One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Immigration on the left, bigotry on the right
Page 1 of 16 next> last>>
Nov 24, 2014 08:40:40   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
First, let's get this question of constitutional legality out of the way. I will do this simply by pointing to the precedence set by every single Republican president since Eisenhower who all used executive orders to grant amnesty to i*****l i*******ts. Here is a summary of 18 of these executive orders.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower:

1956
By executive order, circumvented immigration quotas to allow 900 orphans to join their adoptive families in the U.S.

1956-1958
By executive order, allowed 31,000 Hungarian anti-Soviet insurgents to emigrate.

1959-72
By executive order, allowed 600,000 Cubans fleeing Castro to emigrate. [PDF]

Pres. Gerald Ford:

1975
By executive order, allowed 360,000 refugees, mostly from from Vietnam, to emigrate.

1976
By executive order, allowed 14,000 Lebanese nationals to emigrate.

Pres. Ronald Reagan:

1981
By executive order, allowed 7,000 Polish anti-C*******ts to emigrate.

1982
Allowed 15,000-plus Ethiopians to emigrate.

1987
By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.

1987
By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families. [JSTOR]

George H.W. Bush:

1989
By executive order, deferred deportations of Chinese students.

1989
By executive order, reversed visa denials of 7,000 Soviets, Indochinese.

1990
By executive order, deferred deporations of previously amnestied citizens’ 1.5 million spouses and children.

1991
By executive order, deferred deportation of 2,000 Gulf War evacuees.

1992
By executive order, deferred deportations of 190,000 El Salvadorans.

George W. Bush:

2002
By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.

2005
By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2006
By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.

2007
By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

Now, whether or not you think ALL of these orders are constitutionally illegal is a different, though respectable argument. On the other hand, if you're inclined to pick and choose which of the orders are justified, then you are surrendering the broad claim that President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to issue executive orders. If that's the case, you would have to shift the focus to whether or not his constitutionally valid order is otherwise unreasonable. This is the part I want to focus on here. In other words, constitution aside, what exactly is it that makes Obama's action so horrific?

The first such argument that appears most obvious is the extent of the order. Clearly, Obama's order involves a far greater number of immigrants than any of the orders before him. Perhaps that's worthy of concern, although personally I don't see it. Maybe someone needs to point it out to me. If these i*****l i*******ts were being granted citizenship then I would say it would be helping to dilute the democracy by decreasing the ratio of representatives to citizens, but Obama isn't granting them citizenship. That leaves us with the sociological and economic concerns of accepting 5 million immigrants into our system and this is where my opinion might grate on some nerves. I personally don't see any difference between native-born Americans and immigrants when it comes to basic human rights. Nor do I see any difference between them when it comes to their work ethic, criminal inclination or any other form of stereotyping. I don't have much tolerance for the whining about immigrants "taking" jobs from Americans either. As far as I am concerned, the only reason why an immigrant will take "your" job is that they're better at it than you are and if that's the case then good, because as a consumer, I would rather pay for goods and services provided by the best workers, than those provided by "privileged" workers and this is coming from a professional in a field that is saturated by foreign workers. I've been surviving by working hard and competing not by relying on the government to force employees to give the job to me just because I was born here.

The other response I have to this protectionist view is that immigrants are also consumers which means they will not only be taking jobs, they will be creating jobs too by virtue of increased demand. These five million immigrants are going to be shopping at Walmart, buying lunches at Taco Bell and if Obama gets his way they will also be buying insurance and paying for services, just like everyone else. I don't hear Republicans complain about the fact that there are already over 300 million people in what they take p***e in saying is the largest and strongest economy in the world. So I don't understand how 5 million more is going to make any difference.

What does that leave us with? Not much. Of course there is the prejudice, r****m and general bigotry which has always characterized the right, from the quiet undercurrents of conservative policy to the most outrageous antics of extreme f*****m but Republicans know they can't win over the moderates on r****m and bigotry alone. They HAVE to come up with something that at least sounds legitimate. So far they have a big fat ZERO, and apparently they are choosing to continue with a campaign of emotionally changed fallacy in hopes that enough v**ers will remain ignorant and infuriated to carry the bulls**t movement.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said we h**e Mexicans at least then they wouldn't be lying.

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 08:48:11   #
CowboyMilt
 
Not going to read your tripe...not all other presidents have used executive orders to the excess YOUR OBAMA has PERIOD> He is continually hacking at OUR amendments & other rights I could go on & on but I know you are aware of how F**E obama is & how much he lies & the damage he is doing to our economy & jobs & on & on...Get out of your pit of denial & wise up! PERIOD!

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 08:48:29   #
Mom8052 Loc: Lost in the mountains of New Mexico
 
straightUp wrote:
First, let's get this question of constitutional legality out of the way. I will do this simply by pointing to the precedence set by every single Republican president since Eisenhower who all used executive orders to grant amnesty to i*****l i*******ts. Here is a summary of 18 of these executive orders.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower:

1956
By executive order, circumvented immigration quotas to allow 900 orphans to join their adoptive families in the U.S.

1956-1958
By executive order, allowed 31,000 Hungarian anti-Soviet insurgents to emigrate.

1959-72
By executive order, allowed 600,000 Cubans fleeing Castro to emigrate. [PDF]

Pres. Gerald Ford:

1975
By executive order, allowed 360,000 refugees, mostly from from Vietnam, to emigrate.

1976
By executive order, allowed 14,000 Lebanese nationals to emigrate.

Pres. Ronald Reagan:

1981
By executive order, allowed 7,000 Polish anti-C*******ts to emigrate.

1982
Allowed 15,000-plus Ethiopians to emigrate.

1987
By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.

1987
By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families. [JSTOR]

George H.W. Bush:

1989
By executive order, deferred deportations of Chinese students.

1989
By executive order, reversed visa denials of 7,000 Soviets, Indochinese.

1990
By executive order, deferred deporations of previously amnestied citizens’ 1.5 million spouses and children.

1991
By executive order, deferred deportation of 2,000 Gulf War evacuees.

1992
By executive order, deferred deportations of 190,000 El Salvadorans.

George W. Bush:

2002
By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.

2005
By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2006
By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.

2007
By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

Now, whether or not you think ALL of these orders are constitutionally illegal is a different, though respectable argument. On the other hand, if you're inclined to pick and choose which of the orders are justified, then you are surrendering the broad claim that President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to issue executive orders. If that's the case, you would have to shift the focus to whether or not his constitutionally valid order is otherwise unreasonable. This is the part I want to focus on here. In other words, constitution aside, what exactly is it that makes Obama's action so horrific?

The first such argument that appears most obvious is the extent of the order. Clearly, Obama's order involves a far greater number of immigrants than any of the orders before him. Perhaps that's worthy of concern, although personally I don't see it. Maybe someone needs to point it out to me. If these i*****l i*******ts were being granted citizenship then I would say it would be helping to dilute the democracy by decreasing the ratio of representatives to citizens, but Obama isn't granting them citizenship. That leaves us with the sociological and economic concerns of accepting 5 million immigrants into our system and this is where my opinion might grate on some nerves. I personally don't see any difference between native-born Americans and immigrants when it comes to basic human rights. Nor do I see any difference between them when it comes to their work ethic, criminal inclination or any other form of stereotyping. I don't have much tolerance for the whining about immigrants "taking" jobs from Americans either. As far as I am concerned, the only reason why an immigrant will take "your" job is that they're better at it than you are and if that's the case then good, because as a consumer, I would rather pay for goods and services provided by the best workers, than those provided by "privileged" workers and this is coming from a professional in a field that is saturated by foreign workers. I've been surviving by working hard and competing not by relying on the government to force employees to give the job to me just because I was born here.

The other response I have to this protectionist view is that immigrants are also consumers which means they will not only be taking jobs, they will be creating jobs too by virtue of increased demand. These five million immigrants are going to be shopping at Walmart, buying lunches at Taco Bell and if Obama gets his way they will also be buying insurance and paying for services, just like everyone else. I don't hear Republicans complain about the fact that there are already over 300 million people in what they take p***e in saying is the largest and strongest economy in the world. So I don't understand how 5 million more is going to make any difference.

What does that leave us with? Not much. Of course there is the prejudice, r****m and general bigotry which has always characterized the right, from the quiet undercurrents of conservative policy to the most outrageous antics of extreme f*****ts but Republicans know they can't win over the moderates on r****m and bigotry alone. They HAVE to come up with something that at least sounds legitimate. So far they have a big fat ZERO, and apparently they are choosing to continue with a campaign of emotionally changed fallacy in hopes that enough v**ers will remain ignorant and infuriated to carry the bulls**t movement.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said we h**e Mexicans at least then they wouldn't be lying.
First, let's get this question of constitutional l... (show quote)


****************************
I never said I h**ed Mexicans, in fact I have several Friends on the other side of the Border (Doctor, Nurse, Store Owners). Other friends doing the right thing by going out getting here the Right way.

I use to go to Palomas MX to have my dental work done, until the Cartel beheaded my Dentist. The owner of the Pink Store is all looking over his shoulder when my friends would come to eat. I understand why these people want to come. There is no school in Palomas, so kids are sent across the border to Deming, NM to go to school.

The cartels are already here, with their human trafficing routes well established and run to the Canadian Border. Obama want to bring out all the ones that are in hiding in the shadows. Well if the were all stepping out into the light, there will be more than a mere 5 Million.

Reply
 
 
Nov 24, 2014 08:53:23   #
JMHO Loc: Utah
 
straightUp wrote:
Shortened.......


The courts will sort this out. Every president has prosecutorial authority to change/modify existing law, but they do not have authority to make new law. Previous presidents via executive orders exercised that prosecutorial authority. Obama didn't, he made new law, and that is unconstitutional and against the law. The courts will rule on that, it will just take a year or two, but I'm confident he will once again get slapped down by the courts.

In the meantime, Obama did the Republicans a favor by taking immigration reform off the table. In January they can start work on dismantling as much as they can of this NEW law, and Obamacare, by exercising their funding authority. It's gonna be fun watching.

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 09:21:14   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
straightUp wrote:
First, let's get this question of constitutional legality out of the way. I will do this simply by pointing to the precedence set by every single Republican president since Eisenhower who all used executive orders to grant amnesty to i*****l i*******ts. Here is a summary of 18 of these executive orders.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower:

1956
By executive order, circumvented immigration quotas to allow 900 orphans to join their adoptive families in the U.S.

1956-1958
By executive order, allowed 31,000 Hungarian anti-Soviet insurgents to emigrate.

1959-72
By executive order, allowed 600,000 Cubans fleeing Castro to emigrate. [PDF]

Pres. Gerald Ford:

1975
By executive order, allowed 360,000 refugees, mostly from from Vietnam, to emigrate.

1976
By executive order, allowed 14,000 Lebanese nationals to emigrate.

Pres. Ronald Reagan:

1981
By executive order, allowed 7,000 Polish anti-C*******ts to emigrate.

1982
Allowed 15,000-plus Ethiopians to emigrate.

1987
By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.

1987
By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families. [JSTOR]

George H.W. Bush:

1989
By executive order, deferred deportations of Chinese students.

1989
By executive order, reversed visa denials of 7,000 Soviets, Indochinese.

1990
By executive order, deferred deporations of previously amnestied citizens’ 1.5 million spouses and children.

1991
By executive order, deferred deportation of 2,000 Gulf War evacuees.

1992
By executive order, deferred deportations of 190,000 El Salvadorans.

George W. Bush:

2002
By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.

2005
By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2006
By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.

2007
By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

Now, whether or not you think ALL of these orders are constitutionally illegal is a different, though respectable argument. On the other hand, if you're inclined to pick and choose which of the orders are justified, then you are surrendering the broad claim that President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to issue executive orders. If that's the case, you would have to shift the focus to whether or not his constitutionally valid order is otherwise unreasonable. This is the part I want to focus on here. In other words, constitution aside, what exactly is it that makes Obama's action so horrific?

The first such argument that appears most obvious is the extent of the order. Clearly, Obama's order involves a far greater number of immigrants than any of the orders before him. Perhaps that's worthy of concern, although personally I don't see it. Maybe someone needs to point it out to me. If these i*****l i*******ts were being granted citizenship then I would say it would be helping to dilute the democracy by decreasing the ratio of representatives to citizens, but Obama isn't granting them citizenship. That leaves us with the sociological and economic concerns of accepting 5 million immigrants into our system and this is where my opinion might grate on some nerves. I personally don't see any difference between native-born Americans and immigrants when it comes to basic human rights. Nor do I see any difference between them when it comes to their work ethic, criminal inclination or any other form of stereotyping. I don't have much tolerance for the whining about immigrants "taking" jobs from Americans either. As far as I am concerned, the only reason why an immigrant will take "your" job is that they're better at it than you are and if that's the case then good, because as a consumer, I would rather pay for goods and services provided by the best workers, than those provided by "privileged" workers and this is coming from a professional in a field that is saturated by foreign workers. I've been surviving by working hard and competing not by relying on the government to force employees to give the job to me just because I was born here.

The other response I have to this protectionist view is that immigrants are also consumers which means they will not only be taking jobs, they will be creating jobs too by virtue of increased demand. These five million immigrants are going to be shopping at Walmart, buying lunches at Taco Bell and if Obama gets his way they will also be buying insurance and paying for services, just like everyone else. I don't hear Republicans complain about the fact that there are already over 300 million people in what they take p***e in saying is the largest and strongest economy in the world. So I don't understand how 5 million more is going to make any difference.

What does that leave us with? Not much. Of course there is the prejudice, r****m and general bigotry which has always characterized the right, from the quiet undercurrents of conservative policy to the most outrageous antics of extreme f*****m but Republicans know they can't win over the moderates on r****m and bigotry alone. They HAVE to come up with something that at least sounds legitimate. So far they have a big fat ZERO, and apparently they are choosing to continue with a campaign of emotionally changed fallacy in hopes that enough v**ers will remain ignorant and infuriated to carry the bulls**t movement.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said we h**e Mexicans at least then they wouldn't be lying.
First, let's get this question of constitutional l... (show quote)




The whole issue of the executive orders issued by President Obama, isn't about their legality, or even their advisability - it's about the fact that he always lays the blame for his need to issue them at the feet of the Congress. Having nothing else of consequence to offer, being anti Obama is the default motive for everything.

The Congress, being incapable of doing anything of substance itself, is left with trying to bolster it's failing image by eroding the Presidents image by any means possible. Since Democrats have decided to let Republicans do all the talking, it appears that the entire Congress is on board with the anti Obama agenda. The Congress, having it's collective feelings hurt, must lash out at the Presidents attempts to do SOMETHING, in a bid to regain some measure of self esteem.

None of the issues raised by members of Congress, have any relationship to the t***h or logic. It is leftover crap from the 2013-2014 e******n cycle and in some measure, a beginning of the 2015-2016 cycle. In a nut shell, just more BS to add to the tons of BS already dished out.

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 09:34:17   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
CowboyMilt wrote:
Not going to read your tripe...not all other presidents have used executive orders to the excess YOUR OBAMA has PERIOD> He is continually hacking at OUR amendments & other rights I could go on & on but I know you are aware of how F**E obama is & how much he lies & the damage he is doing to our economy & jobs & on & on...Get out of your pit of denial & wise up! PERIOD!


Well, if you DID read my "tripe" then you would see where I already answered your point about the excess. But by all means continue your tradition of willful ignorance. We've come to expect it.

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 09:52:45   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Mom8052 wrote:
****************************
I never said I h**ed Mexicans,

That was my point. It's an unspoken sentiment that doesn't have the sympathy of the democracy to come out in the open.

Mom8052 wrote:

in fact I have several Friends on the other side of the Border (Doctor, Nurse, Store Owners). Other friends doing the right thing by going out getting here the Right way.

I use to go to Palomas MX to have my dental work done, until the Cartel beheaded my Dentist. The owner of the Pink Store is all looking over his shoulder when my friends would come to eat. I understand why these people want to come. There is no school in Palomas, so kids are sent across the border to Deming, NM to go to school.
br in fact I have several Friends on the other si... (show quote)

So if you understand why they would want to come here, if you understand the dangers that many of them face if they don't, why bring up the pompous point about doing it the "Right" way? That's like holding the lifesaver in your hand while yelling out pointers on how to swim while someone is being attacked by a shark. It's i***tic, it really is.

The "Right" way (not sure why you capitalize that but I'll quote you anyway), puts up limits that reflect our prejudice more than our capacity. If you had a car with the capacity to take 5 people away from a flood would you tell them your only going to save 2 because you have a personal policy?

Mom8052 wrote:

The cartels are already here, with their human trafficing routes well established and run to the Canadian Border. Obama want to bring out all the ones that are in hiding in the shadows. Well if the were all stepping out into the light, there will be more than a mere 5 Million.

Stepping out into the light that Obama is shining means subjecting them to the laws of the land, including taxes and all the regulations that the rest of us have to follow. How many traffickers do you really think want to do that?

'C'mon Mom... THINK!

Reply
 
 
Nov 24, 2014 09:59:27   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
lpnmajor wrote:
The whole issue of the executive orders issued by President Obama, isn't about their legality, or even their advisability - it's about the fact that he always lays the blame for his need to issue them at the feet of the Congress. Having nothing else of consequence to offer, being anti Obama is the default motive for everything.

The Congress, being incapable of doing anything of substance itself, is left with trying to bolster it's failing image by eroding the Presidents image by any means possible. Since Democrats have decided to let Republicans do all the talking, it appears that the entire Congress is on board with the anti Obama agenda. The Congress, having it's collective feelings hurt, must lash out at the Presidents attempts to do SOMETHING, in a bid to regain some measure of self esteem.

None of the issues raised by members of Congress, have any relationship to the t***h or logic. It is leftover crap from the 2013-2014 e******n cycle and in some measure, a beginning of the 2015-2016 cycle. In a nut shell, just more BS to add to the tons of BS already dished out.
The whole issue of the executive orders issued by ... (show quote)


To some extent what you say is true, but Obama has been waiting for the Republican-controlled House to v**e on an immigration bill that the Senate passed almost two years ago. The House refuses to move on it, which doesn't say much for their effort to regain any measure of esteem and it also attaches the EO to an issue that predates the 2013-2014 e******n cycle.

I applaud the president for moving ahead. He waited patiently for the Republicans to grow up and act like lawmakers and they remain, arms folded like bratty children. So fine, move ahead without them. Thank God!

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 09:59:38   #
Trooper745 Loc: Carolina
 
straightUp wrote:
...... Maybe someone needs to point it out to me....... So I don't understand how 5 million more is going to make any difference.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said we h**e Mexicans at least then they wouldn't be lying.


First, your statement that Republicans h**e Mexicans is simply dishonest l*****t rhetoric. It isn't true, but it makes shallow l*****ts feel good to hear it or say it.

Your whole post does nothing more than expose your ignorance of where this uncontrolled illegal, along with the legal, immigration is leading this Nation. Like most liberals, you are assuming that by allowing uncontrolled immigration into this country we can help the poor and needy of the world.

In fact, if you apply the three tests suggested by Dr. Thomas Sowell, that almost always defeat l*****t arguments (Compared to what? At what cost? What evidence do you have?), and get some real facts to fill in the knowledge of the matter, it becomes evident that we can't take on the billions of people in sinking countries, without sinking the USA. We take in about a million legal immigrants per year, but we can't even afford to do that into the future, .... much less accept multi-millions more of the most ignorant and lazy, coming in as i******s.

To point out some of these things to you, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4DFPKNdYFkE

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 10:32:11   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
JMHO wrote:
The courts will sort this out. Every president has prosecutorial authority to change/modify existing law, but they do not have authority to make new law.

That's an ambiguous line. Most new laws can be interpreted as a modification of an existing one including Obama's "fix". This is WHY it will be left up to the courts to sort out. Until then, no one can say he doesn't have the authority. To be precise, no one outside the Judicial Branch has the constitutional authority to make that judgement before the court does.

JMHO wrote:

Previous presidents via executive orders exercised that prosecutorial authority. Obama didn't, he made new law, and that is unconstitutional and against the law. The courts will rule on that, it will just take a year or two, but I'm confident he will once again get slapped down by the courts.

Once again? I know there is a popular claim that the courts overruled Obama 9 times. Some even say 12 and some say 13 times (accuracy has never been paramount when it comes to misinformation) But the actual number is 1. Much of the misconception comes from a "report" by Ted Cruz, a renowned liar.

Here's an excerpt from PolitiFact.org... (http://www.politifact.com/t***h-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/)

For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.

Oh, that's right... Bush had his own justice system, complete with offshore prisons, authorized torture, denial of habeas corpus, the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

But Ted Cruz will have you believe Obama, who has established none of these anti-democratic bypass systems was the guilty authority. I'm surprised you guys think Hitler was responsible for k*****g 6 million Jews and not Jimmy Carter.

JMHO wrote:

In the meantime, Obama did the Republicans a favor by taking immigration reform off the table. In January they can start work on dismantling as much as they can of this NEW law, and Obamacare, by exercising their funding authority. It's gonna be fun watching.

Get ready to be disappointed. The only weapon Congress will have in 2015 is the purse which will be ineffective against Obama's immigration policy because it's enforced by the USCIS which doesn't use tax money the USCIS is funded entirely by processing fees.

How ironic and delightfully funny to see the GOP defeated by the lack of taxes. LOL

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 10:38:26   #
JMHO Loc: Utah
 
straightUp wrote:
Get ready to be disappointed. The only weapon Congress will have in 2015 is the purse which will be ineffective against Obama's immigration policy because it's enforced by the USCIS which doesn't use tax money the USCIS is funded entirely by processing fees.

How ironic to see the GOP defeated by the free market. LOL


That's YOUR opinion, and we all know what they say about opinions. Lot of B.S. in your posting...nothing new.

Reply
 
 
Nov 24, 2014 10:38:26   #
VladimirPee
 
Nice try but as usual you expose your total ignorance of the facts. Refugees from C*******t Nations were accepted for asylum under a specific plan. There were passed by Congress .
U.S. Statutes at Large, Public Law 203, Chp. 336, p. 400-407

Refugee Relief Act of 1953
U.S. Statutes at Large, Public Law 203, Chp. 336, p. 400-407

AN ACT
For the relief of certain refugees, and orphans, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the ''Refugee Relief Act of 1953''. Definitions Sec. 2. (a) ''Refugee'' means any person in a country or area which is neither C*******t nor C*******t-dominated, who because of persecution, fear of persecution, natural calamity or military operations is out of his usual place of abode and unable to return thereto, who has not been firmly resettled, and who is in urgent need of assistance for the essentials of life or for t***sportation. (b) ''Escapee'' means any refugee who, because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion, fled from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or other C*******t, C*******t-dominated or C*******t-occupied area of Europe including those parts of Germany under military occupation by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and who cannot return thereto because of fear of persecution on account of race, religion or political opinion. (c) ''German expellee'' means any refugee of German ethnic origin residing in the area of the German Federal Republic, western sector of Berlin, or in Austria who was born in and was forcibly removed from or forced to flee from Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Rumania, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia, or areas provisionally under the administration or control or domination of any such countries, except the Soviet zone of military occupation of Germany. (d) ''Administrator'' means the administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs established in the Department of State pursuant to subsection (b) of section 104 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Special Nonquota Visas; Numbers Sec. 3. There are hereby authorized to be issued two hundred five thousand special nonquota immigrant visas to aliens, specified in section 4 of this Act, seeking to enter the United States as immigrants and to their spouses and their unmarried sons or daughters under twenty-one years of age, including stepsons or stepdaughters and sons or daughters adopted prior to July 1, 1953, if accompanying them. Allocation of Special Nonquota Visas Sec. 4. (a) Special nonquota immigrant visas authorized to be issued under section 3 of this Act shall be allotted as follows: (1) Not to exceed fifty-five thousand visas to German expellees residing in the area of the German Federal Republic or in the western sectors of Berlin or in Austria: Provided, That the visas issued under this paragraph shall be issued only in the German Federal Republic or in the western sector of Berlin or in Austria. (2) Not to exceed thirty-five thousand visas to escapees residing in the area of the German Federal Republic or the western sectors of Berlin or in Austria: Provided, That the visas issued under this paragraph shall be issued only in the German Federal Republic or in the western sector of Berlin or in Austria. (3) Not to exceed ten thousand visas to escapees residing within the European continental limits of the member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or in Turkey, Sweden, Iran or in the Free Territory of Trieste and who are not nationals of the area in which they reside: Provided, That such visas shall be issued only in the area or areas mentioned in this paragraph. (4) Not to exceed two thousand visas to refugees who (a) during World War II were members of the armed forces of the Republic of Poland, (b) were honorably discharged from such forces, (c) reside on the date of the enactment of this Act in the British Isle



straightUp wrote:
First, let's get this question of constitutional legality out of the way. I will do this simply by pointing to the precedence set by every single Republican president since Eisenhower who all used executive orders to grant amnesty to i*****l i*******ts. Here is a summary of 18 of these executive orders.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower:

1956
By executive order, circumvented immigration quotas to allow 900 orphans to join their adoptive families in the U.S.

1956-1958
By executive order, allowed 31,000 Hungarian anti-Soviet insurgents to emigrate.

1959-72
By executive order, allowed 600,000 Cubans fleeing Castro to emigrate. [PDF]

Pres. Gerald Ford:

1975
By executive order, allowed 360,000 refugees, mostly from from Vietnam, to emigrate.

1976
By executive order, allowed 14,000 Lebanese nationals to emigrate.

Pres. Ronald Reagan:

1981
By executive order, allowed 7,000 Polish anti-C*******ts to emigrate.

1982
Allowed 15,000-plus Ethiopians to emigrate.

1987
By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.

1987
By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families. [JSTOR]

George H.W. Bush:

1989
By executive order, deferred deportations of Chinese students.

1989
By executive order, reversed visa denials of 7,000 Soviets, Indochinese.

1990
By executive order, deferred deporations of previously amnestied citizens’ 1.5 million spouses and children.

1991
By executive order, deferred deportation of 2,000 Gulf War evacuees.

1992
By executive order, deferred deportations of 190,000 El Salvadorans.

George W. Bush:

2002
By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.

2005
By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2006
By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.

2007
By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

Now, whether or not you think ALL of these orders are constitutionally illegal is a different, though respectable argument. On the other hand, if you're inclined to pick and choose which of the orders are justified, then you are surrendering the broad claim that President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to issue executive orders. If that's the case, you would have to shift the focus to whether or not his constitutionally valid order is otherwise unreasonable. This is the part I want to focus on here. In other words, constitution aside, what exactly is it that makes Obama's action so horrific?

The first such argument that appears most obvious is the extent of the order. Clearly, Obama's order involves a far greater number of immigrants than any of the orders before him. Perhaps that's worthy of concern, although personally I don't see it. Maybe someone needs to point it out to me. If these i*****l i*******ts were being granted citizenship then I would say it would be helping to dilute the democracy by decreasing the ratio of representatives to citizens, but Obama isn't granting them citizenship. That leaves us with the sociological and economic concerns of accepting 5 million immigrants into our system and this is where my opinion might grate on some nerves. I personally don't see any difference between native-born Americans and immigrants when it comes to basic human rights. Nor do I see any difference between them when it comes to their work ethic, criminal inclination or any other form of stereotyping. I don't have much tolerance for the whining about immigrants "taking" jobs from Americans either. As far as I am concerned, the only reason why an immigrant will take "your" job is that they're better at it than you are and if that's the case then good, because as a consumer, I would rather pay for goods and services provided by the best workers, than those provided by "privileged" workers and this is coming from a professional in a field that is saturated by foreign workers. I've been surviving by working hard and competing not by relying on the government to force employees to give the job to me just because I was born here.

The other response I have to this protectionist view is that immigrants are also consumers which means they will not only be taking jobs, they will be creating jobs too by virtue of increased demand. These five million immigrants are going to be shopping at Walmart, buying lunches at Taco Bell and if Obama gets his way they will also be buying insurance and paying for services, just like everyone else. I don't hear Republicans complain about the fact that there are already over 300 million people in what they take p***e in saying is the largest and strongest economy in the world. So I don't understand how 5 million more is going to make any difference.

What does that leave us with? Not much. Of course there is the prejudice, r****m and general bigotry which has always characterized the right, from the quiet undercurrents of conservative policy to the most outrageous antics of extreme f*****m but Republicans know they can't win over the moderates on r****m and bigotry alone. They HAVE to come up with something that at least sounds legitimate. So far they have a big fat ZERO, and apparently they are choosing to continue with a campaign of emotionally changed fallacy in hopes that enough v**ers will remain ignorant and infuriated to carry the bulls**t movement.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said we h**e Mexicans at least then they wouldn't be lying.
First, let's get this question of constitutional l... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 10:40:32   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
JMHO wrote:
That's YOUR opinion, and we all know what they say about opinions. Lot of B.S. in your posting...nothing new.

That's YOUR opinion, and we all know what they say about opinions. ;)

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 10:59:10   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
DennisDee wrote:
Nice try but as usual you expose your total ignorance of the facts. Refugees from C*******t Nations were accepted for asylum under a specific plan. There were passed by Congress .
U.S. Statutes at Large, Public Law 203, Chp. 336, p. 400-407

Refugee Relief Act of 1953
U.S. Statutes at Large, Public Law 203, Chp. 336, p. 400-407

AN ACT
For the relief of certain refugees, and orphans, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the ''Refugee Relief Act of 1953''. Definitions Sec. 2. (a) ''Refugee'' means any person in a country or area which is neither C*******t nor C*******t-dominated, who because of persecution, fear of persecution, natural calamity or military operations is out of his usual place of abode and unable to return thereto, who has not been firmly resettled, and who is in urgent need of assistance for the essentials of life or for t***sportation. (b) ''Escapee'' means any refugee who, because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion, fled from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or other C*******t, C*******t-dominated or C*******t-occupied area of Europe including those parts of Germany under military occupation by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and who cannot return thereto because of fear of persecution on account of race, religion or political opinion. (c) ''German expellee'' means any refugee of German ethnic origin residing in the area of the German Federal Republic, western sector of Berlin, or in Austria who was born in and was forcibly removed from or forced to flee from Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Rumania, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia, or areas provisionally under the administration or control or domination of any such countries, except the Soviet zone of military occupation of Germany. (d) ''Administrator'' means the administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs established in the Department of State pursuant to subsection (b) of section 104 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Special Nonquota Visas; Numbers Sec. 3. There are hereby authorized to be issued two hundred five thousand special nonquota immigrant visas to aliens, specified in section 4 of this Act, seeking to enter the United States as immigrants and to their spouses and their unmarried sons or daughters under twenty-one years of age, including stepsons or stepdaughters and sons or daughters adopted prior to July 1, 1953, if accompanying them. Allocation of Special Nonquota Visas Sec. 4. (a) Special nonquota immigrant visas authorized to be issued under section 3 of this Act shall be allotted as follows: (1) Not to exceed fifty-five thousand visas to German expellees residing in the area of the German Federal Republic or in the western sectors of Berlin or in Austria: Provided, That the visas issued under this paragraph shall be issued only in the German Federal Republic or in the western sector of Berlin or in Austria. (2) Not to exceed thirty-five thousand visas to escapees residing in the area of the German Federal Republic or the western sectors of Berlin or in Austria: Provided, That the visas issued under this paragraph shall be issued only in the German Federal Republic or in the western sector of Berlin or in Austria. (3) Not to exceed ten thousand visas to escapees residing within the European continental limits of the member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or in Turkey, Sweden, Iran or in the Free Territory of Trieste and who are not nationals of the area in which they reside: Provided, That such visas shall be issued only in the area or areas mentioned in this paragraph. (4) Not to exceed two thousand visas to refugees who (a) during World War II were members of the armed forces of the Republic of Poland, (b) were honorably discharged from such forces, (c) reside on the date of the enactment of this Act in the British Isle
Nice try but as usual you expose your total ignora... (show quote)


As usual, you fall over yourself to try and disprove me with material that winds up being irrelevant. The Act you reference is from 1953. The earliest executive order I referenced was from 1956. Obviously, there wouldn't be any need to sign an executive order if the president wasn't trying to provision something that wasn't already included in the 1953 act.

For future reference, rushing to the internet for things to cut and paste into your responses often leaves you looking like a fool. Just stick with your Dennis Menace middle-finger - it sums you up perfectly, just a brainless cartoon with a big middle-finger.

Reply
Nov 24, 2014 11:20:42   #
JMHO Loc: Utah
 
straightUp wrote:
As usual, you fall over yourself to try and disprove me with material that winds up being irrelevant. The Act you reference is from 1953. The earliest executive order I referenced was from 1956. Obviously, there wouldn't be any need to sign an executive order if the president wasn't trying to provision something that wasn't already included in the 1953 act.

For future reference, rushing to the internet for things to cut and paste into your responses often leaves you looking like a fool. Just stick with your Dennis Menace middle-finger - it sums you up perfectly, just a brainless cartoon with a big middle-finger.
As usual, you fall over yourself to try and dispro... (show quote)


And, you're a Kool Aid drinking mindless twit...typical libtard.

Reply
Page 1 of 16 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.