shore of that State.

The reference in your 1A relates to a statement by Palin about sending illegal immigrants back by boat to which there was an objection about not needing a boat to cross the Rio Grande. You then attack that poster, quite viciously, on the basis of alleged ignorance and denying the right to comment based on nationality.

On the issue of ignorance, you talk about hundreds of thousands of people from Cuba. Whatever the number, I suggest you avail yourself of a search engine to review the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 and the 1995 amendment that introduced the Wet Feet Dry Feet policy that gave Cuban nationals arriving on US soil expedited processing for permanent residence. It has been US policy for decades not to repatriate Cuban immigrants.

Kind of undermines your argument about ignorance I think.

On the right to post comments, I think telling a Thai in Thailand not to post on Thai Visa is more than stupid.

Many non Americans have views about immigration. Many non Americans come from countries where immigration, particularly economic migration to more developed economies is a topical issue. Many non Americans live in Thailand where they deal with immigration issues constantly. What right do you claim to deny them the opportunity to express a point of view? Particularly when some posts of actual Americans, like yours, are ill-informed and misleading.

What, you think you know something about American immigration? Sarah Palin? I said nothing about Sarah Palin. I said refugees from Haiti. How do you think they come to the USA? Not by way of the Rio Grande. How do you think Castro emptied out his prisons? Where do you think he sent the inmates? What do you know about seasonal work programs for Mexican laborers? They have been in place for years.

If you want to learn something about American immigration feel free to do so but don't comment with an air of expertise about things you know nothing about like accusing me of some reference to Sarah Palin.

A previous poster said that Americas problem was not with refugees and he was mistaken as I pointed out. The USA admits 675,000 immigrants each year. Between 1991 to 2000 the USA admitted 11 million immigrants.

There are many legal ways to enter the USA. Refugees from all over the world do so legally every year. I invite you to find out what other countries are doing about the refugee problem that could be applied to America as well.

11 million illegal aliens cost money as more than half of them draw on federal programs that are paid for by American taxpayers. It is galling to have a person from outside of America tell Americans how to spend their tax dollars in my book.

If an American who pays taxes says he is willing to support illegal aliens that is one thing but a person from another country who has never paid taxes tells Americans what to do is another thing.

Oh deary me. The 'you have no right to comment cause you're not an American' defense.

From a poster. On a webboard. About Thailand.

I suppose he refrains from commenting on thailand too, well you know cause he's not Thai!!!!

And they say Americans don't do irony....

I recall being told in the recent past not to lecture somebody on the Australian Constitution, even when I didn't lecture them.

Sometimes those swords cut two ways.

I generally refrain from making comments on threads that I have no direct knowledge of or any real interest in. It might behoove some of our membership (present company excluded, of course) to do the same.

[Publicus]

Since when are threads and topics about the United States off limits to posters who are of other nationalities? It seems that at this particularly sensitive thread the rednecks of the US don't want to hear it from anyone at all.

The rednecks of the Old Confederacy want only to present their extreme and harsh rightwing views while excluding all other viewpoints.

US citizens who support Prez Obama are pronounced by the right as not being adult while posters of other nationalities are pronounced to be not competent. The right in short wants to turn the thread into a tea party bulletin board rather than a discussion board.

The rightwing lunatic fringe posters need to read the TVF rules and do some of their own research. The rules do not qualify posters on the basis of nationality (or language skills). ThaiVisa.com gets 125,000 visitors per day, 30% of which visit from outside of Thailand. All but a handful of TVF posters are fahlang in Thailand.

Reading some posts, it is not hard to believe TFV has (many) more people with a graduate education than is the internet average. Reading other posts, however, it gets much harder to believe the fact. Which is why I'd suppose statisticians deal in averages.

[NeverSure]

Maybe you could call it "Ellis Island"?

And you could put up a plaque that says " "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (except the Mexicans)".

The laws in effect at that time have long since been changed. America needed immigrants at that time to build a country, and most of the immigrants brought skills and even opened businesses. They came mostly from Europe and there were blacksmiths and silversmiths and wheelwrights and wagon and buggy makers, weavers and all sorts of people.

What is happening now is illegal as low to no skill people overrun borders and try to hijack what has been built for a few hundred years. (The Pilgrims first landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620.)

Edited November 22, 2014 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

The rightwing lunatic fringe posters need to read the TVF rules and do some of their own research.

Some people need to read the rule against flaming and another against bashing any one group.

Some people also need to learn how to spell right wing before they pontificate.

[Publicus]

Maybe you could call it "Ellis Island"?

And you could put up a plaque that says " "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (except the Mexicans)".

The laws in effect at that time have long since been changed. America needed immigrants at that time to build a country, and most of the immigrants brought skills and even opened businesses. They came mostly from Europe and there were blacksmiths and silversmiths and wheelwrights and wagon and buggy makers, weavers and all sorts of people.

What is happening now is illegal as low to no skill people overrun borders and try to hijack what has been built for a few hundred years. (The Pilgrims first landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620.)

Yes, the first successful English settlement was in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 and I grew up 30 minutes away from there, but the Spanish had already settled in Florida (English = flower) and in what since the Mexican-American War (1846-48) has been the southwest US. That doesn't entitle anyone to anything, but it does provide important historical perspective.

After Sen John F Kennedy became president in 1961 he took from his 1950s book A Nation of Immigrants the policy of favoring immigrants from the Western Hemisphere, which is to say Central and South America, respectively, which Pres Johnson signed into law as the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. This law, later amended to include East Asians and South Asians (India) has changed the face of the United States, from primarily Anglo & Northern European to global in nature.

Look at the contrasts promoted by US immigration policy voted by the Congress since then, from 1965.

In the 1950s more than half of all immigrants were Europeans broadly considered, and only 6% were East or South Asian. By the 1990s, only 16% were European, 31% Asian, while the great majority, 5.7 million were Mexican, Filipino, Korean, Dominican Republic, India, Cuba, Vietnam. During this time the Congress voted amendments abolishing the national quota system to instead set numbers based on Eastern or Western Hemisphere. Presently that system has been succeeded by an annual global total, which is 675,000 immigrants from everywhere, anywhere, with only a very high cap on each country. The only practical proviso to the present policy is to allow almost unlimited immigration from "underrepresented countries" based on the notion of a "diversity of immigrant flow," which is in fact a policy that continues to limit the immigrant flow from Europe.

During the period three significant things occurred. Prez Nixon emphasized enforcement, ordering consistent large scale raids and mass deportations in primarily Mexican communities. Conversely, Prez Ford established a commission that found immigrants were a positive to the economy in that they paid more in taxes than they took in welfare or health care. The Immigration Act of 1992 expanded the 1965 act

The 1992 Bush the father expansion however brought on the 1996 Gingrich-Clinton laws. The definition of "aggravated felony" was expanded so that any immigrant could be deported without a hearing or time enuff to pack a bag. The Illegal Immigrant Reform and Personal Responsibility Act prohibited immigrants drawing food stamps, welfare financial assistance, Medicare, any and all social security payments or benefits to include after having received a Green Card to work and be on a path to citizenship. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act allowed detention upon apprehension and evidence against suspected immigrant terrorists to be presented privately to a judge without attorneys present, to result in indefinite detention and/or immediate deportation.

The Anglo & Northern Europeans and Europeans in general are a fine and much accomplished peoples, but very frankly speaking they are resting on their laurels. The USGovernment has changed its immigration policies accordingly to welcome the energetic, the hungry, the ambitious, the geeks, the unhuddled masses yearning to make a buck. What could be more American than that.

[samran]

1. You are an Aussie commenting about American illegal aliens entering the USA which you know little about.

A. By boat from Cuba and Haiti hundreds of thousands.

B Refugees coming to the USA from South America not Mexico (the latest surge) hundreds of thousands under the same circumstances of as refugees anywhere.

C. You wrote, " While I see someone has mentioned studies where illegal entrants in the US are recipients of some sort of welfare, I'm not convinced that is why they come. They want to work and not get a welfare cheque." The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent). See, thats the problem when you write about stuff and don't have a clue what you are writing about. http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

You wrote, "Australia actually runs a migrant labour scheme for workers which allows people to come from the Pacific Islands to work seasonally. It was started as a trial perhaps nearly a decade ago."

The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural/industrial jobs. A U.S. employer,a U.S. agent as described in the regulations,or an association of U.S. agricultural producers named as a joint employer must file Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective workers behalf.

I could take apart the rest of your post but this is getting long.

Sorry Samran but you don't have a clue about USA immigration policies and should not be writing about them.

The Dems want the immigrants because they vote Democratic and they do so because the majority of them draw some form of government benefits. Sorry but thats the truth.

If Australia sends refugees to Cambodia they won't have a problem like the Americans do with refugees from Latin America, Haiti and Cuba. If you don't eventually you will face the same situation that Florida faces from the boats landing on the shore of that State.

The reference in your 1A relates to a statement by Palin about sending illegal immigrants back by boat to which there was an objection about not needing a boat to cross the Rio Grande. You then attack that poster, quite viciously, on the basis of alleged ignorance and denying the right to comment based on nationality.

On the issue of ignorance, you talk about hundreds of thousands of people from Cuba. Whatever the number, I suggest you avail yourself of a search engine to review the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 and the 1995 amendment that introduced the Wet Feet Dry Feet policy that gave Cuban nationals arriving on US soil expedited processing for permanent residence. It has been US policy for decades not to repatriate Cuban immigrants.

Kind of undermines your argument about ignorance I think.

On the right to post comments, I think telling a Thai in Thailand not to post on Thai Visa is more than stupid.

Many non Americans have views about immigration. Many non Americans come from countries where immigration, particularly economic migration to more developed economies is a topical issue. Many non Americans live in Thailand where they deal with immigration issues constantly. What right do you claim to deny them the opportunity to express a point of view? Particularly when some posts of actual Americans, like yours, are ill-informed and misleading.

What, you think you know something about American immigration? Sarah Palin? I said nothing about Sarah Palin. I said refugees from Haiti. How do you think they come to the USA? Not by way of the Rio Grande. How do you think Castro emptied out his prisons? Where do you think he sent the inmates? What do you know about seasonal work programs for Mexican laborers? They have been in place for years.

If you want to learn something about American immigration feel free to do so but don't comment with an air of expertise about things you know nothing about like accusing me of some reference to Sarah Palin.

A previous poster said that Americas problem was not with refugees and he was mistaken as I pointed out. The USA admits 675,000 immigrants each year. Between 1991 to 2000 the USA admitted 11 million immigrants.

There are many legal ways to enter the USA. Refugees from all over the world do so legally every year. I invite you to find out what other countries are doing about the refugee problem that could be applied to America as well.

11 million illegal aliens cost money as more than half of them draw on federal programs that are paid for by American taxpayers. It is galling to have a person from outside of America tell Americans how to spend their tax dollars in my book.

If an American who pays taxes says he is willing to support illegal aliens that is one thing but a person from another country who has never paid taxes tells Americans what to do is another thing.

Oh deary me. The 'you have no right to comment cause you're not an American' defense.

From a poster. On a webboard. About Thailand.

I suppose he refrains from commenting on thailand too, well you know cause he's not Thai!!!!

And they say Americans don't do irony....

I recall being told in the recent past not to lecture somebody on the Australian Constitution, even when I didn't lecture them.

Sometimes those swords cut two ways.

I generally refrain from making comments on threads that I have no direct knowledge of or any real interest in. It might behoove some of our membership (present company excluded, of course) to do the same.

Oh Charles,

Now it is thou who is being disingenuous.

No where I was saying 'you are an American you have no right to comment'.

You had made a snarky remark to me about not knowing about two entrances at pizza huts in Saudi and wanting that for Australia and I made a snarky remark back about your pining for the days where Jim crow laws were still in effect.

I was making the broader point about relying on a very simple point of freedom of expression guaranteed in the australian constitution and how I did not agree with racial discrimination. You questioned my position to which I was surprised given those on your side of the fence tend to make yourselves out to be uber consitutionalists.

No where did I make the argument you has no right to participate, which seems to be a favourite tool of some of your less libertarian travellers on the right.

Feel free to correct me if my memory doesn't serve me right.

Edited November 22, 2014 by samran

[thailiketoo]

1. You are an Aussie commenting about American illegal aliens entering the USA which you know little about.

A. By boat from Cuba and Haiti hundreds of thousands.

B Refugees coming to the USA from South America not Mexico (the latest surge) hundreds of thousands under the same circumstances of as refugees anywhere.

C. You wrote, " While I see someone has mentioned studies where illegal entrants in the US are recipients of some sort of welfare, I'm not convinced that is why they come. They want to work and not get a welfare cheque." The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent). See, thats the problem when you write about stuff and don't have a clue what you are writing about. http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

You wrote, "Australia actually runs a migrant labour scheme for workers which allows people to come from the Pacific Islands to work seasonally. It was started as a trial perhaps nearly a decade ago."

The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural/industrial jobs. A U.S. employer,a U.S. agent as described in the regulations,or an association of U.S. agricultural producers named as a joint employer must file Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective workers behalf.

I could take apart the rest of your post but this is getting long.

Sorry Samran but you don't have a clue about USA immigration policies and should not be writing about them.

The Dems want the immigrants because they vote Democratic and they do so because the majority of them draw some form of government benefits. Sorry but thats the truth.

If Australia sends refugees to Cambodia they won't have a problem like the Americans do with refugees from Latin America, Haiti and Cuba. If you don't eventually you will face the same situation that Florida faces from the boats landing on the shore of that State.

The reference in your 1A relates to a statement by Palin about sending illegal immigrants back by boat to which there was an objection about not needing a boat to cross the Rio Grande. You then attack that poster, quite viciously, on the basis of alleged ignorance and denying the right to comment based on nationality.

On the issue of ignorance, you talk about hundreds of thousands of people from Cuba. Whatever the number, I suggest you avail yourself of a search engine to review the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 and the 1995 amendment that introduced the Wet Feet Dry Feet policy that gave Cuban nationals arriving on US soil expedited processing for permanent residence. It has been US policy for decades not to repatriate Cuban immigrants.

Kind of undermines your argument about ignorance I think.

On the right to post comments, I think telling a Thai in Thailand not to post on Thai Visa is more than stupid.

Many non Americans have views about immigration. Many non Americans come from countries where immigration, particularly economic migration to more developed economies is a topical issue. Many non Americans live in Thailand where they deal with immigration issues constantly. What right do you claim to deny them the opportunity to express a point of view? Particularly when some posts of actual Americans, like yours, are ill-informed and misleading.

What, you think you know something about American immigration? Sarah Palin? I said nothing about Sarah Palin. I said refugees from Haiti. How do you think they come to the USA? Not by way of the Rio Grande. How do you think Castro emptied out his prisons? Where do you think he sent the inmates? What do you know about seasonal work programs for Mexican laborers? They have been in place for years.

If you want to learn something about American immigration feel free to do so but don't comment with an air of expertise about things you know nothing about like accusing me of some reference to Sarah Palin.

A previous poster said that Americas problem was not with refugees and he was mistaken as I pointed out. The USA admits 675,000 immigrants each year. Between 1991 to 2000 the USA admitted 11 million immigrants.

There are many legal ways to enter the USA. Refugees from all over the world do so legally every year. I invite you to find out what other countries are doing about the refugee problem that could be applied to America as well.

11 million illegal aliens cost money as more than half of them draw on federal programs that are paid for by American taxpayers. It is galling to have a person from outside of America tell Americans how to spend their tax dollars in my book.

If an American who pays taxes says he is willing to support illegal aliens that is one thing but a person from another country who has never paid taxes tells Americans what to do is another thing.

Oh deary me. The 'you have no right to comment cause you're not an American' defense.

From a poster. On a webboard. About Thailand.

I suppose he refrains from commenting on thailand too, well you know cause he's not Thai!!!!

And they say Americans don't do irony....

I recall being told in the recent past not to lecture somebody on the Australian Constitution, even when I didn't lecture them.

Sometimes those swords cut two ways.

I generally refrain from making comments on threads that I have no direct knowledge of or any real interest in. It might behoove some of our membership (present company excluded, of course) to do the same.

Oh Charles,

Now it is thou who is being disingenuous.

No where I was saying 'you are an American you have no right to comment'.

You had made a snarky remark to me about not knowing about two entrances at pizza huts in Saudi and wanting that for Australia and I made a snarky remark back about your pining for the days where Jim crow laws were still in effect.

I was making the broader point about relying on a very simple point of freedom of expression guaranteed in the australian constitution and how I did not agree with racial discrimination. You questioned my position to which I was surprised given those on your side of the fence tend to make yourselves out to be uber consitutionalists.

No where did I make the argument you has no right to participate, which seems to be a favourite tool of some of your less libertarian travellers on the right.

Feel free to correct me if my memory doesn't serve me right.

I have no idea who you are talking to or what was said because of your non use of quotes.

I'll try again. I think you Aussies think it is OK to ship your illegals trying to barge into Australia off to Cambodia but us Americans are supposed to keep ours and pay for their health care and all the money they spend when they are incarcerated in American prisons and so on. Us Amricans are supposed to put up with the crime in Florida, Texas and California because of some reason you have not mentioned while you ship your problem illegal aliens to another country.

Ya right.

[thailiketoo]

You wrote, "You responded to a humorous comment about not needing boats to send back refugees to Mexico with an hysterical attack on the poster with accusations of ignorance" I did not. Please quote me if I did. You are in error.

You wrote, " I challenged your ignorant statement on Cuba with some facts, to wit, actual law on the issue." You did not. What statement did I make on Cuba that was incorrect?

You wrote, "I have posted research on other threads that demonstrate that immigration results in a net fiscal benefit to the host economies. Instead of posting ignorant diatribes on the impact of immigrants on American taxpayers, you might do well to familiarise yourself with these studies." If you want me to comment post your research for all to see in this thread. I'm not a mind reader.

You can post anything you like. If I don't agree with it I'll tell you. So far I have no idea of your position on the issue that is the topic of this thread.

Very simple. The quote is attached above as an excerpt because the multiple quotes are getting lengthy. Conveniently your points one and two are answered by the same quote. You responded to the quip about boats to Mexico with the statement indicated by the numeral 1. You clearly stated that the poster in your view, knew 'little' about the subject. I did not bother to search where you first used the word ignorant. Since this is clear for all to see, I accept your apology for accusing me of being in error.

Your second point about Cuba is demonstrated in the sentence above indicated by the letter 'A'. You say illegal immigrants (from your statement appended with the numeral 1) come from Cuba in their hundreds of thousands. The US policy on Cuban immigrants is clear in the laws that I quoted. They are not illegal. Cuban nationals who set foot in the US are expedited to legal status.

On your third point, I am not interested in your comment. I have seen your comments. They are dross. I took exception to your attack on another poster, accusing that poster of ignorance while your post contained elements of ignorance. I took exception with your dictat that this and other posters may not express their opinion because they are not Americans. I am not interested in your opinion because I doubt you will add anything to the body of knowledge, scholarly knowledge, on the fiscal impact of immigration. My advocacy of such research should be a sufficient enough indicator of my position on immigration. But you did not seem to be interested in my position or that of other posters because we are not American or we are naturally ignorant because we are not American.

My views on immigration and illegal immigration are not synonymous. My views on US immigration and UK or Australian immigration are also not synonymous. It is a complex issue that is cheapened by partisan diatribe. I will go so far as to say I cannot see any intelligent or rational argument against legitimising the group of undocumented immigrants that were the intended subjects of the now dead DREAM Act and are expected to benefit from this Executive Order. I heard the arguments about anchor babies and similar nonsense but just from a purely humanitarian point of view, those individuals surely should be regularised. They will make significant contributions to the future of America.

By the way, I have lived and worked in America. I have also paid taxes in America. It was a long time ago. It was in one of the most beautiful parts of a beautiful country; North West Oregon on the coast. I have returned many times. I do not claim any right or privilege as a result of this.

So, I attacked someone and my comments are dross but you can't quote anything I said and are stuck with random general attacks.

Cubans and Haitians are illegal immigrants. People who smuggle Cubans or Haitians into the USA get put in jail. Castro tried to empty his prisons in the Mariel boat lift. You want to read about it and when it stopped? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/weekinreview/16ojito.html?_r=0

All of Latin America does not have the right to migrate to the USA. I think they should be sent Cambodia but I guess that is OK for Australia but not America.

Parts of Florida and Texas and California are dangerous and not livable because they more resemble third world slums because of illegal immigration and non enforcement of laws already on the books.

Unless you have been to American prisons or Miami, LA or South Texas in the past few years you have no idea how serious the problem is.

[snarky66]

I think we should all sit back, remain calm and thank the clueless idiot for his handing us what will turn out to be a butt kicking in the next election. Thank You obama Jr

[samran]

The fact remains that people like you keep advocating that various countries accept losers with no income potential that live as a drain off our system. I do tend to agree that unless you are actually having to work and pay for these pathetic losers that you probably don't have standing to comment unless, I Suppose, you are a pathetic loser looking for hand outs.

Ah, pulls out the 'pathetic loser' jibe. Name calling. Nothing intelligent to say, so you resort to that. And you wonder why people laugh hysterically at the lunar right, if that is all you are capable of.

No right to speak....from the most ardent defenders of the constitution.

Running to the machinery of government for protection on their borders, from those who believe in no government can do anything right.

As I said, people say you yanks don't do irony. You are proving your critics wrong tonight.

Not going to make feel guilty for throwing out a term that best describes the situation.

Suggest you stare into the mirror bit longer then....

[mania]

Oh what a mess this thread is becoming

For those with dumb phones or the inability to see

that the amount of open quotes do not match the amount of "/" closed quotes....& thus edit/repair their posts

Please just post an answer rather than the mess that is 6 or more broken quotes mashed into your answer.

Thanks

Edited November 23, 2014 by mania

[Somtamnication]

Whatever your opinion is of Obama, what he just did, YOU WILL NEVER SEE IN THAILAND!

[thailiketoo]

Where did I say it was not okay for you to try and ship refugees off?

My only point, which I said politely, was that you are mixing two narratives.

Sure you have refugees, people who enter the U.S. fleeing political presection and seeking protection from the US.

How you handle them is totally different as to you handle illegal immigrants who are coming to the US for work.

I said the quantum of the number of people you are dealing with makes it hard to ship people anywhere.

Australia deals with a few thousand refugees coming by boat in total and it cost BILLIONS of dollars just house and process then offshore.

If you think sending your illegal inmigrants offshore, and people here have quoted there are millions of them, imagine the cost.

I didn't say don't do it, I just made the point it's probably going to be unfeasible and based on cost experiences in Australia for a few thousand, very very expensive for the US.

So no where did I say 'no don't do it' I just made the point about practicality and that you are probably going to have to look for a different solution.

So fine, if you want to propose a programme of offshoring your problems, that is going to have to cost you trillions of dollars, feel free to propose it to your representitive and make sure you let him or her know the cheque they'll need to cut, and the taxes they'll need to raise, to fund it.

Or as I'm guessing as a free marketeer, like I'm guessing you are claiming to be, you can drop the dumbass expensive government led solutions, and bite the bullet and come up with a better system that major sections of the economy are crying out for.

1. People who come to the USA to work can be handled by the work programs already in place which I linked earlier.

2. People are coming to the USA for the dole. They want me to support them because they don't feel like working (more than 50% are using some kind of social service).

3. You have an education and can contribute to the US economy and it is not problem getting in legally. The US would have no doctors, 7/11 owners or small hotel managers if it was not for Pakistan.

4. I think Australia is sending people to Cambodia to scare them. Kind of like a penal colony. I don't think they intend to send many because people will realize almost anywhere is better than Cambodia.

The answer to the US problems is a simple one. Secure the border. The only reason Obama wants illegals (to become legal) in is they will vote Democratic. Is this so hard to figure out?

Edited November 23, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Publicus]

Readers of the thread and everyone else can be sure Prez Obama acted within the laws and consistently with his authority and powers granted to the president and the commander in chief by the constitution.

The fringe fantastics in the US and around here are pumping out nothing but blue smoke and mirrors while they play Smoke on the Water in the background for their own dystopian entertainment..

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts and a few with messed up quotes have been removed.

[samran]

Where did I say it was not okay for you to try and ship refugees off?

My only point, which I said politely, was that you are mixing two narratives.

Sure you have refugees, people who enter the U.S. fleeing political presection and seeking protection from the US.

How you handle them is totally different as to you handle illegal immigrants who are coming to the US for work.

I said the quantum of the number of people you are dealing with makes it hard to ship people anywhere.

Australia deals with a few thousand refugees coming by boat in total and it cost BILLIONS of dollars just house and process then offshore.

If you think sending your illegal inmigrants offshore, and people here have quoted there are millions of them, imagine the cost.

I didn't say don't do it, I just made the point it's probably going to be unfeasible and based on cost experiences in Australia for a few thousand, very very expensive for the US.

So no where did I say 'no don't do it' I just made the point about practicality and that you are probably going to have to look for a different solution.

So fine, if you want to propose a programme of offshoring your problems, that is going to have to cost you trillions of dollars, feel free to propose it to your representitive and make sure you let him or her know the cheque they'll need to cut, and the taxes they'll need to raise, to fund it.

Or as I'm guessing as a free marketeer, like I'm guessing you are claiming to be, you can drop the dumbass expensive government led solutions, and bite the bullet and come up with a better system that major sections of the economy are crying out for.

1. People who come to the USA to work can be handled by the work programs already in place which I linked earlier.

2. People are coming to the USA for the dole. They want me to support them because they don't feel like working (more than 50% are using some kind of social service).

3. You have an education and can contribute to the US economy and it is not problem getting in legally. The US would have no doctors, 7/11 owners or small hotel managers if it was not for Pakistan.

4. I think Australia is sending people to Cambodia to scare them. Kind of like a penal colony. I don't think they intend to send many because people will realize almost anywhere is better than Cambodia.

The answer to the US problems is a simple one. Secure the border. The only reason Obama wants illegals (to become legal) in is they will vote Democratic. Is this so hard to figure out?

1 you have work programmes on paper. They don't seem to be working. Fix them.

2. Don't give them the dole then. As i said earlier, that won't stop them. They come for work, not the dole.

3. Not disputing that. I'm taking about a part of the system that no one seems to want to find a solution for.

4. No doubt. But they have to be housed somewhere first, in Australia's case, years before claims are processed and appealed. A half a million dollars per year per person I think is the figure. If the maths work for you, go for it.

Strengthening the border, by all means. But fences don't always work.

[zydeco]

Where did I say it was not okay for you to try and ship refugees off?

My only point, which I said politely, was that you are mixing two narratives.

Sure you have refugees, people who enter the U.S. fleeing political presection and seeking protection from the US.

How you handle them is totally different as to you handle illegal immigrants who are coming to the US for work.

I said the quantum of the number of people you are dealing with makes it hard to ship people anywhere.

Australia deals with a few thousand refugees coming by boat in total and it cost BILLIONS of dollars just house and process then offshore.

If you think sending your illegal inmigrants offshore, and people here have quoted there are millions of them, imagine the cost.

I didn't say don't do it, I just made the point it's probably going to be unfeasible and based on cost experiences in Australia for a few thousand, very very expensive for the US.

So no where did I say 'no don't do it' I just made the point about practicality and that you are probably going to have to look for a different solution.

So fine, if you want to propose a programme of offshoring your problems, that is going to have to cost you trillions of dollars, feel free to propose it to your representitive and make sure you let him or her know the cheque they'll need to cut, and the taxes they'll need to raise, to fund it.

Or as I'm guessing as a free marketeer, like I'm guessing you are claiming to be, you can drop the dumbass expensive government led solutions, and bite the bullet and come up with a better system that major sections of the economy are crying out for.

1. People who come to the USA to work can be handled by the work programs already in place which I linked earlier.

2. People are coming to the USA for the dole. They want me to support them because they don't feel like working (more than 50% are using some kind of social service).

3. You have an education and can contribute to the US economy and it is not problem getting in legally. The US would have no doctors, 7/11 owners or small hotel managers if it was not for Pakistan.

4. I think Australia is sending people to Cambodia to scare them. Kind of like a penal colony. I don't think they intend to send many because people will realize almost anywhere is better than Cambodia.

The answer to the US problems is a simple one. Secure the border. The only reason Obama wants illegals (to become legal) in is they will vote Democratic. Is this so hard to figure out?

1 you have work programmes on paper. They don't seem to be working. Fix them.

2. Don't give them the dole then. As i said earlier, that won't stop them. They come for work, not the dole.

3. Not disputing that. I'm taking about a part of the system that no one seems to want to find a solution for.

4. No doubt. But they have to be housed somewhere first, in Australia's case, years before claims are processed and appealed. A half a million dollars per year per person I think is the figure. If the maths work for you, go for it.

Strengthening the border, by all means. But fences don't always work.

Per your #1, the reason they "don't work" is that corporate interests go around them, because they pay too much. They want even cheaper labor. If you followed what the WGA, which is THE prime culprit, is doing to undermine programs designed to help them, you might have a little more insight into this situation.

[Publicus]

The rightwing lunatic fringe posters need to read the TVF rules and do some of their own research.

Some people need to read the rule against flaming and another against bashing any one group.

Some people also need to learn how to spell right wing before they pontificate.

Given the perfect rightwing credentials of the poster I guess I'd have to give the suggestion some thought and consideration.

Ok, I've considered it.

Posters who are rightwingers and could be considered to be one of a group of rightwingers are not necessarily protected by the Rules. Political discussions involve political language commonly in use here and elsewhere.

If the thread is political in its nature and a numbnuts poster tells me I need to grow up and I tell the poster he's a rightwinger no harm has been done. It's not like anyone has had his wings clipped or some such.

Which brings me to some points I'd been wanting to present due to the blue smoke and mirrors being pumped out by rightwingers and which they might reflect upon....

5. Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy.

During the 1990s, half of all new workers were foreign-born, filling gaps left by native-born workers in both the high- and low-skill ends of the spectrum. Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors, start their own businesses, and contribute to a thriving economy. The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our socialsecurity system over the next 20 years

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/high-school/top-10-myths-about-immigration

Top 10 Myths About Immigration

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/high-school/top-10-myths-about-immigration

Immigration Myths and Facts

MYTH: Immigrants have a negative impact on the economy and the wages of citizens and take jobs away from citizens.

FACT: Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born workers.

In June 2007, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a report on "Immigration's Economic Impact." Based on a thorough review of the literature, the Council concluded that "immigrants not only help fuel the Nation's economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers."11Among the report's key findings were that, on average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration in that immigrants tend to complement natives, not substitute for them.

https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/immigration-myths-and-facts

Moreover, the key provision of the dead in the water immigration reform legislation and which Prez Obama included in his executive order is supported by 75% of Americans across the political spectrum, to include of course Republicans, Independents, Democrats. The reactionary radical right is off on its own again on this one too.....

Passing New Immigration Laws Is Important to Americans

Though immigration is overall a low priority for Americans, most nonetheless agree that it is important to have new immigration laws. And while the Senate immigration bill appears to be doomed in the House, given recent remarks by Republican Speaker John Boehner, Americans are highly supportive of key aims of the legislation -- including the pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Support for that provision and others is high across racial/ethnic groups and among conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163475/passing-new-immigration-laws-important-americans.aspx

Again, it is noted that the far out fringe rightwing are off on their own fanatical pursuits, this time concerning immigration.

[lannarebirth]

Readers of the thread and everyone else can be sure Prez Obama acted within the laws and consistently with his authority and powers granted to the president and the commander in chief by the constitution.

The fringe fantastics in the US and around here are pumping out nothing but blue smoke and mirrors while they play Smoke on the Water in the background for their own dystopian entertainment..

I'm actually in favor of opening up pathways to citizenship for illegals, most of whom are Mexican. Mexicans are a pretty easy assimilation for the US compared to a lot of what washes up on the shores of other first world countries. In a generation or so most of them are fully assimilated. There is no way however that I believe the action taken by the president was constitutional. The Democrats will rue the day they opened up the Pandora's Box of arbitrary and unlawful presidential executive orders. The political pendulum swings and the opposition will come to power soon enough and the groundwork laid by this president will ensure that some horrific proclamations are in store. They really ought to impeach this bastard over this kind of thing but the media will just turn in in to a process debate rather than a substantive one and no good would come from it.

[cup-O-coffee]

Always amusing to hear Americans complain so much about immigration, when they are basically all immigrants themselves ...

Aren't we all immigrants at some point in our histories? If it is not about immigrants, then perhaps it is about "proof of the right" to be somewhere?

What right does someone have to be somewhere? What right do those already there have to say about it, or to be there themselves?

What factors should be considered in someone being somewhere and at those already there?

What right does someone have to walk into your house with their bags and begin living there?

What right does someone have to use the same resources where you live that you also use to survive?

I like your post. It really makes people have to think about the lines that separate reason and insanity, and ask, "What in Hell are we doing?"

[luangtom]

For those of you living overseas and not seeing or hearing the lead-up to Obama's granting amnesty for up to 5-million illegals, it was NOT the humanitarian effort many wish to make it out as. If you check the most recent election results, nation-wide, in the USA, you will find that the Democrats lost more seats in the US House and the US Senate and also in the governorships of some states. The cross-over votes came from those that felt disenfranchised by the Regime in office in Washington DC. Latino-voters and Black-voters crossed the line and voted Republican. This move to grant amnesty to illegals will now create another voter-bloc that feels beholding to the Regime and the Democrats due to the amnesty. They will be future Democratic voters. They will replace the cross-over votes we saw in the elections of 2014. The split in the votes of the minority-voters is reflective of their not being satisfied with the promises not kept by the Regime in 2008 and 2012. They took their anger out on the Democrats in 2014.

[samran]

Where did I say it was not okay for you to try and ship refugees off?

My only point, which I said politely, was that you are mixing two narratives.

Sure you have refugees, people who enter the U.S. fleeing political presection and seeking protection from the US.

How you handle them is totally different as to you handle illegal immigrants who are coming to the US for work.

I said the quantum of the number of people you are dealing with makes it hard to ship people anywhere.

Australia deals with a few thousand refugees coming by boat in total and it cost BILLIONS of dollars just house and process then offshore.

If you think sending your illegal inmigrants offshore, and people here have quoted there are millions of them, imagine the cost.

I didn't say don't do it, I just made the point it's probably going to be unfeasible and based on cost experiences in Australia for a few thousand, very very expensive for the US.

So no where did I say 'no don't do it' I just made the point about practicality and that you are probably going to have to look for a different solution.

So fine, if you want to propose a programme of offshoring your problems, that is going to have to cost you trillions of dollars, feel free to propose it to your representitive and make sure you let him or her know the cheque they'll need to cut, and the taxes they'll need to raise, to fund it.

Or as I'm guessing as a free marketeer, like I'm guessing you are claiming to be, you can drop the dumbass expensive government led solutions, and bite the bullet and come up with a better system that major sections of the economy are crying out for.

1. People who come to the USA to work can be handled by the work programs already in place which I linked earlier.

2. People are coming to the USA for the dole. They want me to support them because they don't feel like working (more than 50% are using some kind of social service).

3. You have an education and can contribute to the US economy and it is not problem getting in legally. The US would have no doctors, 7/11 owners or small hotel managers if it was not for Pakistan.

4. I think Australia is sending people to Cambodia to scare them. Kind of like a penal colony. I don't think they intend to send many because people will realize almost anywhere is better than Cambodia.

The answer to the US problems is a simple one. Secure the border. The only reason Obama wants illegals (to become legal) in is they will vote Democratic. Is this so hard to figure out?

1 you have work programmes on paper. They don't seem to be working. Fix them.

2. Don't give them the dole then. As i said earlier, that won't stop them. They come for work, not the dole.

3. Not disputing that. I'm taking about a part of the system that no one seems to want to find a solution for.

4. No doubt. But they have to be housed somewhere first, in Australia's case, years before claims are processed and appealed. A half a million dollars per year per person I think is the figure. If the maths work for you, go for it.

Strengthening the border, by all means. But fences don't always work.

Per your #1, the reason they "don't work" is that corporate interests go around them, because they pay too much. They want even cheaper labor. If you followed what the WGA, which is THE prime culprit, is doing to undermine programs designed to help them, you might have a little more insight into this situation.

I dont quite buy the corporate interests theory. In a congress where members basically have more corporate sponsorship than your average NFL quarterback, if corporate interests wanted this the issue would have been settled years ago without a whimper.

[luangtom]

For those of you living overseas and not seeing or hearing the lead-up to Obama's granting amnesty for up to 5-million illegals, it was NOT the humanitarian effort many wish to make it out as. If you check the most recent election results, nation-wide, in the USA, you will find that the Democrats lost more seats in the US House and the US Senate and also in the governorships of some states. The cross-over votes came from those that felt disenfranchised by the Regime in office in Washington DC. Latino-voters and Black-voters crossed the line and voted Republican. This move to grant amnesty to illegals will now create another voter-bloc that feels beholding to the Regime and the Democrats due to the amnesty. They will be future Democratic voters. They will replace the cross-over votes we saw in the elections of 2014. The split in the votes of the minority-voters is reflective of their not being satisfied with the promises not kept by the Regime in 2008 and 2012. They took their anger out on the Democrats in 2014.

As a follow-up to this...I will say most of my disagreeing of the amnesty by Executive Order comes from the fact that it is a slap in the face of those that came to the USA in a LEGAL manner. I spent a year doing paper-work for my Thai wife via a Thai attorney and a US attorney and it took my life-savings to do so. This was forty years ago at the end of the SE Asia Games. We got no stipend to live on, no free medical-care and no free-housing. I also had to guarantee that my wife would not become a ward-of-the-state via the welfare system. Not so with any of the illegals. They are getting free health-care, free educations and free or subsidized housing. Our single state, Georgia, pays out over $2-Billion each year to cover the costs of illegals and their health-care, housing and educations. This is just one state.

[Chicog]

For those of you living overseas and not seeing or hearing the lead-up to Obama's granting amnesty for up to 5-million illegals, it was NOT the humanitarian effort many wish to make it out as. If you check the most recent election results, nation-wide, in the USA, you will find that the Democrats lost more seats in the US House and the US Senate and also in the governorships of some states. The cross-over votes came from those that felt disenfranchised by the Regime in office in Washington DC. Latino-voters and Black-voters crossed the line and voted Republican. This move to grant amnesty to illegals will now create another voter-bloc that feels beholding to the Regime and the Democrats due to the amnesty. They will be future Democratic voters. They will replace the cross-over votes we saw in the elections of 2014. The split in the votes of the minority-voters is reflective of their not being satisfied with the promises not kept by the Regime in 2008 and 2012. They took their anger out on the Democrats in 2014.

I didn't see anything in Obama's speech about amnesty. Could you point that bit out?

[zydeco]

1. People who come to the USA to work can be handled by the work programs already in place which I linked earlier.

2. People are coming to the USA for the dole. They want me to support them because they don't feel like working (more than 50% are using some kind of social service).

3. You have an education and can contribute to the US economy and it is not problem getting in legally. The US would have no doctors, 7/11 owners or small hotel managers if it was not for Pakistan.

4. I think Australia is sending people to Cambodia to scare them. Kind of like a penal colony. I don't think they intend to send many because people will realize almost anywhere is better than Cambodia.

The answer to the US problems is a simple one. Secure the border. The only reason Obama wants illegals (to become legal) in is they will vote Democratic. Is this so hard to figure out?

1 you have work programmes on paper. They don't seem to be working. Fix them.

2. Don't give them the dole then. As i said earlier, that won't stop them. They come for work, not the dole.

3. Not disputing that. I'm taking about a part of the system that no one seems to want to find a solution for.

4. No doubt. But they have to be housed somewhere first, in Australia's case, years before claims are processed and appealed. A half a million dollars per year per person I think is the figure. If the maths work for you, go for it.

Strengthening the border, by all means. But fences don't always work.

Per your #1, the reason they "don't work" is that corporate interests go around them, because they pay too much. They want even cheaper labor. If you followed what the WGA, which is THE prime culprit, is doing to undermine programs designed to help them, you might have a little more insight into this situation.

I dont quite buy the corporate interests theory. In a congress where members basically have more corporate sponsorship than your average NFL quarterback, if corporate interests wanted this the issue would have been settled years ago without a whimper.

But what about what I specifically alluded to? What about the WGA? What about the existing programs?

[Publicus]

For those of you living overseas and not seeing or hearing the lead-up to Obama's granting amnesty for up to 5-million illegals, it was NOT the humanitarian effort many wish to make it out as. If you check the most recent election results, nation-wide, in the USA, you will find that the Democrats lost more seats in the US House and the US Senate and also in the governorships of some states. The cross-over votes came from those that felt disenfranchised by the Regime in office in Washington DC. Latino-voters and Black-voters crossed the line and voted Republican. This move to grant amnesty to illegals will now create another voter-bloc that feels beholding to the Regime and the Democrats due to the amnesty. They will be future Democratic voters. They will replace the cross-over votes we saw in the elections of 2014. The split in the votes of the minority-voters is reflective of their not being satisfied with the promises not kept by the Regime in 2008 and 2012. They took their anger out on the Democrats in 2014.

In the election three weeks ago Hispanics voted 2-1 for the Democratic party candidates on the ballots of the various states. In the 2016 presidential election cycle it will go back into the seventieth percentile as usual. For one thing, the Republican state by state primary elections mayhem from January through June in '16 will send everyone screaming for the exits, similar to last time in 2012 when Willard Mitt Romney crawled out from under the warring pack.

Some races this year, such as in Colorado where the dimwit Democratic senator was defeated, Hispanics gave the Republican opponent more than one-third of their votes, but across the board in this election too the Democratic party retained an overwhelming large majority of Hispanic voters.

Republicans simply have little appeal to Hispanic voters. In the instance of comprehensive immigration reform, the Rs have three strikes against them before they might even try to start to produce any legislation. The Rs control the House which militates against them passing an immigration bill, the Rs control the Senate which further militates against them, Obama sits in the White House with his veto pen ready because any bill the R controlled Congress would enact next year would be an abomination that Hispanics and Ds would never support.

And with Sarah Palin travelling the country in her arc to lasso Hispanics to deport the Rs don't stand a burrito's chance in hell.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html

[Chicog]

The Democrats will rue the day they opened up the Pandora's Box of arbitrary and unlawful presidential executive orders. The political pendulum swings and the opposition will come to power soon enough and the groundwork laid by this president will ensure that some horrific proclamations are in store. They really ought to impeach this bastard over this kind of thing but the media will just turn in in to a process debate rather than a substantive one and no good would come from it.

Bizarre post to say the least.

Firstly, the EO can be challenged, can it not? That's *if* it is arbitrary (hardly) or unlawful (up to a court).

Oh no, I forgot, they announced their "lawsuit" but it's about something to do with Obamacare, not Immigration.

Secondly, why not go ahead and impeach him?

It will show America what a vindictive and spiteful bunch the GOP are, and might motivate more Democratic voters to get of their behinds and vote.

Which is precisely why Boehner is keeping the lid on that particular tin of worms.

Tell me more about these "horrific proclamations" though, sounds like a good plot for a thriller.

[lannarebirth]

The Democrats will rue the day they opened up the Pandora's Box of arbitrary and unlawful presidential executive orders. The political pendulum swings and the opposition will come to power soon enough and the groundwork laid by this president will ensure that some horrific proclamations are in store. They really ought to impeach this bastard over this kind of thing but the media will just turn in in to a process debate rather than a substantive one and no good would come from it.

Bizarre post to say the least.

Firstly, the EO can be challenged, can it not? That's *if* it is arbitrary (hardly) or unlawful (up to a court).

Oh no, I forgot, they announced their "lawsuit" but it's about something to do with Obamacare, not Immigration.

Secondly, why not go ahead and impeach him?

It will show America what a vindictive and spiteful bunch the GOP are, and might motivate more Democratic voters to get of their behinds and vote.

Which is precisely why Boehner is keeping the lid on that particular tin of worms.

Tell me more about these "horrific proclamations" though, sounds like a good plot for a thriller.

Interesting that you mention Obamacare. While has been deemed legal, as a tax, the one thing the president said that it wasn't was a tax. Executive branch's arbitrary enforcement of the Obamacare law that was enacted IS unconstitutional and opens it up for a lawsuit and possible reversal. It's unfortunate, all of it, because Obama COULD HAVE passed both Universal Healthcare AND Immigration Reform in his first two years in office without having to use unconstitutional powers to try to implement far inferior policies.

As far as impeachment goes it is not due to the nature of either policy but due to how each came to be implemented or in the case of Obamacare partially implemented, with the president arbitrarily deciding to enforce some aspects of the new law but not others. Same goes for immigration policy. Playing politics with implemented law. That's malfeasance and is impeachable. Why there won't be an impeach ent is because the media panders to people like yourself and asks "what's wrong with reforming immigration policy"? and of course there's nothing wrong with reforming it and its a good idea. But the fact is that it was reformed in an unconstitutional manner and people like yourself don't seem bothered by that if it happens to be something you agree with. So impeachment proceeding are pointless.

This isn't really a Republican/Democrat issue. I'm a liberal (not progressive) and I'm sure I loathe this president more than most Republicans.

As for why the allowing of extraconstitutional orders to stand is terrible, is that when the opposition gets in they will exercise those same powers to do such things as limit further constitutionally protected, speech, privacy, and how one's country may enter a war.

[losworld]

It is unbelievable that the next best president, after JFK, the US has ever had is slagged off for everything he does.

Must be the Ostrich syndrome.

I'm sure you all can't wait to get ripped off by the next Bush generation.

What a ridiculous claim. Obama will likely go down as the worst, most dissapointing President in U.S. history.

He already was voted the worst president since WW II by the American people.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obama-worst-president-since-wwii-108507.html

And that's why he was voted into office twice .. right?

Anyone with any political insight can see that politicians don't get elected in the U,S. they get defeated meaning they throw them out. If Obama ran again he would be thrown out too. America needs a third party as these guys are all equally corrupt and anyone who believes they have real choice is delusional.