The End of DACA?

PJPOWER

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER: Here is what you wrote. I've bolded the part that I reference and which you didn't "get that out of it."

Well, we will never know because 88% of illegal immigrants are not coming from Canada or overseas.  Seems like there is an island near New York that was used almost exclusively for deterrence of illegal immigration from EU, right?  Make it about skin color all you want, though, as it helps keep the left "we're so divided" rhetoric at float.  The issue is that there is no ocean protecting us from the corrupt, gang ridden country to the south.  There are no "hazardous travel warnings" for spring breakers to northern EU.

What were you implying when you wrote that in the context of this discussion regarding DACA? What did you mean if not to infer that DACA applicants are not "corrupt" or "gang ridden?"

And Ellis Island wasn't a "deterrence" as much as it was a processing center that screened migrants, isolating those with TB and rejecting others, right or wrong. But people in Europe didn't board ships headed for America because they had to pass through Ellis Island. Keep selling fear of the "other."

It wasn't in reference to DACA at all, it was a response to another posters claim that if illegal immigrants were mostly white Europeaners, immigration would not be a problem.  Stop trying to make something appear to be what it is not...just picking and choosing random sentences and screaming "racism" is pretty lame.  It was a side discussion about immigration as a whole.  And are you denying that Mexico is a corrupt, gang (or cartel if you prefer) ridden country?  DACA applicants may not be, but Mexico itself certainly is.

Halifax2TheMax

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER: Here is what you wrote. I've bolded the part that I reference and which you didn't "get that out of it."

Well, we will never know because 88% of illegal immigrants are not coming from Canada or overseas.  Seems like there is an island near New York that was used almost exclusively for deterrence of illegal immigration from EU, right?  Make it about skin color all you want, though, as it helps keep the left "we're so divided" rhetoric at float.  The issue is that there is no ocean protecting us from the corrupt, gang ridden country to the south.  There are no "hazardous travel warnings" for spring breakers to northern EU.

What were you implying when you wrote that in the context of this discussion regarding DACA? What did you mean if not to infer that DACA applicants are not "corrupt" or "gang ridden?"

And Ellis Island wasn't a "deterrence" as much as it was a processing center that screened migrants, isolating those with TB and rejecting others, right or wrong. But people in Europe didn't board ships headed for America because they had to pass through Ellis Island. Keep selling fear of the "other."

It wasn't in reference to DACA at all, it was a response to another posters claim that if illegal immigrants were mostly white Europeaners, immigration would not be a problem.  Stop trying to make something appear to be what it is not...just picking and choosing random sentences and screaming "racism" is pretty lame.  It was a side discussion about immigration as a whole.

A side discussion in a thread titled DACA. There's context in what you post. I get it.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.

Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.

No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.

Why wouldn't the republicans work with Obama? Wouldn't have had anything to do with, hmmmm, let me think for a minute, hmmmmmm, I think it's coming to me now, yup, race, now would it?

So now all republicans are racist? I would wager it was more about his political party, but let's make every issue race. Drive the wedge so Trump gets another term. Fucking ridiculous.

Every Republican is racist...Every Democrat is a jobless mooch looking for a handout...yada yada yada...snore

I'm curious what people think. What percentage of Republicans are racist? Not just the blatant ones, but also the ones who claim they aren't but still hold racist beleifs and attitudes and act on them. 

I'd be curious about the democratic number there too.  I've known some pretty racist democrats throughout the years.  I also wonder who wrote the book of love.  

mace1229

I'd understand the uproar if we had great schools and lots of opportunity for young kids.
But we don't. Our schools are overcrowded and failing. Classrooms built for 24 kids now hold 40. Test scores and drop out rates are embarrassing. It is more difficult to get into college that it was a generation ago, let alone pay for it. 
For us to allow people to stay illegally would be like the family on the corner who is on welfare with 6 kids trying to adopt 2 more into the family. We should learn to take care of ourselves first before trying to nurse the rest of the world to prosperity.
Look at all the countries that are top ranked in terms of education and income. And then look and their immigration policies. For the most part they are far more strict that ours, but they don't get crap for it. Even Canada if I'm not mistaken is a lot tougher to get in (and stay) than the US. Don't you have to pass an English or French language test as just one part of the immigration process to Canada? Not to mention the strict skill/worker requirements along with that. But when someone enters the US illegally no regulations should apply? Why are we expected to be so different, and racists/no empathy if we aren't? 

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

josevolution said:

Let's get one thing straight when the orange one announced his campaign he didn't say " You know Europe is sending all rapist & criminals over the border we have send them back he specifically mentioned Mexicans as to who had to go ....

True, he also stated he wanted to send the rapists and criminals back and not the ones that are doing good for their communities.  

He'd like them to stay and for congress to figure it out.

I'm not a Trump fan but clearly this has been what he has said.

First, few people honestly think it's worth believing anything that Trump says. 

Second, his party has repeatedly failed to "figure it out", even when given ample tools to do so 

Both parties fail.  I'm not blaming one over the other here.

Both parties fail at times, but on this particular issue, which is after all what we're discussing, one party worked hard and one party failed to do anything other than obstruct. 

The bland statement "both parties fail" does nothing but excuse the behaviour of the GOP here. 

I said this already but I'll say it again:

Trump wants the people who contribute to stay and for congress to figure that out.

I find it very hard to believe that there is going to be 800,000 people deported.  

If you think about it, it's a win/win.  It forces congress to work together to do something.  If they don't work something out then all those incumbents are not getting voted for reelection.  So Trump drains the swamp.  Or am I giving way to much credit here?

mace1229

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.

Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.

No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.

Why wouldn't the republicans work with Obama? Wouldn't have had anything to do with, hmmmm, let me think for a minute, hmmmmmm, I think it's coming to me now, yup, race, now would it?

So now all republicans are racist? I would wager it was more about his political party, but let's make every issue race. Drive the wedge so Trump gets another term. Fucking ridiculous.

Every Republican is racist...Every Democrat is a jobless mooch looking for a handout...yada yada yada...snore

I'm curious what people think. What percentage of Republicans are racist? Not just the blatant ones, but also the ones who claim they aren't but still hold racist beleifs and attitudes and act on them. 

An insignificant amount. Its been repeatedly implied on this thread and others if you support Trump, if you're republican, if you want a wall then it must be because you are racist. 
Why is there even a comparison to European immigration that several have made? Irish potato famine is over, no European country even made the top 10 list. So why would we build a wall in the ocean over 2% of the problem?
Why is it racist to do what ever other country does, and enforce immigration laws?

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.

Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.

No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.

Why wouldn't the republicans work with Obama? Wouldn't have had anything to do with, hmmmm, let me think for a minute, hmmmmmm, I think it's coming to me now, yup, race, now would it?

So now all republicans are racist? I would wager it was more about his political party, but let's make every issue race. Drive the wedge so Trump gets another term. Fucking ridiculous.

Every Republican is racist...Every Democrat is a jobless mooch looking for a handout...yada yada yada...snore

I'm curious what people think. What percentage of Republicans are racist? Not just the blatant ones, but also the ones who claim they aren't but still hold racist beleifs and attitudes and act on them. 

I'd be curious about the democratic number there too.  I've known some pretty racist democrats throughout the years.  I also wonder who wrote the book of love.  

Maybe I'm slow this morning, but I'm not picking up the Book of Love reference. 

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.

Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.

No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.

Why wouldn't the republicans work with Obama? Wouldn't have had anything to do with, hmmmm, let me think for a minute, hmmmmmm, I think it's coming to me now, yup, race, now would it?

So now all republicans are racist? I would wager it was more about his political party, but let's make every issue race. Drive the wedge so Trump gets another term. Fucking ridiculous.

Every Republican is racist...Every Democrat is a jobless mooch looking for a handout...yada yada yada...snore

I'm curious what people think. What percentage of Republicans are racist? Not just the blatant ones, but also the ones who claim they aren't but still hold racist beleifs and attitudes and act on them. 

An insignificant amount. Its been repeatedly implied on this thread and others if you support Trump, if you're republican, if you want a wall then it must be because you are racist. 
Why is there even a comparison to European immigration that several have made? Irish potato famine is over, no European country even made the top 10 list. So why would we build a wall in the ocean over 2% of the problem?
Why is it racist to do what ever other country does, and enforce immigration laws?

You're missing pieces. No one is saying it's racist to enforce immigration law. We're making observations of the trump admin statements and policies. He campaigned on a platform woven with prejudice. At a bare minimum he's faning the flames of racism. My take is that he's a full blown white supremacist. And that's not me being overly sensitive. This is based on trump's past actions and words, as well as who he has hired to work with him. The comparison isn't Mexican immigrants vs European, the comparison is white vs brown and trump's beliefs about the two groups.  

mace1229

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.

Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. 

No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.

Why wouldn't the republicans work with Obama? Wouldn't have had anything to do with, hmmmm, let me think for a minute, hmmmmmm, I think it's coming to me now, yup, race, now would it?

So now all republicans are racist? I would wager it was more about his political party, but let's make every issue race. Drive the wedge so Trump gets another term. Fucking ridiculous.

Every Republican is racist...Every Democrat is a jobless mooch looking for a handout...yada yada yada...snore

I'm curious what people think. What percentage of Republicans are racist? Not just the blatant ones, but also the ones who claim they aren't but still hold racist beleifs and attitudes and act on them. 

An insignificant amount. Its been repeatedly implied on this thread and others if you support Trump, if you're republican, if you want a wall then it must be because you are racist. 
Why is there even a comparison to European immigration that several have made? Irish potato famine is over, no European country even made the top 10 list. So why would we build a wall in the ocean over 2% of the problem?
Why is it racist to do what ever other country does, and enforce immigration laws?

You're missing pieces. No one is saying it's racist to enforce immigration law. We're making observations of the trump admin statements and policies. He campaigned on a platform woven with prejudice. At a bare minimum he's faning the flames of racism. My take is that he's a full blown white supremacist. And that's not me being overly sensitive. This is based on trump's past actions and words, as well as who he has hired to work with him. The comparison isn't Mexican immigrants vs European, the comparison is white vs brown and trump's beliefs about the two groups.  

Even before Trump ran that's been the case. The first sign that someone suggest immigration laws people immediately start throwing out the R word. 
And I agree that isn't the comparison, but its been said multiuple times here of "well if its not about race, how come we aren't fighting to stop the white immigrants?" Or "we only want to stop them from coming because of their color" sort of remarks.  They hold no value,. Complaining we dont crack down on white immigration is like complaining that East coast gets all the hurricane coverage, so weathermen must hate the west coast.

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.

Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.

No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.

Why wouldn't the republicans work with Obama? Wouldn't have had anything to do with, hmmmm, let me think for a minute, hmmmmmm, I think it's coming to me now, yup, race, now would it?

So now all republicans are racist? I would wager it was more about his political party, but let's make every issue race. Drive the wedge so Trump gets another term. Fucking ridiculous.

Every Republican is racist...Every Democrat is a jobless mooch looking for a handout...yada yada yada...snore

I'm curious what people think. What percentage of Republicans are racist? Not just the blatant ones, but also the ones who claim they aren't but still hold racist beleifs and attitudes and act on them. 

An insignificant amount. Its been repeatedly implied on this thread and others if you support Trump, if you're republican, if you want a wall then it must be because you are racist. 
Why is there even a comparison to European immigration that several have made? Irish potato famine is over, no European country even made the top 10 list. So why would we build a wall in the ocean over 2% of the problem?
Why is it racist to do what ever other country does, and enforce immigration laws?

You're missing pieces. No one is saying it's racist to enforce immigration law. We're making observations of the trump admin statements and policies. He campaigned on a platform woven with prejudice. At a bare minimum he's faning the flames of racism. My take is that he's a full blown white supremacist. And that's not me being overly sensitive. This is based on trump's past actions and words, as well as who he has hired to work with him. The comparison isn't Mexican immigrants vs European, the comparison is white vs brown and trump's beliefs about the two groups.  

I think people have blown it out of proportion.  I see all the time that people bend Trumps words and turn it into something else.  It drives me nuts.

Same thing when Obama said one thing then people bend his words.  

Drives me nuts.

Go Beavers

CM189191 said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.

Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.

No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.

Why wouldn't the republicans work with Obama? Wouldn't have had anything to do with, hmmmm, let me think for a minute, hmmmmmm, I think it's coming to me now, yup, race, now would it?

So now all republicans are racist? I would wager it was more about his political party, but let's make every issue race. Drive the wedge so Trump gets another term. Fucking ridiculous.

Every Republican is racist...Every Democrat is a jobless mooch looking for a handout...yada yada yada...snore

I'm curious what people think. What percentage of Republicans are racist? Not just the blatant ones, but also the ones who claim they aren't but still hold racist beleifs and attitudes and act on them. 

Nate Silver says it's roughly 27%, compared to 19% of democrats.  
 https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/

Thanks for the link. It was nice to see the much improved attitude toward interracial marriage since 1990. I wonder what an updated version would show now that closeted racists are now feeling validated by the highest office. You know the "those Arab looking people make me nervous" "I'm concerned white people aren't having enough kids" "blue lives matter!" "Racism is pretty much gone, it's their own fault now, why are they complaining?" "If blacks would follow the law, they wouldn't have any problems with police" "that was a nice neighborhood until the Mexicans took over" "they need to worry about black on black crime first" etc and etc..... 

brianlux

mace1229 said:

I'd understand the uproar if we had great schools and lots of opportunity for young kids.
But we don't. Our schools are overcrowded and failing. Classrooms built for 24 kids now hold 40. Test scores and drop out rates are embarrassing. It is more difficult to get into college that it was a generation ago, let alone pay for it. 
For us to allow people to stay illegally would be like the family on the corner who is on welfare with 6 kids trying to adopt 2 more into the family. We should learn to take care of ourselves first before trying to nurse the rest of the world to prosperity.
Look at all the countries that are top ranked in terms of education and income. And then look and their immigration policies. For the most part they are far more strict that ours, but they don't get crap for it. Even Canada if I'm not mistaken is a lot tougher to get in (and stay) than the US. Don't you have to pass an English or French language test as just one part of the immigration process to Canada? Not to mention the strict skill/worker requirements along with that. But when someone enters the US illegally no regulations should apply? Why are we expected to be so different, and racists/no empathy if we aren't? 

Canada is extremely hard to emigrate into.  I know a couple who looked into it.  They were highly skilled, well educated (one a Doctorate, on a Masters degree), paid highly professionals.  They didn't think they could get in so they said, "Forget about it."

This subject is a good example of why I hate labels.  If you say you are in favor of more strict immigration policies you are labeled a "conservative" and a "racist". 

People I know generally label me a "liberal" or even "radical" but when I talk about my thoughts on immigration policy, all of the sudden I'm a "Trump loving conservative racist".  Bullshit.   When in comes to environment, people say I'm "radical" or even pro-ecoterrorism.   That's  a bullshit label put on some of the groups I support.  One of my favorites, Sea Shepherds, works to uphold international marine life laws and had never seriously injured or killed or had any of there own seriously injured or killed and yet some label them eco-terrorist.  Bullshit.

Let's stop it with the name-calling nonsense and start putting our heads together to solve problems.  No one here has shown hatred to or wished ill will upon their fellow human.  We all seem to care about what's going on (far more so than the average person, I'd say).  Let's stop it with the petty name calling and division.  If someone needs to do that, maybe go play football or something, please!

JC29856

dignin said:

brianlux said:

Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.

If anyone thinks it's okay to throw these kids out of their home because of a bad law, then yes, I think that makes someone bad.

No analogy can make that right or humane.

https://youtu.be/lyPA16pGyn4

PJPOWER

JC29856 said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.

If anyone thinks it's okay to throw these kids out of their home because of a bad law, then yes, I think that makes someone bad.

No analogy can make that right or humane.

https://youtu.be/lyPA16pGyn4

Uh oh, looks like Hillary is a racist nazi too

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

JC29856 said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.

If anyone thinks it's okay to throw these kids out of their home because of a bad law, then yes, I think that makes someone bad.

No analogy can make that right or humane.

https://youtu.be/lyPA16pGyn4

Uh oh, looks like Hillary is a racist nazi too

All minimizing of racism posts aside, where would you put Clinton and trump on the racist/prejudice continuum based on the information we have?

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

JC29856 said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.

If anyone thinks it's okay to throw these kids out of their home because of a bad law, then yes, I think that makes someone bad.

No analogy can make that right or humane.

https://youtu.be/lyPA16pGyn4

Uh oh, looks like Hillary is a racist nazi too

All minimizing of racism posts aside, where would you put Clinton and trump on the racist/prejudice continuum based on the information we have?

"What difference does it make at this point?"  I think Hillary hides it better...that is until she gets a magical slang accent when speaking to a southern black crowd...

brianlux

Where is the MLK or Bobby Kennedy of today, that's what I want to know.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

Where is the MLK or Bobby Kennedy of today, that's what I want to know.

Good question. American badly needs one or five. I've been saying for a while that BLM, for example, are in desperate need of a great leader. Without one, they are largely ineffective and even destructive in some ways. It's a shame.
The closest you have is Bernie Sanders.... I think he's great. The problem there is that the two main political parties and the entire system are just so fucked up that Bernie is not able to be as effective as he should be while working kind of within that system (I'm sure the same would happen to Bobby Kennedy if he existed present day). I'm not really sure exactly where a great leader would best belong right now, with things the way they are. Not good.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

JC29856 said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.

If anyone thinks it's okay to throw these kids out of their home because of a bad law, then yes, I think that makes someone bad.

No analogy can make that right or humane.

https://youtu.be/lyPA16pGyn4

Uh oh, looks like Hillary is a racist nazi too

All minimizing of racism posts aside, where would you put Clinton and trump on the racist/prejudice continuum based on the information we have?

"What difference does it make at this point?"  I think Hillary hides it better...that is until she gets a magical slang accent when speaking to a southern black crowd...

The post is an attempt to normalize trump like he's just like all the others. The bullshit theme that Hillary was just as bad as trump is why we're in this mess now. 

Halifax2TheMax

Is ICE kicking in doors in those Trump branded properties in Florida, seeking out the Russian oligarchs on tourist visas having anchor babies in the US? Making sweeps through Little Russia in New York, looking for those Russian and eastern Europeans who have overstayed their tourist visas? How about ICE making their presence known in Pulaski Park or Bucktown? Why not? Being all about "law and order" and all.