Obama Executive Order

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Ichy you have failed to understand how this works. The democrat party depends on a permanent underclass for their base of voters. There is a reason why Obama made this about the lower level central american illegals. They have distributed these illegals all around the country, to every state. This was only the first round of this. There are some 7 million more that are out there waiting for this and he will probably do it for them within the next year, depending on what kind of pushback he gets out of this. If you think Bush was conservative, you are sadly mistaken. He brought us the medicare drug program and as you democrats are so fond of pointing out, he grew the deficit and increased spending. He was conservative in some areas but wasn't at full blown conservative. He was for the amnesty bill in 2007 but the conservatives in Congress bucked him and kept it from passing. He had different motivations for it but he wanted it to happen. There has already been talk of getting them to citizenship soon and how these back taxes and fines will be unfair.

Do you really believe this? Any of it?

Democrats thrive on a permanent underclass? Please, examples? Mississippi? Texas? Alabama? Arizona? Are these Democratic strongholds? They certainly have a permanent underclass. Can you explain the the paradox?

Bush wasn't a conservative? Funny half the "conservatives" I know still have a "W the President" sticker on the back of their cars. Do the "real" conservatives have McCain/Palin stickers? Romney stickers? NObama stickers? Do "real" conservatives even have a party?

The King of strawmen. Heavily populated urban areas, nitwit, is where the overwhelming majority of the permanent underclass reside.

Okay, please explain how Democrats and their manufactured underclass are going to dominate national politics when they cannot dominate politics at the state level?

Political winds change with the times. Obama is attempting to accelerate the change. It doesn't amaze me that you simply refuse to accept this obvious reality and prefer to defend a president "you didn't vote for" :-\

There is no refusal. I am simply asking for evidence. If you cannot provide any, simply say so.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Exactly. The first phoney talking point of conservative rhetoric regarding immigration.

The second is securing the boarder. Why didn't a former governor of Texas secure the border immediately following 9/11 if conservatives are genuinely concerned with border security.

The third is, Democrats are importing a voter base. Really,,,,, so they can build on there absolute grip on politics in Texas and Arizona? Do any of the "ultra conservatives" think about this stuff or, do they just go along with anything the sounds good.

1) were our ancestors given social services when they came to America ? http://www.cis.org/i...elfare-use-2011

2) the Dems defunded the 2006 Fence Act which passed under the Bush administration. It would have greatly secured the border.

3) would you, as one dependent on social services, vote for those politicians who would remove such ? I don't think so. Hence, illegal immigrants given amnesty would most likely be an expansion of the Democratic voter base.

1) What services are you referring to? Public education?

2) Not exactly accurate. The billed was passed without enough funding to complete the project. Two attempts to pass legislation funding completion died in committee.

3) Again, if you theory is correct, why aren't Texas and Arizona overwhelmingly Democrat?

1) Numerous social services. Illegal immigrant parents of a child born in the USA are the recipients of many social services in support of their child. These services will expand grossly. A migrant worker base must have social services to match their living standards found elsewhere.

Why? How?

2) Soooooo, you're surprised that the majority party didn't provide funding for a bill they didn't support ? Even the bill had to be passed by a voice vote to have support.

No, I am surprised that a Republican Congress hasn't attempted to push it through since achieving the majority in 2010. Actually, they did in 2010 but the bill still didn't make it out of committee.

3) To carry forward your argument then you are stating a) that illegal immigrants have been given amnesty in TX and AZ and are now voting; to use your logic then why are CA and NM overwhelmingly Democrat ? The second half of your argument is a non sequitur.

Agreed. However, no one has hinted at giving these folks an accelerated path to citizenship. In fact, just the opposite. They are going to the back of the line.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

snopes is a go to site used quite extensively by liberals in their efforts to discredit statements by conservatives so I'll leave this right here since the cost of social services to illegal aliens has been called into question. Call me crazy but, $70 Billion a year seems like a lot to me but that was 17 years ago, reckon its gone up significantly since then?

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.

Read more at http://www.snopes.co...hJcKSkFBTZfg.99

I think a better analysis would be the net economic benefit/loss of these individuals. I think most of them actually work in construction or agriculture.

In terms of cost to taxpayers, is it possible that making them legitimate means collecting more in taxes and therefore improving the current situation?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Ichy you have failed to understand how this works. The democrat party depends on a permanent underclass for their base of voters. There is a reason why Obama made this about the lower level central american illegals. They have distributed these illegals all around the country, to every state. This was only the first round of this. There are some 7 million more that are out there waiting for this and he will probably do it for them within the next year, depending on what kind of pushback he gets out of this. If you think Bush was conservative, you are sadly mistaken. He brought us the medicare drug program and as you democrats are so fond of pointing out, he grew the deficit and increased spending. He was conservative in some areas but wasn't at full blown conservative. He was for the amnesty bill in 2007 but the conservatives in Congress bucked him and kept it from passing. He had different motivations for it but he wanted it to happen. There has already been talk of getting them to citizenship soon and how these back taxes and fines will be unfair.

Do you really believe this? Any of it?

Democrats thrive on a permanent underclass? Please, examples? Mississippi? Texas? Alabama? Arizona? Are these Democratic strongholds? They certainly have a permanent underclass. Can you explain the the paradox?

Bush wasn't a conservative? Funny half the "conservatives" I know still have a "W the President" sticker on the back of their cars. Do the "real" conservatives have McCain/Palin stickers? Romney stickers? NObama stickers? Do "real" conservatives even have a party?

The King of strawmen. Heavily populated urban areas, nitwit, is where the overwhelming majority of the permanent underclass reside.

Okay, please explain how Democrats and their manufactured underclass are going to dominate national politics when they cannot dominate politics at the state level?

Political winds change with the times. Obama is attempting to accelerate the change. It doesn't amaze me that you simply refuse to accept this obvious reality and prefer to defend a president "you didn't vote for" :-\

There is no refusal. I am simply asking for evidence. If you cannot provide any, simply say so.

Some things are patently obvious

[TheBlueVue 177]

snopes is a go to site used quite extensively by liberals in their efforts to discredit statements by conservatives so I'll leave this right here since the cost of social services to illegal aliens has been called into question. Call me crazy but, $70 Billion a year seems like a lot to me but that was 17 years ago, reckon its gone up significantly since then?

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.

Read more at http://www.snopes.co...hJcKSkFBTZfg.99

I think a better analysis would be the net economic benefit/loss of these individuals. I think most of them actually work in construction or agriculture.

In terms of cost to taxpayers, is it possible that making them legitimate means collecting more in taxes and therefore improving the current situation?

Do you even look at the snopes information. There has been net negative per immigrant adult. I would argue that many illegals, not all, are going to prefer remaining illegal anyway They haven't paid taxes before and their income will fall in a bracket that they still wont but they will experince payroll deductions and I wouldn't be surprised if they simply chose to remain illegal

[icanthearyou 4,462]

snopes is a go to site used quite extensively by liberals in their efforts to discredit statements by conservatives so I'll leave this right here since the cost of social services to illegal aliens has been called into question. Call me crazy but, $70 Billion a year seems like a lot to me but that was 17 years ago, reckon its gone up significantly since then?

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.

Read more at http://www.snopes.co...hJcKSkFBTZfg.99

I think a better analysis would be the net economic benefit/loss of these individuals. I think most of them actually work in construction or agriculture.

In terms of cost to taxpayers, is it possible that making them legitimate means collecting more in taxes and therefore improving the current situation?

Do you even look at the snopes information. There has been net negative per immigrant adult. I would argue that many illegals, not all, are going to prefer remaining illegal anyway They haven't paid taxes before and their income will fall in a bracket that they still wont but they will experince payroll deductions and I wouldn't be surprised if they simply chose to remain illegal

I only looked at the information in your post. That information gives the net effect on the treasury but not the net effect on the economy.

[AUUSN 823]

Jarrett: Obama honored Boehner's request on immigration

WASHINGTON — In the months leading to President Barack Obama’s decision to bypass Congress and issue immigration executive orders last week, at one point Obama honored a request from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to hold off making a “very public push” on immigration during the primary season, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett told me.

Some of Boehner’s GOP House members faced primaries with challenges from the right, and the protective speaker did not want to make things more difficult for his flock. In June, then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., lost his primary, and Cantor blamed immigration in part for his undoing.

While various staffers on the Obama team and Democrats on Capitol Hill were very skeptical Boehner would ever allow a vote on any significant immigration measure — Obama accommodated him, giving Boehner the benefit of the doubt.

Jarrett told me in an interview on Friday, “Initially (Boehner) encouraged the president to hold off on a very public push until after the primary season of the midterms, and the president did that.

“And after the primary season, the president said, he called again on the House to pass legislation, and the Speaker didn’t call it up, and the president said he wanted it done by the end of the summer, and the Speaker did not call it up, and then the president decided to wait until the end of the year, and after the election the Speaker made it clear he would not be calling it up.”

So Boehner specifically asked the president to not make a public push?

“He said ‘Look, let’s not make this a part of the mid-term primary campaign, let’s just try to, ‘Give me a little time and space to get this done,’ I think was the broader message the Speaker gave to the president. And so the president did hold off,” Jarrett said.

When the last primary was held in the fall, Obama needed to wait some more — now for Democrats. By then, the White House needed to shelter vulnerable Democrats who feared a backlash in the November general elections if Obama made any solo immigration moves.

Jarrett oversees the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, and her team reached out to stakeholders on immigration in the run-up to the executive orders.

From July 15 through Aug. 12, Jarrett’s shop put together 22 listening sessions with various groups from the civil rights, faith, labor, business, high tech, LGBT and other communities.

In the days before the announcement, Jarrett personally made a series of calls to key business, labor, Hispanic and civil rights leaders. Last Thursday, before Obama’s White House immigration speech, she led a call with over 2,000 stakeholders.

Said Jarrett, “to sum it up is, over the course, over the arc of the time the president has been contemplating taking executive action, he and his team here have done extensive outreach. Over 260 organizations have engaged with us to give us their thoughts about what would be, what appropriate steps the president could take.

“And then that engagement information, feedback was given to the Justice Department and given to the Department of Homeland Security to help inform their thinking, and then they came back with the recommendation that the president ultimately accepted,” she said.

http://politics.sunt...11242014-1254am

[TheBlueVue 177]

So, its John Boehner's fault...is that your point? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that Obama didn't make a public push on immigration before the election to accomodate republicans in their campaigns? Really? Good Lord!

Boehner is the Speaker but, the majority of the House is populated by representatives who were elected by their respective districts specifically to oppose Barack Obama. That Boehner cant make them go along with the president is not his fault. What am I missing here? Oh, I see, the piece was written by Valerie Jarrett....enough said.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Jarrett's credibility is no better than Obama's. This whole administration is full of liars. Here is Obama's latest score card from the liberal WaPo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/24/did-george-h-w-bush-really-shield-1-5-million-illegal-immigrants-nope/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z14

[TheBlueVue 177]

Jarrett's credibility is no better than Obama's. This whole administration is full of liars. Here is Obama's latest score card from the liberal WaPo.

http://www.washingto...dd1394&hpid=z14

Wow - 4 pinnochios. So much for the argument that Geo Bush did the same thing! LOL Its gotten to the point of seriously asking....Can Obama be trusted to tell the truth about ANYTHING?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1) Numerous social services. Illegal immigrant parents of a child born in the USA are the recipients of many social services in support of their child. These services will expand grossly. A migrant worker base must have social services to match their living standards found elsewhere.

Why? How?

ichy, time is short so I'm responding to just this. Did you even read the link I included ? http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

Let's back up to a premise for a moment. The argument for immigrant labor coming to the USA is that they will provide the work that Americans won't perform (this rationale is questionable but whatever). The argument is further explained that they are here to raise their standard of living when compared with what they might earn in their native country, that is, they come to the USA to earn more money than they would otherwise and then return to their homeland to spend that income where it buys more goods and services. Eg., $100 earned in the USA but spent in Mexico buys more televisions, cars, restaurant eating than if spent in the USA where the standard of living is more expensive, yet for those immigrants who choose to remain they face an income disparity because the money they earned will not suffice to meet those higher costs. Remember, they were supposed to return to their homeland...but now they've decided to renege and remain illegally in the USA. So now they have a money shortfall to meet their increase in costs, they are cash-strapped. Those who remain and have children born in the USA are allowed social services for their children because they are American. So the people who aren't supposed to be living in the USA are now not only living in the USA but also demanding that we meet their cash shortfall by supplying those social services for their children. Non-Americans are now demanding that the American taxpayer pay for their needs. I prefer that Americans help Americans and that those who are here illegally and collecting our social services go home and let their government meet their needs.

Those who are granted de facto amnesty by the President will be eligible for social services such as medicaid and welfare that they weren't previously. The estimate is that over half of these individuals will require social services supplementation which means the local taxpayer will have to foot the bill for those illegal immigrants. Remember, the printing press is for D.C. only, not the states.

This is a part of the argument that the states will make before the Supreme Court, in fact, once Obamacare is fully enacted Medicaid services will vastly/quickly grow (employer mandate...which adds to the tax burden). So adding 5-7 million illegal immigrants to Medicaid and then add more due to Obamacare is about to push Medicaid into further distress. Texas, as one example, is about to experience a shortfall in their revenue....I

think $50 billion for two upcoming fiscal years. One consideration to balance their budget is to reduce Medicaid. When Americans cannot receive full social service benefits because they are being paid to illegal immigrants you will find those people very unhappy.....and in the streets protesting. It's coming.

That's it in short. READ THE LINK: http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

[cooltigger21 0]

1) Numerous social services. Illegal immigrant parents of a child born in the USA are the recipients of many social services in support of their child. These services will expand grossly. A migrant worker base must have social services to match their living standards found elsewhere.

Why? How?

ichy, time is short so I'm responding to just this. Did you even read the link I included ? http://www.cis.org/i...elfare-use-2011

Let's back up to a premise for a moment. The argument for immigrant labor coming to the USA is that they will provide the work that Americans won't perform (this rationale is questionable but whatever). The argument is further explained that they are here to raise their standard of living when compared with what they might earn in their native country, that is, they come to the USA to earn more money than they would otherwise and then return to their homeland to spend that income where it buys more goods and services. Eg., $100 earned in the USA but spent in Mexico buys more televisions, cars, restaurant eating than if spent in the USA where the standard of living is more expensive, yet for those immigrants who choose to remain they face an income disparity because the money they earned will not suffice to meet those higher costs. Remember, they were supposed to return to their homeland...but now they've decided to renege and remain illegally in the USA. So now they have a money shortfall to meet their increase in costs, they are cash-strapped. Those who remain and have children born in the USA are allowed social services for their children because they are American. So the people who aren't supposed to be living in the USA are now not only living in the USA but also demanding that we meet their cash shortfall by supplying those social services for their children. Non-Americans are now demanding that the American taxpayer pay for their needs. I prefer that Americans help Americans and that those who are here illegally and collecting our social services go home and let their government meet their needs.

Those who are granted de facto amnesty by the President will be eligible for social services such as medicaid and welfare that they weren't previously. The estimate is that over half of these individuals will require social services supplementation which means the local taxpayer will have to foot the bill for those illegal immigrants. Remember, the printing press is for D.C. only, not the states.

This is a part of the argument that the states will make before the Supreme Court, in fact, once Obamacare is fully enacted Medicaid services will vastly/quickly grow (employer mandate...which adds to the tax burden). So adding 5-7 million illegal immigrants to Medicaid and then add more due to Obamacare is about to push Medicaid into further distress. Texas, as one example, is about to experience a shortfall in their revenue....I

think $50 billion for two upcoming fiscal years. One consideration to balance their budget is to reduce Medicaid. When Americans cannot receive full social service benefits because they are being paid to illegal immigrants you will find those people very unhappy.....and in the streets protesting. It's coming.

That's it in short. READ THE LINK: http://www.cis.org/i...elfare-use-2011

This is why a number of states did not choose to participate in the medicaid expansion part of Obamacare. Some people were decrying this, saying they were hurting their cititzens and leaving money on the table. Problem is though, once the federal money runs out, the states will be left holding the bag for this. It essentially becomes another unfunded mandate. States cannot run a perpetual deficit like the federal government does.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

[cooltigger21 0]

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

liberalism is based on and in emotion. It is the triumph of emotion over reason and logic. It's very easy to look at things emotionally and make your decision based on that. The problem with that though is it isn't conducive to a functioning society. We are a nation founded on and reliant on the rule of law. We have to have laws and respect for and adherence to the law. Otherwise it's anarchy. These children were purposely sent here to be able to later pull everyone else along with them. There is another surge of illegals coming this way now and it's only going to get worse.

Nations like Mexico and the other Central American countries won't take the steps to reform their own nations and end the corruption if they know they can send their population here and then get propped up by the money they turn around and send back to their relatives. I have heard that if we legalize marijuana, that will essentially end the drug gang problem along the border. Anyone foolish enough to believe that will be very interested in a certain bridge I have for sale. That's not an argument against legalization, although I don't really favor that. It's just a statement that these people will, if they can't make their money in illegal weed, find other avenues of propping up their criminal enterprises.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1) Numerous social services. Illegal immigrant parents of a child born in the USA are the recipients of many social services in support of their child. These services will expand grossly. A migrant worker base must have social services to match their living standards found elsewhere.

Why? How?

ichy, time is short so I'm responding to just this. Did you even read the link I included ? http://www.cis.org/i...elfare-use-2011

Let's back up to a premise for a moment. The argument for immigrant labor coming to the USA is that they will provide the work that Americans won't perform (this rationale is questionable but whatever). The argument is further explained that they are here to raise their standard of living when compared with what they might earn in their native country, that is, they come to the USA to earn more money than they would otherwise and then return to their homeland to spend that income where it buys more goods and services. Eg., $100 earned in the USA but spent in Mexico buys more televisions, cars, restaurant eating than if spent in the USA where the standard of living is more expensive, yet for those immigrants who choose to remain they face an income disparity because the money they earned will not suffice to meet those higher costs. Remember, they were supposed to return to their homeland...but now they've decided to renege and remain illegally in the USA. So now they have a money shortfall to meet their increase in costs, they are cash-strapped. Those who remain and have children born in the USA are allowed social services for their children because they are American. So the people who aren't supposed to be living in the USA are now not only living in the USA but also demanding that we meet their cash shortfall by supplying those social services for their children. Non-Americans are now demanding that the American taxpayer pay for their needs. I prefer that Americans help Americans and that those who are here illegally and collecting our social services go home and let their government meet their needs.

Those who are granted de facto amnesty by the President will be eligible for social services such as medicaid and welfare that they weren't previously. The estimate is that over half of these individuals will require social services supplementation which means the local taxpayer will have to foot the bill for those illegal immigrants. Remember, the printing press is for D.C. only, not the states.

This is a part of the argument that the states will make before the Supreme Court, in fact, once Obamacare is fully enacted Medicaid services will vastly/quickly grow (employer mandate...which adds to the tax burden). So adding 5-7 million illegal immigrants to Medicaid and then add more due to Obamacare is about to push Medicaid into further distress. Texas, as one example, is about to experience a shortfall in their revenue....I

think $50 billion for two upcoming fiscal years. One consideration to balance their budget is to reduce Medicaid. When Americans cannot receive full social service benefits because they are being paid to illegal immigrants you will find those people very unhappy.....and in the streets protesting. It's coming.

That's it in short. READ THE LINK: http://www.cis.org/i...elfare-use-2011

Almost entirely false. All of it. To quote a right wing nutjob hero, "it's garbage".

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

liberalism is based on and in emotion. It is the triumph of emotion over reason and logic. It's very easy to look at things emotionally and make your decision based on that. The problem with that though is it isn't conducive to a functioning society. We are a nation founded on and reliant on the rule of law. We have to have laws and respect for and adherence to the law. Otherwise it's anarchy. These children were purposely sent here to be able to later pull everyone else along with them. There is another surge of illegals coming this way now and it's only going to get worse.

Nations like Mexico and the other Central American countries won't take the steps to reform their own nations and end the corruption if they know they can send their population here and then get propped up by the money they turn around and send back to their relatives. I have heard that if we legalize marijuana, that will essentially end the drug gang problem along the border. Anyone foolish enough to believe that will be very interested in a certain bridge I have for sale. That's not an argument against legalization, although I don't really favor that. It's just a statement that these people will, if they can't make their money in illegal weed, find other avenues of propping up their criminal enterprises.

That is right. Don't waste time solving a problem because, it will only lead to a new problem that needs to be solved. Playing politics, in the world of rhetoric, is much more worthwhile. Maybe we can shutdown the government and divert all funding to investigations and lawsuits.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

liberalism is based on and in emotion. It is the triumph of emotion over reason and logic. It's very easy to look at things emotionally and make your decision based on that. The problem with that though is it isn't conducive to a functioning society. We are a nation founded on and reliant on the rule of law. We have to have laws and respect for and adherence to the law. Otherwise it's anarchy. These children were purposely sent here to be able to later pull everyone else along with them. There is another surge of illegals coming this way now and it's only going to get worse.

Nations like Mexico and the other Central American countries won't take the steps to reform their own nations and end the corruption if they know they can send their population here and then get propped up by the money they turn around and send back to their relatives. I have heard that if we legalize marijuana, that will essentially end the drug gang problem along the border. Anyone foolish enough to believe that will be very interested in a certain bridge I have for sale. That's not an argument against legalization, although I don't really favor that. It's just a statement that these people will, if they can't make their money in illegal weed, find other avenues of propping up their criminal enterprises.

That is right. Don't waste time solving a problem because, it will only lead to a new problem that needs to be solved. Playing politics, in the world of rhetoric, is much more worthwhile. Maybe we can shutdown the government and divert all funding to investigations and lawsuits.

Oh man...yathink you could let the rhetoric bull**** rest for a day or two? Good grief

[cooltigger21 0]

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

liberalism is based on and in emotion. It is the triumph of emotion over reason and logic. It's very easy to look at things emotionally and make your decision based on that. The problem with that though is it isn't conducive to a functioning society. We are a nation founded on and reliant on the rule of law. We have to have laws and respect for and adherence to the law. Otherwise it's anarchy. These children were purposely sent here to be able to later pull everyone else along with them. There is another surge of illegals coming this way now and it's only going to get worse.

Nations like Mexico and the other Central American countries won't take the steps to reform their own nations and end the corruption if they know they can send their population here and then get propped up by the money they turn around and send back to their relatives. I have heard that if we legalize marijuana, that will essentially end the drug gang problem along the border. Anyone foolish enough to believe that will be very interested in a certain bridge I have for sale. That's not an argument against legalization, although I don't really favor that. It's just a statement that these people will, if they can't make their money in illegal weed, find other avenues of propping up their criminal enterprises.

That is right. Don't waste time solving a problem because, it will only lead to a new problem that needs to be solved. Playing politics, in the world of rhetoric, is much more worthwhile. Maybe we can shutdown the government and divert all funding to investigations and lawsuits.

Oh man...yathink you could let the rhetoric bull**** rest for a day or two? Good grief

Blue you ought to know by now that Itchy can't comprehend simple logic. The rhetoric bs is all he has. If he can't deal with what someone says he calls it rhetoric. It's like the race card If you call someone a racist, they are supposed to shut up and not criticize you. If you call something rhetoric, then the other person supposed to cower in fear and shut up. It is funny how that is always directed at conservatives and republicans but not liberals and democrats. Shows his true colors.

Oh and Itchy, I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll try anyway. I'll make this simple since I know your comprehension skills are very weak. I'm not equating the drug problem with Obama or liberals. The drug wars along the border and these gangs are a huge problem that have to be dealt with. Legalizing weed isn't going to make them go away as some have suggested. They are criminal gangs and even if the weed goes away they'll move into something else. Now that is simple enough for a child to understand.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

liberalism is based on and in emotion. It is the triumph of emotion over reason and logic. It's very easy to look at things emotionally and make your decision based on that. The problem with that though is it isn't conducive to a functioning society. We are a nation founded on and reliant on the rule of law. We have to have laws and respect for and adherence to the law. Otherwise it's anarchy. These children were purposely sent here to be able to later pull everyone else along with them. There is another surge of illegals coming this way now and it's only going to get worse.

Nations like Mexico and the other Central American countries won't take the steps to reform their own nations and end the corruption if they know they can send their population here and then get propped up by the money they turn around and send back to their relatives. I have heard that if we legalize marijuana, that will essentially end the drug gang problem along the border. Anyone foolish enough to believe that will be very interested in a certain bridge I have for sale. That's not an argument against legalization, although I don't really favor that. It's just a statement that these people will, if they can't make their money in illegal weed, find other avenues of propping up their criminal enterprises.

That is right. Don't waste time solving a problem because, it will only lead to a new problem that needs to be solved. Playing politics, in the world of rhetoric, is much more worthwhile. Maybe we can shutdown the government and divert all funding to investigations and lawsuits.

Oh man...yathink you could let the rhetoric bull**** rest for a day or two? Good grief

I will if you will. Don't go away mad.

[WarTim 3,456]

Nothing will change until we run the clock out on this failure...

Naw, thats the cowherds way. barry done broke the law AGAIN. We done got all of the congress now. Time to get a back bone and inpeach the keynan, commie, muslim, narcossictic, empiror. You cant let no libtard deestroy the Constitution and git a way with it.

Don't look now but your lack of education is showing...Bwahahahaha

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

liberalism is based on and in emotion. It is the triumph of emotion over reason and logic. It's very easy to look at things emotionally and make your decision based on that. The problem with that though is it isn't conducive to a functioning society. We are a nation founded on and reliant on the rule of law. We have to have laws and respect for and adherence to the law. Otherwise it's anarchy. These children were purposely sent here to be able to later pull everyone else along with them. There is another surge of illegals coming this way now and it's only going to get worse.

Nations like Mexico and the other Central American countries won't take the steps to reform their own nations and end the corruption if they know they can send their population here and then get propped up by the money they turn around and send back to their relatives. I have heard that if we legalize marijuana, that will essentially end the drug gang problem along the border. Anyone foolish enough to believe that will be very interested in a certain bridge I have for sale. That's not an argument against legalization, although I don't really favor that. It's just a statement that these people will, if they can't make their money in illegal weed, find other avenues of propping up their criminal enterprises.

That is right. Don't waste time solving a problem because, it will only lead to a new problem that needs to be solved. Playing politics, in the world of rhetoric, is much more worthwhile. Maybe we can shutdown the government and divert all funding to investigations and lawsuits.

Oh man...yathink you could let the rhetoric bull**** rest for a day or two? Good grief

Blue you ought to know by now that Itchy can't comprehend simple logic. The rhetoric bs is all he has. If he can't deal with what someone says he calls it rhetoric. It's like the race card If you call someone a racist, they are supposed to shut up and not criticize you. If you call something rhetoric, then the other person supposed to cower in fear and shut up. It is funny how that is always directed at conservatives and republicans but not liberals and democrats. Shows his true colors.

Oh and Itchy, I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll try anyway. I'll make this simple since I know your comprehension skills are very weak. I'm not equating the drug problem with Obama or liberals. The drug wars along the border and these gangs are a huge problem that have to be dealt with. Legalizing weed isn't going to make them go away as some have suggested. They are criminal gangs and even if the weed goes away they'll move into something else. Now that is simple enough for a child to understand.

That is just about the sweetest thing I have ever seen! Help him CT, he needs you, you need him.

Do you understand the endless loop in your attempt at teaching me logic?

[TexasTiger 12,865]

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

As if you are listening.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

liberalism is based on and in emotion. It is the triumph of emotion over reason and logic. It's very easy to look at things emotionally and make your decision based on that. The problem with that though is it isn't conducive to a functioning society. We are a nation founded on and reliant on the rule of law. We have to have laws and respect for and adherence to the law. Otherwise it's anarchy. These children were purposely sent here to be able to later pull everyone else along with them. There is another surge of illegals coming this way now and it's only going to get worse.

Nations like Mexico and the other Central American countries won't take the steps to reform their own nations and end the corruption if they know they can send their population here and then get propped up by the money they turn around and send back to their relatives. I have heard that if we legalize marijuana, that will essentially end the drug gang problem along the border. Anyone foolish enough to believe that will be very interested in a certain bridge I have for sale. That's not an argument against legalization, although I don't really favor that. It's just a statement that these people will, if they can't make their money in illegal weed, find other avenues of propping up their criminal enterprises.

That is right. Don't waste time solving a problem because, it will only lead to a new problem that needs to be solved. Playing politics, in the world of rhetoric, is much more worthwhile. Maybe we can shutdown the government and divert all funding to investigations and lawsuits.

Oh man...yathink you could let the rhetoric bull**** rest for a day or two? Good grief

Blue you ought to know by now that Itchy can't comprehend simple logic. The rhetoric bs is all he has. If he can't deal with what someone says he calls it rhetoric. It's like the race card If you call someone a racist, they are supposed to shut up and not criticize you. If you call something rhetoric, then the other person supposed to cower in fear and shut up. It is funny how that is always directed at conservatives and republicans but not liberals and democrats. Shows his true colors.

Oh and Itchy, I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll try anyway. I'll make this simple since I know your comprehension skills are very weak. I'm not equating the drug problem with Obama or liberals. The drug wars along the border and these gangs are a huge problem that have to be dealt with. Legalizing weed isn't going to make them go away as some have suggested. They are criminal gangs and even if the weed goes away they'll move into something else. Now that is simple enough for a child to understand.

Bottom line here...those passionately defending Obama's EO cant get past the touch feely emotional argument. For them its all about the chiiildren and our moral obligation to care for them. You can talk fiscal implications til the cows come home and they'll either act like the illegals wont be receiving social benefits or they'll say that we're the richest country in the world. They conveniently dismiss the unsettling reality that our national debt is currently over $17 trillion and growing rapidly and once you add the expense of supporting this virtually unlimited number of illegals to the US, it just accelerates the arrival of the time when we become the Greece of the western hemisphere.

liberalism is based on and in emotion. It is the triumph of emotion over reason and logic. It's very easy to look at things emotionally and make your decision based on that. The problem with that though is it isn't conducive to a functioning society. We are a nation founded on and reliant on the rule of law. We have to have laws and respect for and adherence to the law. Otherwise it's anarchy. These children were purposely sent here to be able to later pull everyone else along with them. There is another surge of illegals coming this way now and it's only going to get worse.

Nations like Mexico and the other Central American countries won't take the steps to reform their own nations and end the corruption if they know they can send their population here and then get propped up by the money they turn around and send back to their relatives. I have heard that if we legalize marijuana, that will essentially end the drug gang problem along the border. Anyone foolish enough to believe that will be very interested in a certain bridge I have for sale. That's not an argument against legalization, although I don't really favor that. It's just a statement that these people will, if they can't make their money in illegal weed, find other avenues of propping up their criminal enterprises.

That is right. Don't waste time solving a problem because, it will only lead to a new problem that needs to be solved. Playing politics, in the world of rhetoric, is much more worthwhile. Maybe we can shutdown the government and divert all funding to investigations and lawsuits.

Oh man...yathink you could let the rhetoric bull**** rest for a day or two? Good grief

Blue you ought to know by now that Itchy can't comprehend simple logic. The rhetoric bs is all he has. If he can't deal with what someone says he calls it rhetoric. It's like the race card If you call someone a racist, they are supposed to shut up and not criticize you. If you call something rhetoric, then the other person supposed to cower in fear and shut up. It is funny how that is always directed at conservatives and republicans but not liberals and democrats. Shows his true colors.

Oh and Itchy, I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll try anyway. I'll make this simple since I know your comprehension skills are very weak. I'm not equating the drug problem with Obama or liberals. The drug wars along the border and these gangs are a huge problem that have to be dealt with. Legalizing weed isn't going to make them go away as some have suggested. They are criminal gangs and even if the weed goes away they'll move into something else. Now that is simple enough for a child to understand.

this post is so funny on so many obvious levels. Well played CT.

[cooltigger21 0]

The one thing this was designed to to more than anything else was to keep the flow of illegals coming in. This order sends a clear signal to the people in Central America that all they have to do is just get here and eventually they will gain legal status. They won't be deported ever.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The one thing this was designed to to more than anything else was to keep the flow of illegals coming in. This order sends a clear signal to the people in Central America that all they have to do is just get here and eventually they will gain legal status. They won't be deported ever.

And simply minded liberal tools like itchy apparently side with this as if it is a good thing for this country. Hard to believe the depth of denial of some who will defend anything and everything Obama does.