Lol. Sounds like conservatives liked Obama. I keep hearing Trump and his supporters justify his actions by saying "Obama did it too".
Doesn't really apply here. Conservatives may have liked how ICE was operating in the first term, but Obama never liked it. He wanted comprehensive immigration reform to address the problems. He respected the law those years even though he disagreed with it, he never wanted some of those people deported. In the second term when comprehensive immigration reform was never going to happen, Obama acted to protect some illegals and limit who would be targeted. Some of that was enacted through Executive Order some of it was rejected by the courts.
To your point, it can be a valid point to raise, you know "why take issue with something now if it was fine before". The large deportation numbers and who was being deported was never fine with Obama or the left or immigration activists. It happened on Obama's watch, but he technically didn't do it, the law did it, which Obama disagreed with and wanted to change and eventually tried to change on his own.
well, i don't know about that. when obama got elected and passed a the ACA, dems always reminded repubs it was their idea. our gov't tends to stay the same mostly between administrations except for a few tweaks. we'll see how much trump upsets the balance but i'm still sticking to.....not much.
I've contended in the past that the concept of the ACA is a Republican dream (atleast some of them), insurance industry get loads more customers and if the customers can't pay for the product then the federal government subsidies it with public money going to private companies.
In theory that concept looks much more like what Republicans would advocate because we know the Democrats not bought and owned by the insurance industry are going to advocate for single payer.
But it hasn't all worked out so well for the insurance companies or some of the people who earn too much to qualify for a subsidy and are faced with enormously higher premiums under ACA than they saw before.
i respect your response but my point was that whether health care or immigration or free trade....etc....not much changes from election to election.....we'll see with this one
i respect your response but my point was that whether health care or immigration or free trade....etc....not much changes from election to election.....we'll see with this one
One area that has changed & has seen a significant uptick is both the number of minutes dedicated to the prez and his staff of lackeys as well as ratings increase for Saturday Night Live. 😛
So much free material given to SNL weekly by Trumpco that the writers probably have to figure out what to eliminate or filter, as they could do an entire show weekly on the Twitter President.
Alec Baldwin is the real deal - see the below link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newspaper-goofs-uses-snl-pic-of-alec-baldwin-for-trump-story/
The administration considers criminal aliens a priority – the law is faceless and nameless; she personally wasn't singled out as a priority, instead she fit the criteria that they are prioritizing.
Maybe somebody could inform me and save me the google time, but why would work place raids be unconstitutional? They should inquire at the HR department too and anyone responsible for hiring an illegal alien should be arrested as well. I say more workplace raids.
I would suspect her criminal conviction may limit the chances of the sponsorship opportunity. Like I said knowing the details surrounding here specific case, these are not the kind of cases I think ICE should be focusing on, but they have a felony conviction sitting in front of them and the order is prioritizing removal of such. If they are or were allowed to consider circumstances then yes, I think she isn’t who I would be targeting, but the law is what it is. So I am not going to blame the administration for wanting existing law enforced. And I am not going to blame the ICE agent in the moment to have to make decisions outside of their authority – if an ICE agent wants to do that on their own and make judgement calls that is up to them. Ultimately the person in question here that was deported put themselves in that position.
Your position is respectful Bob. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It can have dramatic effects seeing videos on TV of the actions necessary to enforce the laws. Bottom line, for anyone who doesn’t like what is happening should look toward changing the law, not ignoring aspects of the existing law. And it may in fact have a dramatic effect on illegals who are here or are thinking of coming here...knowing they are in greater danger of being deported, the law and the potential punishment that accompanies it should be a deterrent. Now we need strong and damaging penalties for employers, how about mandatory prison and a fine equaling the worth of their company – that might have a drastic impact on those hiring illegals (so long as they have the tools necessary to properly verify prospective employees).
It's not that work place raids are inherently unconstitutional, but I believe lawyers for the business and those rounded up, claimed an issue with the specific warrant - which would violate constitutional search rights. I believe they argued the agents were fishing, but it is their right to argue that in order to extend their stay until the courts decide. And something tells me this place didn't exactly have a massive HR department.
I wondered about the felony affecting the mothers' return opportunity, but it seems like a bit of a catch-22 for their legal return to their children to be complicated by a felony for illegally residing here. Of course, it's a catch-22 that their children are here legally because the parents were here illegally, but hey, that's what makes America great! The mother says she has no regrets, that she did it for her children.
Doesn't really apply here. Conservatives may have liked how ICE was operating in the first term, but Obama never liked it. He wanted comprehensive immigration reform to address the problems. He respected the law those years even though he disagreed with it, he never wanted some of those people deported. In the second term when comprehensive immigration reform was never going to happen, Obama acted to protect some illegals and limit who would be targeted. Some of that was enacted through Executive Order some of it was rejected by the courts.
To your point, it can be a valid point to raise, you know "why take issue with something now if it was fine before". The large deportation numbers and who was being deported was never fine with Obama or the left or immigration activists. It happened on Obama's watch, but he technically didn't do it, the law did it, which Obama disagreed with and wanted to change and eventually tried to change on his own.
I'm sure you are right about the policies. I was referring to the interesting observation of human behavior. I know so many who despise Obama and would reject anything he said or did no matter what. These same people now say, "I support what Trump is doing, and Obama did it too so what's the problem?" Whether the policies are the same or different, the comparison is illogical. Why would an Obama-hater ever use that as a defense?
The large deportation numbers and who was being deported was never fine with Obama or the left or immigration activists. It happened on Obama's watch, but he technically didn't do it, the law did it, which Obama disagreed with and wanted to change and eventually tried to change on his own.
That's certainly one way of looking at it. We see what we want to see.
The large deportation numbers and who was being deported was never fine with Obama or the left or immigration activists. It happened on Obama's watch, but he technically didn't do it, the law did it, which Obama disagreed with and wanted to change and eventually tried to change on his own.
That's certainly one way of looking at it. We see what we want to see.
One liners aren't very persuasive Jerry.
We see what we want. How do you see it then? Let's examine.
Who called Obama "The Deporter-in-Chief". Was it the right? Was it the Minutemen? No.
It was the head of National Council of La Raza Janet Murguía who said that.
And it was immigration rights advocates like these who protested against immigration policy under Obama.
Obama Faces Protests In California Over Deportations
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-protestes-california_n_3405144.html
You would 'see' it with me then that these groups would not be "fine" with the large deportation numbers.
“We respectfully disagree with the president on his ability to stop unnecessary deportations,” Murguía will say during a Tuesday night speech to NCLR’s annual Capital Awards dinner, according to prepared remarks. “He can stop tearing families apart. He can stop throwing communities and businesses into chaos. He can stop turning a blind eye to the harm being done. He does have the power to stop this. Failure to act will be a shameful legacy for his presidency.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/national-council-of-la-raza-janet-murguia-barack-obama-deporter-in-chief-immigration-104217
You don't think Obama was fine with that do you? Of course you wouldn't think he was fine with that because he wasn't and eventually took action to change it.
I said "large deportation numbers and who was being deported was never fine with Obama" - what I see is that there were people who those on the left and immigration activists and Obama believed shouldn't have been deported, so then I make a conclusion that if those people were not deported then the number would've been smaller and absent of those people being in the deportation tally I think Obama would've preferred that. I should've clarified the fact that the people he was fine to be deporting were drug dealers or gang members or criminals - ofcourse he said if you are a criminal you should be deported. The people he was not fine with being deported he eventually took executive action on to protect. Having said that, do you and I see eye to eye on that?
The second sentence, if we agree that Obama didn't want non violent people and parents and children deported, then are we at the same time going to say that he did it? No. Because we know that if he had his way those people would not have been deported. I said the law did it and would have absent of him, even if he wasn't in the White House, the law would've done it regardless. Because we know he didn't direct ICE to conduct their enforcement in that way.
I said he disagreed with the manner of some of the enforcement and that is why he took executive action to protect certain people from enforcement. Do we not see that eye to eye? Please help me see what you see then?
You could've saved me the time questioning you if you would've just explained yourself to begin with. I'm sorry, I'm just longing for the old days of the WP, things were more fun and insightful when everyone took more time to make a point or help someone else see the errors in their thinking. I'm happy to continue to show you your errors if you wish, but you are going to have to do better than the short quips you've been handing out of late 😉 JK. Maybe.
From a thread about immigration back in 2014, I posted...
S. 744 was a kick-a$$ bill, passed in 2013 in the Senate 68-32 in grand (and very rare) bi-partisan fashion. The increase in funding to the Border Patrol, technology and the Border Fence was massive. Yes, it had DREAM Act provisions and paths to citizenship, but it actually required the border to be more secure before any of those provisions kicked in. It had provisions for farm workers, families, codified the use of E-Verify and much, much more.
I also went on to post the bill in its entirety, in between a whole lotta conservative whining about Obama overstepping his Presidential authority via Executive Order. Of course, we all know those sentiments don't count anymore. It's a fun trip down memory lane: https://allmanbrothersband.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=137647&page=1&orderdate=
But, back to S. 744. Never made it to the floor of the House. Never debated, never considered. Even those who were vehemently against a path to citizenship (something they most certainly could have negotiated away) didn't get their say. Even if you stripped that bill down to just the massive measures it called for to secure the southern border, it still would have been the largest such effort to do so in American history. WAY more than Trump's Wall.
However, those in Congress, in particular the House, refused to bring the matter to the floor, then it died.
The choice was to DO NOTHING.
Now comes the part where I'm supposed to parse what Obama did or didn't do after that? Accept some kind of lecture on leadership because the House GOP chose to DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS ISSUE?
Rip on Obama all you want, I don't care. But to conveniently leave out those who chose to DO NOTHING out of a devotion to party over country is a willful choice to see only what one wants to see, in my own view.
i like it when i see well thought out statements, much better than i could do. good job nebish and bhawk.
From a thread about immigration back in 2014, I posted...
S. 744 was a kick-a$$ bill, passed in 2013 in the Senate 68-32 in grand (and very rare) bi-partisan fashion. The increase in funding to the Border Patrol, technology and the Border Fence was massive. Yes, it had DREAM Act provisions and paths to citizenship, but it actually required the border to be more secure before any of those provisions kicked in. It had provisions for farm workers, families, codified the use of E-Verify and much, much more.
I also went on to post the bill in its entirety, in between a whole lotta conservative whining about Obama overstepping his Presidential authority via Executive Order. Of course, we all know those sentiments don't count anymore. It's a fun trip down memory lane: https://allmanbrothersband.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=137647&page=1&orderdate=
But, back to S. 744. Never made it to the floor of the House. Never debated, never considered. Even those who were vehemently against a path to citizenship (something they most certainly could have negotiated away) didn't get their say. Even if you stripped that bill down to just the massive measures it called for to secure the southern border, it still would have been the largest such effort to do so in American history. WAY more than Trump's Wall.
However, those in Congress, in particular the House, refused to bring the matter to the floor, then it died.
The choice was to DO NOTHING.
Now comes the part where I'm supposed to parse what Obama did or didn't do after that? Accept some kind of lecture on leadership because the House GOP chose to DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS ISSUE?
Rip on Obama all you want, I don't care. But to conveniently leave out those who chose to DO NOTHING out of a devotion to party over country is a willful choice to see only what one wants to see, in my own view.
I read that thread, good look back.
And I'm sorry, your bigger point was lost on me. When I am questioned or quoted in a thread I take that to be directed to a point I'm making...whether I'm it right, wrong or misguided and I follow up accordingly.
I still do not think I mischaracterized anything, over simplified perhaps. I did not say President Obama was wrong to take executive action. I just essentially said the President and his supporters didn't like how immigration law was being enforced and absent of comprehensive immigration reform he took action on his own to right wrongs that he believed existed. The left was upset with him in the earlier years and the right was upset with him in the later years. All that is really true is it not?
You seem mad. Is this a bad time to ask if you want to play in the nascar league again?
Trump Administration May Mobilize National Guard Troops To Round Up Unauthorized Immigrants
President Donald Trump’s administration is considering mobilizing as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, according to a draft copy of an order obtained by The Associated Press on Friday.
Though the AP reported that the memo was written by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, the White House quickly denied that the report was true.
The AP reports an 11-page draft memo shows the Trump administration is considering an unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans.
Governors in the affected states would have final approval on whether troops under their control participate, according to the AP. Millions of the people who would be affected live nowhere near the U.S.-Mexico border.
Trump Administration May Mobilize National Guard Troops To Round Up Unauthorized Immigrants
President Donald Trump’s administration is considering mobilizing as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, according to a draft copy of an order obtained by The Associated Press on Friday.
Though the AP reported that the memo was written by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, the White House quickly denied that the report was true.
The AP reports an 11-page draft memo shows the Trump administration is considering an unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans.
Governors in the affected states would have final approval on whether troops under their control participate, according to the AP. Millions of the people who would be affected live nowhere near the U.S.-Mexico border.
I'm hard line on illegal immigration enforcement, but that wouldn't be an appropriate use of the National Guard not to mention the problems that could come from that.
i just don't know what to say about it other than.....i don't like it at all.
i just don't know what to say about it other than.....i don't like it at all.
It may not even be true. National Guard on the border? That could be a conceivable position some might make, for localized enforcement...I tend to doubt it. I'd wait to react until there is an official announcement personally.
Amid all this hysteria, take a deep breath...read this:
http://revcom.us/a/083-special/sanrafael-en.html
There is no date on that article, however Revolution #83 is from March 2007, all "issues" are listed here:
http://revcom.us/previous-issues/index1-100.html
Raids at homes and workplaces have been ongoing through the years.
It came up on the first page of a google or yahoo search. Sorry, you are smarter than me, I have no idea what kind of website that is. Appeared to have a story relevant to the discussions here. I actually did not know what time period they were describing but knew it couldn't be now based on some of the months they were citing events from. Maybe it isn't true then because of the source? Sorry I don't know what a gangstalker is either.
I could've saved myself the trouble by posting this link instead of the same events.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/washington/28immig.html
Or this one, a "immigrant solidarity" source if that is better for you?
Now you're just playing.
I'm fine with the NY Times. I reference posts with the NY times here. I have no axe to grind with them, you have me confused with someone else on that matter.
Here is SF Gate (with less detail of actual events)...probably no good, everyone knows San Francisco is loony ville 😉
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-RAFAEL-Immigration-raids-anger-advocate-2568929.php
Edit - another SF Gate story
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/The-human-face-of-immigration-raids-in-Bay-Area-2598853.php
[Edited on 2/17/2017 by nebish]
It is the US govt, yes there is a continuity in policies from admin to admin.
i think i said that a couple days ago 😛
In some late night viewing of my favorite MSNBC shows, which I actually do enjoy, it is always immigrant crack down this and immigrants in danger that, never do they say illegal immigrant. The two issues are, and should be, separate. Yet they purposefully lump them together in an effort to blur the issue at hand.
It is worthy mentioning the United States has been admitting and accepting over 1 million legal permanent residents annually in recent years.
I am not anti-immigrant. The majority of people wanting lawful enforcement of immigration law are not anti-immigrant. It is an anti-illegal-immigrant issue.
A chart showing legal immigration numbers admitted annually.
nebish...i saw the guy who seems to be spokesman for hispanics earlier tonight...on...hmmm...forget what show....but he was saying nothing really has changed so far......and that the press should settle down because they were scaring people........wait and see he said.....damn....i forget guys name....jorge something.....lol......of course but he was the head of some hispanic group.......i agree....wait and see
yeah just kiddin. Im just kind of over the whole excusing Trump's actions by saying Obama did the same things. It is the US govt, yes there is a continuity in policies from admin to admin.
quote: It is the US govt, yes there is a continuity in policies from admin to admin.
i think i said that a couple days ago
Right, in this case 2007 President Bush.
I'm not trying to justify what is happening now by saying it was the same under Obama or under Bush. I justify what is happening now by justifying the law.
Really it is a difference in reporting that I want to draw attention to. And even though BrerRabbit threw a good natured jab about finding a non-biased source for the story, it does highlight the fact that the reporting happening now is much different than it was 10 years ago under Bush or a handful of years ago under Obama even though the actions of ICE haven't been all that much different.
Oh, and BrerRabbit, I just tried to read another NY Times article and got a message that says "you have reached your free article limit for the month". So I guess you won't be seeing any more NYT links from me anyway!
lol open link incognito
google chrome at least....right click and choose that
[Edited on 2/18/2017 by LeglizHemp]
lol open link incognito
google chrome at least....right click and choose that
[Edited on 2/18/2017 by LeglizHemp]
The internet...somehow some way you can get everything free.
Thanks, I'll try that.
nebish...i saw the guy who seems to be spokesman for hispanics earlier tonight...on...hmmm...forget what show....but he was saying nothing really has changed so far......and that the press should settle down because they were scaring people........wait and see he said.....damn....i forget guys name....jorge something.....lol......of course but he was the head of some hispanic group.......i agree....wait and see
I must've been posting my 1:41 comment when your 1:40 post showed up and missed it.
I wonder now, we have groups organizing to help protect illegal immigrants from arrest. I mean what are we doing? Mayors saying they will harbor illegal immigrants in city hall if need be? US citizens interfering with law enforcement when detaining illegal non US citizens? They become accessories and should then charged accordingly. What happens to me if the police try to arrest my cousin for drug possesion and I try to intervene and prevent the police from arresting him? What happens to me if I protect someone who has a warrant for their arrest?
Yes, the actions so far are the same that have been going on. But now, the explosion of reporting on the topic is leading to these resistance and protection groups which is going to make law enforcement's job more difficult and potentially more dangerous.
It is the same thing about this national guard going around that you posted the story on. It is false, it is not a likely or realistic thing that was considered, but it fans the flames for everything else going on and takes the narrative to the next level.
President Donald Trump’s administration labeled The Associated Press’s reporting on a leak “100 percent false” on Friday morning, only to acknowledge less than an hour later that the story was based on a real document.
“I wish you guys had asked before you tweeted,” Spicer told reporters.
An AP reporter responded that the news organization had sought comment “multiple times before publication,” according to the pool report.
A Cox Media Group producer tweeted at 11:03 a.m. that a DHS official said the memo cited by the AP was “a very early” draft and “was never seriously considered.”
The White House and DHS could’ve clarified that the draft wasn’t being seriously considered by the administration prior to publication, as journalists noted on Twitter.
The administration’s failure to respond left people to speculate about its motives.
[Edited on 2/18/2017 by LeglizHemp]
President Donald Trump’s administration labeled The Associated Press’s reporting on a leak “100 percent false” on Friday morning, only to acknowledge less than an hour later that the story was based on a real document.
“I wish you guys had asked before you tweeted,” Spicer told reporters.
An AP reporter responded that the news organization had sought comment “multiple times before publication,” according to the pool report.
A Cox Media Group producer tweeted at 11:03 a.m. that a DHS official said the memo cited by the AP was “a very early” draft and “was never seriously considered.”
The White House and DHS could’ve clarified that the draft wasn’t being seriously considered by the administration prior to publication, as journalists noted on Twitter.
The administration’s failure to respond left people to speculate about its motives.
[Edited on 2/18/2017 by LeglizHemp]
Lots of huffing and puffing for nothing.
