Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young illegals

[rightwinger]

why do liberals care about illegals, but don't give a damn about mexicans in mexico

nafta

 

[rightwinger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all


The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why do liberals care about illegals, but don't give a damn about mexicans in mexico

nafta

again you care about illegals but don't care that obama and holder allowed weapons into the hands of drug cartels that enabled them to kill their fellow Mexicans.

 

[P@triot]

One last thing Joe - I've keep asking every liberal here who are bitching about the "evil" and "unethical" wealthy business owners why they don't start their own company and do it better. All of them avoid the question. All you had to offer was the weak and sad "Yawn.. tiresome". "Yawn" is Communist code word for "shit, I have no response for this extremely valid point".

Buddy, just come out of the closet already. Just be honest about who you are. You are a Communist. Once you get past that, we can have real discussions about policy and philosophy.

Guy, frankly, I don't want to go through life being a douchebag.

You don't beat the Nazis by becoming a Nazi.

It isn't a valid point at all. No one should be allowed to abuse their employees. Ever. If you can't make money without being a douchebag, that's your problem.

It's a valid point and you fucking know it. To say "Frankly, I don't want to go through life wealthy & successful is hysterical". Game. Set. Match. You lose.

 

[salem.hills]

They only care about illegals because they need their votes that's the part that makes the liberal no good.

 

[Contumacious]

[The thread title should be "Obama decides which laws passed by Congress that he wants to enforce and which ones he decides not to enforce."

Then he should renounce the oath he took when he was sworn in as President and declare himself dictator for life.

Bullshit Vern. I'm definitely not an Obama supporter. But he is right on this one:


There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional

.

There is not a damned thing unconstitutional about deporting those that are in this country illegally.

The link clearly showed that James Madison - the Father of the Constitution - and Thomas Jefferson - 3rd President and Founding Father - emphasized the fact that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

.

 

[beagle9]

Bullshit Vern. I'm definitely not an Obama supporter. But he is right on this one:


There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional

.

There is not a damned thing unconstitutional about deporting those that are in this country illegally.

The link clearly showed that James Madison - the Father of the Constitution - and Thomas Jefferson - 3rd President and Founding Father - emphasized the fact that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

.

the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

Well then why is Obama sueing Arizona and others, if they have not these powers or Authority, so what is it then, should it be up to the states to protect their own borders if being over run (i.e. left up to the states) ?

 

[P@triot]

One last thing Joe - I've keep asking every liberal here who are bitching about the "evil" and "unethical" wealthy business owners why they don't start their own company and do it better. All of them avoid the question. All you had to offer was the weak and sad "Yawn.. tiresome". "Yawn" is Communist code word for "shit, I have no response for this extremely valid point".

Buddy, just come out of the closet already. Just be honest about who you are. You are a Communist. Once you get past that, we can have real discussions about policy and philosophy.

Guy, frankly, I don't want to go through life being a douchebag.

You don't beat the Nazis by becoming a Nazi.

It isn't a valid point at all. No one should be allowed to abuse their employees. Ever. If you can't make money without being a douchebag, that's your problem.

I guess here is the bottom line Joe - you're a Communist, we have FREEDOM in this country, and Communists hate freedom. That's what this entire thing comes down to.

To say "no one should be allowed to abuse their employees" is simply asinine. If an employee is "abused" they can leave any time they want and go find another job. Better yet, they can start their own fucking business and do it better than the "abusive" owners.

We have freedom in this nation Joe, and nothing you say or do will ever take that freedom away. America has already proven that people like you are not a problem. Against the greatest of odds, we beat the oppresive British. Then we beat the oppresive South in our Civil War. Then we beat Adolf Hitler and the oppresive Nazi's. Then we beat the oppresive Soviets in the Cold War (without even firing a shot). So beating the oppresive Communist Joe B. and his few Communist pals will not be a problem. We can do it in our sleep.

You're a likeable guy Joe, but your lazy. You're too lazy to become succesful. And rather than just accept that reality, you have an envy seething in you for those who are not lazy and have become successful. If you don't like how a company treats it's employees, then don't work for it. It really is that simple.

 

[gallantwarrior]

They only care about illegals because they need their votes that's the part that makes the liberal no good.

Considering illegals cannot legally vote, that explains loads.

 

[Contumacious]

There is not a damned thing unconstitutional about deporting those that are in this country illegally.

The link clearly showed that James Madison - the Father of the Constitution - and Thomas Jefferson - 3rd President and Founding Father - emphasized the fact that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

.

the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

Well then why is Obama sueing Arizona and others, if they have not these powers or Authority, so what is it then, should it be up to the states to protect their own borders if being over run (i.e. left up to the states) ?

Because in 1899 a racist SCOTUS USURPED the power to control immigration. According to the 1899 ruling the Chinese were so efficient and "our people" could not compete with them thereby creating an emergency condition.

.

 

[P@triot]

There is not a damned thing unconstitutional about deporting those that are in this country illegally.

The link clearly showed that James Madison - the Father of the Constitution - and Thomas Jefferson - 3rd President and Founding Father - emphasized the fact that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

.

the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

Well then why is Obama sueing Arizona and others, if they have not these powers or Authority, so what is it then, should it be up to the states to protect their own borders if being over run (i.e. left up to the states) ?

That is a great point beagle. If the federal government has no authority to detain and deport illegal aliens, then it is a state issue. In that case, Obama is dead wrong and illegal for suing the states and trying to tell them what to do with securing the borders. If it's a federal authority, then Obama is dead wrong and illegal for bypassing Congress and over ruling an existing law on his own.

So either way Obama is dead wrong and should be impeached for illegal activities.

 

[Contumacious]

The link clearly showed that James Madison - the Father of the Constitution - and Thomas Jefferson - 3rd President and Founding Father - emphasized the fact that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

.

the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

Well then why is Obama sueing Arizona and others, if they have not these powers or Authority, so what is it then, should it be up to the states to protect their own borders if being over run (i.e. left up to the states) ?

That is a great point beagle. If the federal government has no authority to detain and deport illegal aliens, then it is a state issue.

Indeed , it - is supposed to be

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.


* In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in *160 which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no state, since the adoption of the constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character.'

[URL="http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/ussct_cases/Boyd_v_Nebraska%20_Thayer_143_135.htm"]Boyd

v.

State of Nebraska ex rel. Thayer.

February 1, 1892.[/URL]

 

[JoeB131]

In case you conservatives haven't noticed....the government is facing budget problems

Our President is just try to save money by not enforcing an unpopular immigration policy

Imagine how much money we could save as a nation if we released all prisoners, and made EVERYTHING legal (murder, rape, etc.). We would need no police, no prosecutors, no judges.... ah, a liberal utopia! Idiot....

You might be on to something. Oh, not about the murderers and rapists...

But I've always wondered, how is it that the US locks up 2 million people, and we have one of the highest crime rates in the industrialized world, but a "soooooocialist" country (as you would call it) like Germany only locks up 78,000 people and they have a lower crime rate?

Oh, wait. Could it be that someone is making an obscene amount of money off prison industries?

 

[JoeB131]

I guess here is the bottom line Joe - you're a Communist, we have FREEDOM in this country, and Communists hate freedom. That's what this entire thing comes down to.

To say "no one should be allowed to abuse their employees" is simply asinine. If an employee is "abused" they can leave any time they want and go find another job. Better yet, they can start their own fucking business and do it better than the "abusive" owners.

So let's say your hypothetical daughter comes home and says, "The boss told me to give him a blow job or I'm fired." Should her only options be leaving that job (where she won't be able to get a reference) or starting their own business. Or should she have the right to make a valid complaint and have something done about it?

How come whenever a conservatard (not to be confused with the endangered species, actual conservatives) talks about "Freedom", it usually means the ability of rich people to abuse the rest of us, like that's a good thing?

We have freedom in this nation Joe, and nothing you say or do will ever take that freedom away. America has already proven that people like you are not a problem. Against the greatest of odds, we beat the oppresive British. Then we beat the oppresive South in our Civil War. Then we beat Adolf Hitler and the oppresive Nazi's. Then we beat the oppresive Soviets in the Cold War (without even firing a shot). So beating the oppresive Communist Joe B. and his few Communist pals will not be a problem. We can do it in our sleep.

Guy, you're delusional. The slaveholders in the civil war had more in common with your sort of "Greed is good" bullshit than my sense of social justice. Just like you want to protect the right of Rich Douchebags to abuse their employees, "conservatards" of that time wanted Scarlett to have the right to whip her slaves. Same with the Nazis. Hitler came to power after the Krupps and the Daimlers and the other industrialists realized he would protect their interests. First thing Hitler did is exactly what you guys want. He got rid of the unions.

You're a likeable guy Joe, but your lazy. You're too lazy to become succesful. And rather than just accept that reality, you have an envy seething in you for those who are not lazy and have become successful. If you don't like how a company treats it's employees, then don't work for it. It really is that simple.

Guy, horseshit... I work 50 hours week when our General Manager is off on the golf course half the time. The system is never about how much work people do, it's about who has the ability to manipulate the system and what they are willing to do other people to get ahead. All a union or a government on the side of working people does is keep the abuses down to a minimum.

 

[thanatos144]

the federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT ALIENS.

Well then why is Obama sueing Arizona and others, if they have not these powers or Authority, so what is it then, should it be up to the states to protect their own borders if being over run (i.e. left up to the states) ?

That is a great point beagle. If the federal government has no authority to detain and deport illegal aliens, then it is a state issue.

Indeed , it - is supposed to be

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.


* In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in *160 which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no state, since the adoption of the constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character.'

[URL="http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/ussct_cases/Boyd_v_Nebraska%20_Thayer_143_135.htm"]Boyd

v.

State of Nebraska ex rel. Thayer.

February 1, 1892.[/URL]

Did you even read what you posted?????It was reversed. Meaning genius that it was overturned by a higher court which means your point is to coin a phrase BULLSHIT.

 

[P@triot]

So let's say your hypothetical daughter comes home and says, "The boss told me to give him a blow job or I'm fired." Should her only options be leaving that job (where she won't be able to get a reference) or starting their own business. Or should she have the right to make a valid complaint and have something done about it?

Yes - she should quit that job and go find another one. See, being a Communist/Marxist/Socialst, what you can't get through your thick skull is that it's all about the value an employee brings to an organization. If your talented, skilled, and driven, nobody is going to dare risk losing you and if they do for some reason, you take your talents to a better organization. That's why we don't need unions to extort business and ultimately collapse them (as they did to the auto industry). The only people who need unions are the lazy, worthless Communists who believe they are entitled to wealth without anything in exchange for that paycheck.

How come whenever a conservatard (not to be confused with the endangered species, actual conservatives) talks about "Freedom", it usually means the ability of rich people to abuse the rest of us, like that's a good thing?

You're not abused, you're lazy and entitled. You can start your own business any time you want, but you'd rather bitch about others that have done it and demand that they owe you a lavish lifestyle.

Guy, you're delusional. The slaveholders in the civil war had more in common with your sort of "Greed is good" bullshit than my sense of social justice. Just like you want to protect the right of Rich Douchebags to abuse their employees, "conservatards" of that time wanted Scarlett to have the right to whip her slaves. Same with the Nazis. Hitler came to power after the Krupps and the Daimlers and the other industrialists realized he would protect their interests. First thing Hitler did is exactly what you guys want. He got rid of the unions.

"Social justice" literally means Communism. Thank you for illustrating once again that you are a Communist, you just can't admit it for some odd reason. And it was Republican Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves while the oppresive Democrats started a war to keep slaves. You guys are always about control - another trait of Communsim.

Guy, horseshit... I work 50 hours week when our General Manager is off on the golf course half the time. The system is never about how much work people do, it's about who has the ability to manipulate the system and what they are willing to do other people to get ahead. All a union or a government on the side of working people does is keep the abuses down to a minimum.

No, you are clocked in for 50 hours a week, you probably only do 20 hours worth of work or less. Your entire problem is you want to spend your time playing the victim rather than making yourself indispensable. Go start your own business and you too could be on the golf course half the time.

 

[P@triot]

In case you conservatives haven't noticed....the government is facing budget problems

Our President is just try to save money by not enforcing an unpopular immigration policy

Imagine how much money we could save as a nation if we released all prisoners, and made EVERYTHING legal (murder, rape, etc.). We would need no police, no prosecutors, no judges.... ah, a liberal utopia! Idiot....

You might be on to something. Oh, not about the murderers and rapists...

But I've always wondered, how is it that the US locks up 2 million people, and we have one of the highest crime rates in the industrialized world, but a "soooooocialist" country (as you would call it) like Germany only locks up 78,000 people and they have a lower crime rate?

Oh, wait. Could it be that someone is making an obscene amount of money off prison industries?

Or, instead of a massive impossible conspiracy, could it be that we have 2 million assholes who have committed crimes and needed to be locked up for them? Nah, not in the mind of the envious Communist! It all has to be about money, greed, and "evil" wealthy people.

 

[P@triot]

Rape and murder have victims to be protected. Drug use is a victimless crime. Other nations have reduced and eliminated penalties for drug use and do not face a Reefer Madness society. They also don't have prisons stocked with nonviolent offenders and gangs fighting for control of the drug market

Really? Tell that to all of the VICTIMS of murder, armed robbery, assualt, and theft at the hands of drug addicts like you who need money for their next fix. Just stop being so fucking stupid. You know drugs are a problem, just because you like them, don't act like they are a utopia of peace and prosperity.

Most of the murders come from organized crime trying to control the drug trade. Just like prohibition. Why does the US have more of a drug problem than countries that have decriminalized drugs?
Our states are overwhelmed with prisoners from drug related crimes which takes away from their ability to help other citizens

Well there is your problem right there. It is not governments job to "help citizens". If you would people would take something called personal responsibility, you wouldn't need to ask government to unconstitutionally "help" you.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Really? Tell that to all of the VICTIMS of murder, armed robbery, assualt, and theft at the hands of drug addicts like you who need money for their next fix. Just stop being so fucking stupid. You know drugs are a problem, just because you like them, don't act like they are a utopia of peace and prosperity.

Most of the murders come from organized crime trying to control the drug trade. Just like prohibition. Why does the US have more of a drug problem than countries that have decriminalized drugs?
Our states are overwhelmed with prisoners from drug related crimes which takes away from their ability to help other citizens

Well there is your problem right there. It is not governments job to "help citizens". If you would people would take something called personal responsibility, you wouldn't need to ask government to unconstitutionally "help" you.

Hmm. What's weird is that when Thomas Jefferson, you've heard of him I think, wrote this little thing called the Declaration of Independence, he wrote this:

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

So let me translate that for you, since you clearly struggle with English comprehension. We are all given those rights, that's what the "endowed by their creator" line means. So we all have them. All of us. Then there's the "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men..." That's it, right there. Our government does have a duty to secure those rights, for everyone.

Further, the Constitution IS a living document. I know you Conservatives hate hearing that phrase, but it's true. Anyone who remembers their 8th grade civics classes now that. If you want proof of its status, you only need to look at all the amendments. Essentially, the Constitution is whatever the fuck the SCOTUS says it is. If SCOTUS decides, for instance, that the ACA's mandate is Constitutional, guess what? The Constitution now says it's okay for the Feds to require every citizen to have health care.

It's how prohibition was both started and ended. "Strict Constitutionalism" is ironically a practice in undermining the very reason the document exists. It was NEVER meant to be rigid. It was NEVER meant to stay as just one complete document and never changed or revised. Because the founders knew, unlike Strict Constitutionalists, that they didn't have all the answers, and could not see into the future, so the left room for chance.

Basically, I'm telling you you're wrong. But then again, all you have to do is read the preamble of the Constitution to know just how fucking dead wrong you are.

...form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

What exactly do you think insure domestic tranquility and promote general welfare means?

 

[thanatos144]

Most of the murders come from organized crime trying to control the drug trade. Just like prohibition. Why does the US have more of a drug problem than countries that have decriminalized drugs?
Our states are overwhelmed with prisoners from drug related crimes which takes away from their ability to help other citizens

Well there is your problem right there. It is not governments job to "help citizens". If you would people would take something called personal responsibility, you wouldn't need to ask government to unconstitutionally "help" you.

Hmm. What's weird is that when Thomas Jefferson, you've heard of him I think, wrote this little thing called the Declaration of Independence, he wrote this:

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

So let me translate that for you, since you clearly struggle with English comprehension. We are all given those rights, that's what the "endowed by their creator" line means. So we all have them. All of us. Then there's the "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men..." That's it, right there. Our government does have a duty to secure those rights, for everyone.

Further, the Constitution IS a living document. I know you Conservatives hate hearing that phrase, but it's true. Anyone who remembers their 8th grade civics classes now that. If you want proof of its status, you only need to look at all the amendments. Essentially, the Constitution is whatever the fuck the SCOTUS says it is. If SCOTUS decides, for instance, that the ACA's mandate is Constitutional, guess what? The Constitution now says it's okay for the Feds to require every citizen to have health care.

It's how prohibition was both started and ended. "Strict Constitutionalism" is ironically a practice in undermining the very reason the document exists. It was NEVER meant to be rigid. It was NEVER meant to stay as just one complete document and never changed or revised. Because the founders knew, unlike Strict Constitutionalists, that they didn't have all the answers, and could not see into the future, so the left room for chance.

Basically, I'm telling you you're wrong. But then again, all you have to do is read the preamble of the Constitution to know just how fucking dead wrong you are.

...form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

What exactly do you think insure domestic tranquility and promote general welfare means?

You really dont comprehend what you read do you ?