What's new
By:

what say you about obeezy's illegal actions concerning immigration

One Brow said:
Since that particular issue (when the Senate conducts no business, but a handful of members open each day to avoid technically being in recess, can the President none-the-less make a recess appointment in light of the de facto state of recess?) had never before been addressed in law or in court before, there was no way to know that it was illegal when the President performed the appointments.

I'm not surprised you couldn't find a single immigration law being violated by the President here. Not at all.
Click to expand...

When every member of the Supreme court can join in to state that you are being a Richard, chances are you were probably being a Richard and it wasn't an honest mistake.

As far as the immigration issue goes, Obama's general gameplan has always been to craft things so that people wouldn't really have standing to challenge him. In this case, however there is a conflict between his new sub-greencard classification and statute employment law. Everybody that has a payroll now has standing to sue. Additionally, this is a whole lot different than the "Dreamers" as public opinion is decidedly against what he has done here. Obama can decide not to pursue deportation for these people, he cannot unilaterally obviate employment law that was passed through congress and issue Obamacards. . .
 
framer said:
When every member of the Supreme court can join in to state that you are being a Richard, chances are you were probably being a Richard and it wasn't an honest mistake.

As far as the immigration issue goes, Obama's general gameplan has always been to craft things so that people wouldn't really have standing to challenge him. In this case, however there is a conflict between his new sub-greencard classification and statute employment law. Everybody that has a payroll now has standing to sue. Additionally, this is a whole lot different than the "Dreamers" as public opinion is decidedly against what he has done here. Obama can decide not to pursue deportation for these people, he cannot unilaterally obviate employment law that was passed through congress and issue Obamacards. . .
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with the court's decision, just your endorsement that it was obviously illegal.

Please go into more detail on this conflict. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I haven't seen any evidence you are correct on the law. You are, according to all the polling data, incorrect on public opinion; the majority do not oppose allowing family members of US citizens to remain.

How can you tell the difference between an "Obamacard" and any other work visa?
 
One Brow said:
I'm not arguing with the court's decision, just your endorsement that it was obviously illegal.

Please go into more detail on this conflict. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I haven't seen any evidence you are correct on the law. You are, according to all the polling data, incorrect on public opinion; the majority do not oppose allowing family members of US citizens to remain.

How can you tell the difference between an "Obamacard" and any other work visa?
Click to expand...

"Dreamers" and US citizens are not one and the same. Dreamers are non US citizen children brough over at a young age and raised here correct? And by "family member" they are most often refering to parents, their kids and the children's Gpas. Not cousins, aunts...correct?
 
Stoked said:
"Dreamers" and US citizens are not one and the same. Dreamers are non US citizen children brough over at a young age and raised here correct? And by "family member" they are most often refering to parents, their kids and the children's Gpas. Not cousins, aunts...correct?
Click to expand...

I agree with all of these points. To my knowledge, parents of Dreamers are not covered in this initiative (spouses and kids probably are). Have you seen differently?
 
framer said:
Here's one of the latest:

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ntments-illegal-unanimous-supreme-court-finds

A unanimous opinion by the Supreme court saying that Obama acted illegally good enough for your fragile sensitivities? Maybe they are all racist. . .
Click to expand...


Again, you're using the word illegal like the president is a criminal. What he's done was not follow procedure. I get that there's a narrative that Obama hates the constitution and wants to use his power to destroy America. But what he did was act in a way that was questionably not within his authority...then the supreme court answered that question.

I sure am glad the president didn't use his executive authority to execute the supreme court and impose his will despite them.

See what I'm getting at?

In other words...yawn.
 
Gameface said:
No. Not even close to open. There are far more people trying to get here than we're allowing in legally and I believe it is a difficult and long process. Funny thing is, many industries count on immigration from Mexico, Central and South America and that need is being met by illegal immigration. Make it easy for those people to enter the U.S. legally and work here and illegal immigration would consist mostly of criminals.
Click to expand...

still unemployment rate is higher since in like forever.
oooh wait them fat liberals dont want to work. because certain jobs are beneath them
 
DutchJazzer said:
still unemployment rate is higher since in like forever.
oooh wait them fat liberals dont want to work. because certain jobs are beneath them
Click to expand...

Huh? Unemployment is pretty low right now.
 
Nate505 said:
Why do that when you've self pledged to go away in a few months. Or you stop posting before you get to your goal.

Either way, a win for me (and other people with an above room temp IQ)
Click to expand...
because you're drunk with power.
and some people might think it is me just seeking attention and sooner or later i might come back because of jazz without corbain = EPIC.
 
DutchJazzer said:
yes he is a frickin criminal.
only thing keeping him form being impeached, is america is not ready to handle the riots and backlash impeaching the first black president will bring.
Click to expand...

You don't know a damn thing about the United States.
 
Gameface said:
Again, you're using the word illegal like the president is a criminal. What he's done was not follow procedure. I get that there's a narrative that Obama hates the constitution and wants to use his power to destroy America. But what he did was act in a way that was questionably not within his authority...then the supreme court answered that question.
Click to expand...

U.S. News and World Report used the term "illegal." If you have a beef, you can take it up with them.
 
One Brow said:
It's under 6%, and has been slowly, steadily dropping over the last eight years.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the labor Participation rate has dropped to a 36 year low. That is the REAL number people need to worry about. Things are so bad that people have quit trying. They may not talk about this stuff over at Slate, but it is kind of important. . .
 
framer said:
Meanwhile, the labor Participation rate has dropped to a 36 year low. That is the REAL number people need to worry about. Things are so bad that people have quit trying. They may not talk about this stuff over at Slate, but it is kind of important. . .
Click to expand...

This is only partially true because it's only part of the picture. The main reason labor participation is dropping is because people are aging out of the workforce in greater numbers. Boomers are retiring. Even if the economy continues to improve, even if it does so under a Republican president, labor-force participation is likely to continue to decline at least until 2024 when baby-boomers are finally aged out of the workforce. It's a demographic problem. Whatever party is out of power will try to make it a partisan issue.
 
One Brow said:
It's under 6%, and has been slowly, steadily dropping over the last eight years.
Click to expand...

Despite the significant decrease in the official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) unemployment rate, the real unemployment rate is over double that at 12.6%. This number reflects the government’s “U-6” report, which accounts for the full unemployment picture including those “marginally attached to the labor force,” plus those “employed part time for economic reasons.”
Click to expand...

741,000 discouraged workers – workers not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them – are included within the list of marginally attached people. Another 7.5 million were not considered unemployed because they were employed part-time for economic reasons. Those people are also called involuntary part-time workers – working part-time because their hours were cut back or because they were unable to secure a full-time job.
Click to expand...


so you believe government stats.


NICE!


SHEEP!


falling for that man's lies
 
framer said:
Meanwhile, the labor Participation rate has dropped to a 36 year low. That is the REAL number people need to worry about. Things are so bad that people have quit trying. They may not talk about this stuff over at Slate, but it is kind of important. . .
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know what they talk about over at Slate, and I do know about the labor Force Participation rate. Much of that has come from the4 increased acceptance of disability benefits and similar programs.

If the unemployment is under 6%, why have people given up? What's your explanation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top