Mass Amnesty

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Why do you consider "libertarian" to be a negative reference?

It's intended as one when Lucky invokes it.

Mind reading again?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you consider "libertarian" to be a negative reference?

It's intended as one when Lucky invokes it.

Mind reading again?

uh, reading for context isn't psychic, it's basic reading skill. It's not like he's subtle about it either.

[hwt 0]

Only a dictator would do this.
I would not be surprised if he did this, after all most of his actions show that he represents himself and not the American people..

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Only a dictator would do this.
I would not be surprised if he did this, after all most of his actions show that he represents himself and not the American people..

Like Reagan (1986), eh?

Like Bush and McCain (2007) wanted to be.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan, 1984.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Only a dictator would do this.

You don't mean like ...... naaaahh...

[skyrider 0]

Quote

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan, 1984.

Is Reagan president now?

So if your on vactation, and someone breaks into your house, and takes care of it, keeping it clean, do you let them stay there?

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan, 1984.

Is Reagan president now?

Pretty lame response.

The HYPOCRISY the right exhibits is simply amazing.

Amnesty GOOD when GOP proposes it (1984, 2007) and implements it (1986).

Amnesty BAD when Dems propose it.

Yep.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan, 1984.

Is Reagan president now?

Pretty lame response.

The HYPOCRISY the right exhibits is simply amazing.

Amnesty GOOD when GOP proposes it (1984, 2007) and implements it (1986).

Amnesty BAD when Dems propose it.

Yep.

I think, it's wrong if either side proposes it! Illegals tend to give the impression that they 'belong' here or have some right to be here, just because they walked however many miles and endured so much along the way. Well, they don't! We can spend billions on sensless projects yet we somehow, just can't afford to collect them and send them home... just give them amnesty! Of all the border states, Arizona is the only one with balls enough to stand-up and do something about the 'illegal immigrant' problem. We can't go on just letting anyone and everyone into this country. Illegals protest and demand respect yet, they don't show the United States respect by sneaking into this country and taking what they can get. The bleeding hearts in this country either don't or will not try to understand that we are getting an entirely different type crossing our border, namely, more and more criminals. Is that what we want coming here?


Chuck

[mnealtx 0]

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Bush and McCain were still pushing it as recently as 2007. What they learned is that by opposing it now they can attract the racist vote.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

Quote

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Well, the real problem was that the "amnesty" was only a part of the plan. The rest of the plan included making sure that all employers stopped hiring illegals and opening up the immigration rules and quotas to allow more workers to be here legally. Those parts didn't happen because the employers wanted to keep the cheap labor and the xenophobes wanted to keep all the immigrants out.

Saying that a plan didn't work when only 1/3 of it was actually implemented isn't really accurate.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Bush and McCain were still pushing it as recently as 2007.

Yippee for them.

Quote

What they learned is that by opposing it now they can attract the racist vote.

And the Dems learned that by being for it they can attract the Latino vote.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[winsor 192]

Quote

Quote

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Bush and McCain were still pushing it as recently as 2007. What they learned is that by opposing it now they can attract the racist vote.

Okay, arguing that Bush & McCain were in favor merely establishes to a high level of confidence that you would have to be a blithering idiot to support amnesty.

Stupidity knows no political persuasion.


BSBD,

Winsor

[hwt 0]

Quote

Quote

Only a dictator would do this.
I would not be surprised if he did this, after all most of his actions show that he represents himself and not the American people..

Like Reagan (1986), eh?

Like Bush and McCain (2007) wanted to be.

________________________________________________
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 went through congress which is the proper process...Bypassing congress is an act of a dictator.
Nice try .

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Bush and McCain were still pushing it as recently as 2007. What they learned is that by opposing it now they can attract the racist vote.

Okay, arguing that Bush & McCain were in favor merely establishes to a high level of confidence that you would have to be a blithering idiot to support amnesty.

Stupidity knows no political persuasion.


BSBD,

Winsor

I haven't written anything in favor of amnesty. I'm just highlighting the obvious hypocrisy of the Obama haters.

For the record, I did it the right way, and think others should too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Bush and McCain were still pushing it as recently as 2007.

Yippee for them.

Funny how your posts defended them so staunchly back before the 2008 election.

Bush even pushed for amnesty for illegal alien tax cheats (2007) yet I don't recall your outrage at that time.

ODS has given you a double standard too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Only a dictator would do this.
I would not be surprised if he did this, after all most of his actions show that he represents himself and not the American people..

Like Reagan (1986), eh?

Like Bush and McCain (2007) wanted to be.

________________________________________________
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 went through congress which is the proper process...Bypassing congress is an act of a dictator.
Nice try .

You don't know what you're talking about. If you were to make that argument in Federal Court, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom with the judge's shoe planted up your ass.

Congress uses statutes to grant discretionary powers to the Executive Branch's administrative and regulatory departments all the time. Obama isn't bypassing Congress; quite the contrary, the Executive Branch (through its lawfully-constituted administrative departments; in this case, DHS, among others) is using administrative discretion expressly granted it by Congress, when Congress passed Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II).

That statute expressly states:

DHS has discretion to waive these grounds of inadmissibility for spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents if the refusal to admit such individuals would result in extreme hardship to their qualifying relatives.

Now, if you think the Executive Branch is acting in abuse of its Congresionally-granted discretion, then by all means, file an injunction action in Federal Court and use that argument as your basis. And if you win, congrats. But of you lose (as I think you will), because the Court says that the Executive is acting within the scope of the law passed by Congress, you've got nobody to complain about but the Congress which passed the law in the first place.

By the way, Googling the statute reveals that the "Obama is being a dictator for bypassing Congress" talking point is currently in the viral RW blogosphere. Nice original idea.

[hwt 0]

You don't know what you're talking about. If you were to make that argument in Federal Court, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom with the judge's shoe planted up your ass.

Congress uses statutes to grant discretionary powers to the Executive Branch's administrative and regulatory departments all the time. Obama isn't bypassing Congress; quite the contrary, the Executive Branch (through its lawfully-constituted administrative departments; in this case, DHS, among others) is using administrative discretion expressly granted it by Congress, when Congress passed Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II).

That statute expressly states:

DHS has discretion to waive these grounds of inadmissibility for spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents if the refusal to admit such individuals would result in extreme hardship to their qualifying relatives.

Now, if you think the Executive Branch is acting in abuse of its Congresionally-granted discretion, then by all means, file an injunction action in Federal Court and use that argument as your basis. And if you win, congrats. But of you lose (as I think you will), because the Court says that the Executive is acting within the scope of the law passed by Congress, you've got nobody to complain about but the Congress which passed the law in the first place.

By the way, Googling the statute reveals that the "Obama is being a dictator for bypassing Congress" talking point is currently in the viral RW blogosphere. Nice original idea.
______________________________________________
What part of illegal do you fail to understand??
you might want to take the judge's shoe out of your mouth..

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You don't know what you're talking about. If you were to make that argument in Federal Court, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom with the judge's shoe planted up your ass.

Congress uses statutes to grant discretionary powers to the Executive Branch's administrative and regulatory departments all the time. Obama isn't bypassing Congress; quite the contrary, the Executive Branch (through its lawfully-constituted administrative departments; in this case, DHS, among others) is using administrative discretion expressly granted it by Congress, when Congress passed Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II).

That statute expressly states:

DHS has discretion to waive these grounds of inadmissibility for spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents if the refusal to admit such individuals would result in extreme hardship to their qualifying relatives.

Now, if you think the Executive Branch is acting in abuse of its Congresionally-granted discretion, then by all means, file an injunction action in Federal Court and use that argument as your basis. And if you win, congrats. But of you lose (as I think you will), because the Court says that the Executive is acting within the scope of the law passed by Congress, you've got nobody to complain about but the Congress which passed the law in the first place.

By the way, Googling the statute reveals that the "Obama is being a dictator for bypassing Congress" talking point is currently in the viral RW blogosphere. Nice original idea.
______________________________________________
What part of illegal do you fail to understand??
you might want to take the judge's shoe out of your mouth..

Quote

Item 4 in the memo outlines ways the Obama Administration can provide amnesty for millions of illegal aliens through the "extreme hardship" provision. It would "encourage many more spouses, sons, and daughters of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to seek relief without fear of removal. It would also increase the likelihood that such relief would be granted." Section 4 reads:

Lessen the Standard for Demonstrating "Extreme Hardship"

The Act at 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II) renders inadmissible for 3 or 10 years individuals who have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days or one year respectively, and then depart. By statute, DHS has discretion to waive these grounds of inadmissibility for spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents if the refusal to admit such individuals would result in extreme hardship to their qualifying relatives. Generally, the "extreme hardship" standard has been narrowly construed by USCIS.

To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers, and improve their chances of receiving them, CIS could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for "extreme hardship." This would promote family unity, and avoid the significant human and financial costs associated with waiver denial decisions born of an overly rigid standard. This revised standard would also complement expanded use of PIP as set forth in B.

Each example being bitched about applies to its own particular set of facts. There's only so much of the OP I wanted to copy & paste into my last post. As shown above, the administration can do a number of things; and one other example is extreme hardships exceptions. And there are other exceptions as well; I'm not going to copy-n-paste every single one of them.

All of these exceptions are within the scope of discretion Congress statutorily granted to the Executive branch's administrative departments. You may not like that the Executive chooses to use that Congressionally-granted discretion to advance policies of which you don't approve; but unless the use of that discretion amounts to an abuse of that discretion, it is lawful, and the Executive is not required to seek or obtain further Congressional advise and consent to use it.

Of course, as I said, you're welcome to argue "abuse of discretion" or even "the President is being a dictator!" in Federal Court if you so choose. But don't let the door hit you in the judge's shoe on your way out of the courtroom.

[hwt 0]

All of these exceptions are within the scope discretion Congress statutorily granted to the Executive branch's administrative departments.
______________________________________________________
This is my point. Congress has already created a bill and Reagan signed it into law.and Congress needs to be the one to change it .For Obama to do so without congress would make him a dictator.
I cannot believe that you or anyone else would approve of this action.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

All of these exceptions are within the scope discretion Congress statutorily granted to the Executive branch's administrative departments.
______________________________________________________
This is my point. Congress has already created a bill and Reagan signed it into law.and Congress needs to be the one to change it .For Obama to do so without congress would make him a dictator.
I cannot believe that you or anyone else would approve of this action.

I approve of the FEMA Camps and black helicopters for those who are involved in anti-american activities.

thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop thwop

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Bush and McCain were still pushing it as recently as 2007.

Yippee for them.

Funny how your posts defended them so staunchly back before the 2008 election.

Bush even pushed for amnesty for illegal alien tax cheats (2007) yet I don't recall your outrage at that time.

Maybe you need to see a doctor about your memory.

Jun 29, 2007, 8:00 PM
"Exactly what I said - the border security and enforcement issues need to be fixed first... THEN, after that is done, revisit the possible issue of amnesty (which is bullshit, IMO)."

May 19, 2007, 9:40 PM
"I've been doing some more reading on it, and I can't support the bill. It amounts, as said, to amnesty for the illegals already in country and puts them ahead of people that are trying to get into the country legally under the current system."

You were saying?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Bush and McCain were still pushing it as recently as 2007.

Yippee for them.

Funny how your posts defended them so staunchly back before the 2008 election.

Bush even pushed for amnesty for illegal alien tax cheats (2007) yet I don't recall your outrage at that time.

Maybe you need to see a doctor about your memory.

Jun 29, 2007, 8:00 PM
"Exactly what I said - the border security and enforcement issues need to be fixed first... THEN, after that is done, revisit the possible issue of amnesty (which is bullshit, IMO)."

May 19, 2007, 9:40 PM
"I've been doing some more reading on it, and I can't support the bill. It amounts, as said, to amnesty for the illegals already in country and puts them ahead of people that are trying to get into the country legally under the current system."

You were saying?

Saying you can't support a bill hardly sounds like OUTRAGE to me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lame argument.

The right learned that amnesty didn't work. The left is still in the opium den on that.

Bush and McCain were still pushing it as recently as 2007.

Yippee for them.

Funny how your posts defended them so staunchly back before the 2008 election.

Bush even pushed for amnesty for illegal alien tax cheats (2007) yet I don't recall your outrage at that time.

Maybe you need to see a doctor about your memory.

Jun 29, 2007, 8:00 PM
"Exactly what I said - the border security and enforcement issues need to be fixed first... THEN, after that is done, revisit the possible issue of amnesty (which is bullshit, IMO)."

May 19, 2007, 9:40 PM
"I've been doing some more reading on it, and I can't support the bill. It amounts, as said, to amnesty for the illegals already in country and puts them ahead of people that are trying to get into the country legally under the current system."

You were saying?

Saying you can't support a bill hardly sounds like OUTRAGE to me.

Sucks to be you, then.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706