Sensible Erection | Obama administration considers bypassing Congress to allow illegal immigrants to stay

Friday, 30 July 2010

Obama administration considers bypassing Congress to allow illegal immigrants to stay

quote [ The Obama administration, anticipating that Congress might not pass comprehensive immigration reform this year, is considering ways it could act without congressional approval to achieve many of the objectives of the initiative... ]

I guess "change" to Obamanians means we will no longer have "checks and balances"? Actual memo linked in extended.

Read the actual memo -- quite a lot of it is compassionate and reasonable. For example, giving deportees extra time to "straighten out their affairs". Some is not -- it's too lenient.

Memo: http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/memo-on-alternatives-to-comprehensive-immigration-reform

I can see the point to this... "That bill would provide a potential path to citizenship for qualifying young people who complete a college degree or two years of military service." ... but the rest? And whatever happened to guarding the border and stricter sanctions for those who employ illegals?

[politics] [by maryyugo@5:10pmGMT] [-10 Troll]

Comments

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:19pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Given demographic predictions, it's also a brilliant political move.

maryyugo said @ 5:30pm GMT on 30th Jul
Unfortunately true.

sanepride said @ 5:36pm GMT on 30th Jul
And the alternative is....round up and deport them all?

You understand that not only is this logistically impossible, but will cause massive economic disruption?

incpenners said @ 7:44pm GMT on 30th Jul
You don't have to deport them.

In the weeks leading up to the AZ law taking effect, they left on their own.

Amazing, really.

sanepride said @ 7:52pm GMT on 30th Jul
Also amazing that quite a few legal, taxpaying citizens who happen to look like people who might be illegal have chosen to leave as well.
The question is whether this exodus is actually a good thing for Arizona.

incpenners said @ 10:14pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
I would suggest that the taxpayers who pay for the services that the illegals were utilizing- for free- would agree that it is a good thing

benjamander said @ 10:28pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Illegals don't file for tax refunds.

sanepride said @ 10:34pm GMT on 30th Jul
Just fyi - illegals do pay taxes.

maryyugo said @ 2:01am GMT on 31st Jul
Oh crappola. That's a long tire line of bullpucky. Some illegals do pay taxes and some don't file tax returns because they use phony social security numbers. But the overwhelming majority work under the table for low wages on which they pay no tax, no health or unemployment insurance and nothing that goes to infrastructure which they use liberally by churning out anchor babies like there was no tomorrow. That's the reality of many poor people, not just illegal immigrants. They use way more than they pay for. Problem is, they should be draining Mexico's resources, not the US and not those of the state they live in illegally.

Milkman666 said @ 5:42am GMT on 31st Jul
They should declare amnesty, that way they can at least apply for jobs that are not payed solely by a cash basis. Whatever savings they have stuffed in the mattress can then be put into the banks, or perhaps even be used to purchase homes thereby bringing up property values. If they aren't made to feel like outsiders they probably won't be so shy talking to the police and perhaps bring the crime rate even further down. The great part is all those children will help offset the baby boomer burden that will arrive when they start retiring, it will save medicare and social security.

We should really get rid of illegals, their undocumented status does all of us a disservice by creating an underclass right in our backyard that is exploited for cheap labor and are preyed upon. We should give them all citizenship. Poof! Overnight no more illegal aliens.

EPT said @ 6:07am GMT on 31st Jul
We have a user here - I forget the name - who has worked in immigration law in the US for over a decade and stated that not only have they never heard the term 'anchor baby' before seeing it on SE, it's also not a legal loophole - have a baby on US soil, that baby might be a citizen, but the parents will still get deported. The baby can stay or go, and usually goes with the parent.

maryyugo said @ 6:22am GMT on 31st Jul
If they never heard the term, they're morons. There's a whole elaborate wiki entry about it and Google returns 71,000 items when the words are placed in quotes (so you're not searching for anchors OR babies or the words separated in some way). So much for that nonsense.

Having said that, deporting parents and leaving the children here is unconscionable. Every effort should be made to delay deportation and provide some funding so the children can leave with the parents. It has to be humane but the parents can't stay if illegal. If they do, it's just another incentive to pop out more children, many of whom will be a burden on the host country.

As for milkman666's proposal, it's ridiculous. It's the same as saying any third world country who can figure out how can dump any poor, uneducated, sick, resourceless, criminal, whatever type of people they want on the US without limit. That's trying to bring the US standard of living down to Africa's. It's ridiculous and Americans, including especially naturalized, hard working and taxpaying Hispanics hate the idea.

Meanwhile, people who have resources and education and can contribute to this country as well as those who are legitimate political refugees at risk for their lives are welcome to apply for **legal** immigration as they have always been able to do.

Milkman666 said @ 7:36am GMT on 31st Jul
The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus, 1883

There is this belief that the US is meritocratic society, that if you work hard you will receive your just deserts. So it doesn't matter what you were back home in your corrupt motherland with its cartels, pogroms,and unstable government, in America all people have a chance to succeed. Its a little idealist i know.

Your are woefully ignorant of the nature of the U.S. and how it has leveraged people that other nations have considered undesirable into a force for progress.

zarathustra said @ 8:07am GMT on 31st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Sorry Mary, I never heard the term because it is not used in immigration circles, only by anti immigrant idiots with no knowledge of how the system works. A child does not create any immigration benefits for the parent until they become adults and can apply for visas for their parents. In the rare case someone qualifies for Cancellation of Removal extreme hardship cause to a US citizen child can be considered, but I have yet to see a judge that would consider having to move to Mexico to be extreme hardship unless the child has serious medical issues. Even in such cases, the alien has to be here for 10 years before they even qualify for cancellation and the criteria is pretty stringent ( though the memo you refer to seems to want to return it to the pre IRAIRA days.

The fact that someone in the field doesn't listen to Glen Beck, doesn't make them a moron. One the other hand, someone who thinks that an immigrant is looking 20 years ahead or hoping they will have a sick citizen child is a fool. The most extra time I have ever seen an alien get on the basis of a citizen child was a three month extension to voluntary departure so that the child could finish the school year.

You are talking out of your ass.

ring riot said @ 7:14am GMT on 2nd Aug
Mary, the term was COINED by the white supremacist movement.

Not to mention, illegal immigration has DECREASED and is at the lowest its been since the 70's.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

structured_spirits said @ 2:47pm GMT on 31st Jul
They still pay sales tax, I guess it depends on where you live to some extent, but I think sales tax is where the local and state government get the majority of their funds, along with auto registration and ticketing, not income tax. Illegals more than pay their share by most reasonable reckoning. Now that's not to say that the locals aren't completely within their rights to bitch about it and try to get local law enforcement to do their job and have illegals deported, I just think they're total shits for doing so, and the government's never gonna do it cause they know they're making money by having them stay. It's the government trying to steal the average person's money, not illegals, if they had any sense, the teaparty would be embracing illegals to help them in their fight against big government, if that is truly who they consider their enemy. I suspect that for most of them though the matter does really start and end with fear of other cultures, the spanish-speaking, roman catholic illegals, and the secret muslim president.

flat_michael said @ 9:43pm GMT on 30th Jul
all of them left.

according to incpenners.

amazing, really.

Trorbes said @ 12:48am GMT on 31st Jul
Back to their home countries, or to other, less fascist states?

dainbramage said @ 9:06pm GMT on 30th Jul
I'm sorry legal immigrants and naturalized citizens may be inconvenienced. I'm glad they jumped through to hoops and got here. The flood of illegals, on the other hand, has pretty much screwed up where I live and it wouldn't bother me a bit if they were gone. Last year local taxpayers footed the 3 million dollar medical care bill for illegals who were sick, injured or had babies. $549,000 went to provide local court translation services. We've had TB show up in the kids of illegals here almost monthly, requiring schools students to put up with TB tine tests.

Our jaillers use 287(g) when the Feds allow it. I'd prefer to declare those who've run afoul of the law persona non grata and drop them at the nearest consulate or embassy of their home country for them to deal with.

Yes, Mexico and Central America are our largest soure of illegal immigrants, but together Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe do a pretty good job of keeping our police and jailers busy with their illegals too.

We got along just fine before the influx. You want 'em, you take 'em. You'll find that many are illegal because the US had good reason to exclude them.

Krutz said @ 10:03pm GMT on 30th Jul
Still, that's no reason for friends of the AZ governor to not make money off of the whole thing:

maryyugo said @ 1:58am GMT on 31st Jul
I don't know where you live but that's chump change compared to California where illegals clog the schools, jail, courts, hospitals, free clinics, freeways, and labor markets.

ring riot said @ 7:15am GMT on 2nd Aug
Um. You realize that according to California's OWN studies that illegal immigrants put more into the economy than they take out, right?

willrogers said @ 6:00am GMT on 31st Jul
You're just repeating hte same xenophobic bullshit that has gone on since the colonization of North America.

The people in power always target the latest influx of immigrants as the source of America's ills rather than they themselves who secretly are profiting from regular Americans.

It happened to the Germans, Irish, Chinese, Italians, Mexicans, Germans, Jews, Japanese, Russians, Mexicans (again), Cubans, Mexicans (third time), Central Americans, and now it's just Latinos in general.

It's all just a bunch of racist scapegoating so that people don't realize that it's the actions of corporations and the rich status quo that are actually hurting them.

And no, generally, there isn't a legitimate reason to exclude these people. The arguments vary from them being poor to being diseased to being immoral to being drug dealers and other assorted criminals to taking our jobs to being welfare queens, etc. These are the same arguments used by xenophobic Americans for centuries, but what is interesting is that every immigrant groups has been pretty much the same; poor people fleeing poverty in their home nations for a better life in the US. It's just that many American citizens would like to shut the door behind them once they and their families are in the country.

Current immigration laws are designed to allow highly educated and skilled people to come from other countries but to exclude other people. This creates a brain drain on other nations and makes their situations even worse.

As for your specific anecdotes, if there weren't these draconian immigration laws and the constant threat of deportation, many of those costs would, at the very least, be reduced. If people didn't fear deportation, they could demand a fair wage, reducing their dependence on social services (if they even get them).

As for translation services, there isn't much data on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the current crop of immigrants wasn't any less fluent in English than any previous group. I'm pretty sure my great grandparents had as tenuous a grasp on English as any illegal in Phoenix. Also, those people don't have to be illegal to require translation services, as there isn't an English proficiency requirement to legally be in the US.

The overall point is that you are being just as xenophobic as Americans have been in the past, but you are hiding behind other issues (which are exacerbated by the immigration laws) to make it seem like you aren't being prejudiced and selective against these people. They are absolutely no different from your relatives that first came to the US and established your family here, but you are somehow trying to claim that you and yours are somehow more American than them. As long as they aren't terrorists or violent criminals, these people shouldn't be subject to any more restrictions than your family had getting into the US.

maryyugo said @ 6:29am GMT on 31st Jul
This is not and has never been about LEGAL immigrants as so called xenophobic reaction has been in the place. It's about corrupt hell pits like Mexico where corruption and drug trafficking keep the people poor and without opportunity, dumping uneducated and often sick people by the millions into the United States so US tax payers can support their health care, education, and infrastructure. Fuck that. It's not xenophobia. I could care less about which sort of races and colors are allowed to immigrate to the US through the legal process. Legal immigrants must prove that they won't be a burden to the host country. They don't have to pass tests of race or ethnic origin. In other words, you're full of shit.

As for the corporations and the rich victimizing ordinary citizens, some do, some don't. Some rich and corporations are the most terrible crooks, conmen, and violent thieves. Others are great philanthropists. In fact, your statement is akin to xenophobia against companies and people who have accomplished something and have been rewarded for it. Fuck that.

maryyugo said @ 6:30am GMT on 31st Jul
"been in the place" should've been "been in the past"

willrogers said @ 7:03am GMT on 31st Jul [Score:1 Informative]
Here's a trick to understanding what I was talking about instead of just repeating the same xenophobic garbage I spent paragraphs debunking:
substitute the Irish for Mexicans in your paragraph.

What you are saying is the same fucking bullshit that Americans said when the Irish began immigrating en masse in the 1840s.

The Irish were just as poor and diseased (which is to say, neither are very diseased and it is just a talking point from xenophobes like Lou Dobbs with little grounding in reality) as these immigrants today.

And just because our immigration laws don't specifically say "spics keep out" doesn't mean that it isn't the consequence of those policies or even the intent. The laws may seem colorblind but they are actually designed to allow immigration from the mostly white developed nations and to keep out the poor brown and black people who are nearly identical to the mostly poor immigrants that have made up most of our immigrants throughout our history as a nation.

Having immigration policies that restrict immigration based on skills or education is very similar to restricting voting with literacy tests. Sure, it seems like a colorblind test that everyone will have to pass, but if it is really meant to selectively exclude certain groups of people because they are statistically different in this regard, then it is still a racist policy.

Just because you don't say "spic" or "nigger" doesn't mean you aren't a racist. Similarly, just because you say "I concerned about immigrants being parasites on our nation" doesn't mean you aren't a xenophobe or a racist. It's called dog whistle racism.

You and other xenophobes just want to slam the door shut and change the rules for current new immigrants even though they are just like your relatives that came to this country decades or centuries ago. They were poor and uneducated but they worked hard to make their lives better, but you are denying these same opportunities to these new immigrants even though they are just as kind and hard working. It's a hypocritical and unfair double standard.

As for this:
" In fact, your statement is akin to xenophobia against companies and people who have accomplished something and have been rewarded for it. Fuck that. "

Fuck you for not knowing the difference between classism and racism/xenophobia. I can reel off a litany of evidence on how the rich are screwing the middle and lower classes of Americans and how corporations help them do it, but that would take for fucking ever and has pretty much been covered by a variety of recent SE entries, like these:

http://sensibleerection.com/entry.php/81196
(notes that the rich want to make stronger filal duty laws to lower their tax burden and government interference)

http://sensibleerection.com/entry.php/81189
(Rich fucks like Tony Hayward get golden parachutes for fucking up but regular people fall into poverty and/or go to prison for fucking up)

http://sensibleerection.com/entry.php/81124
(Regular people that clean up after the Exxon Valdez die but Exxon gets its judgment reduced and goes on to be ridiculously profitable)

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-wealth-inequality-2010-7
(Or this one about obscene wealth inequity)

And just because not all corporations push for these things that hurt Americans and benefit themselves doesn't mean that the other companies are guiltless. They benefit from the actions of the directly malicious and negligent and do nothing to fix the situation because it would hurt their profits.

It's just like whites in the Jim Crowe South. Sure, not all whites were racist back then, but most weren't fighting for integration and civil rights. They sat back and benefited from white privilege and black discrimination and washed their hands of the whole business simply because they weren't actively assaulting or murdering black people.

People are suffering and apathy just makes it worse and last longer.

maryyugo said @ 12:17am GMT on 1st Aug
People are indeed suffering and moving tons of suffering people to the US is only going to make more suffering in the US which has plenty of its own already.

ring riot said @ 3:06am GMT on 3rd Aug
Illegal immigrants CONTRIBUTE to the economy, mary. Most studies in fact show that they put more INTO the economy than take from it. But let me guess, you'll give me stats from FAIR, the designated hate group, right?

Milkman666 said @ 7:16am GMT on 31st Jul
After NAFTA passed mexican farmers couldn't compete with american agribusiness combines. Mechanized and federally subzidized farms dumped goods on the mexican market and priced out anything that could be locally grown by the people there. So american companies can now exploit a new marketplace while 2 million mexican corn farmers have to find a new line of work.

So what are your options? Go to America, get a job, and leverage the power of the dollar to feed your family even if your working below minimum wage. Or you can grow a profitable crop for export into the U.S. Something their farmers cant or wont grow...weed? Oh my.

willrogers said @ 7:27am GMT on 31st Jul
And then, because the American farmers undercut Mexican farmers and made many of them go out of business, Mexicans became reliant on American crops, especially corn.

This caused huge problems once corn ethanol fuel became popular, which caused corn prices to skyrocket and drove Mexicans even further into poverty.

Again, the rich fuck everyone else and then complain about their taxes and government regulations, so the government become even more pro-rich and pro-business. The rich get richer and the poor get even fucking poorer and die.

maryyugo said @ 12:18am GMT on 1st Aug
Once the prices went up, tell me again what stops Mexican farms from growing corn? That they're out of the habit perhaps?

Milkman666 said @ 12:44am GMT on 1st Aug
I know right. I mean once they left their hibernating state a.k.a. "the long siesta" it should have been easy to restart production overnight. Its as if in the interim between being bankrupted and then the price spike they lost their farms and found other methods of earning money. Like in working in another country.

ring riot said @ 8:12am GMT on 2nd Aug
If you're going to constantly demonize people from other countries, mary, the least you can do is LEARN SPEAK AND UNDERSTAND ENGLISH, which is YOUR OWN LANGUAGE.

You can't be xenophobic against "companies".

Xenophobia is the "uncontrollable fear of foreigners". The word consists of two parts: xeno (meaning "guest, stranger, foreigner") and phobia, ("fear, horror or aversion, especially if morbid").

Definition: A deep antipathy toward foreigners.

So unless the "companies" you mention are owned entirely by foreigners, you should probably head back to English 101.

uxbboy said @ 5:36pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/07/26/100726taco_talk_finnegan

sanepride said @ 5:47pm GMT on 30th Jul
What? Sound, logical thinking on immigration and borders?

Heretics!

vintuk said @ 5:43pm GMT on 30th Jul
+1 for the thumb alone

Krutz said @ 5:49pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Funny]
That's not his thumb.

sanepride said @ 6:00pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:3 Insightful]
-1 for your typically ridiculous conclusion that the Obama administration is somehow subverting the balance of power.

The executive branch happens to have a wide regulatory authority. Obama was elected by a significant majority, with the expectation that he would govern. That ability to govern has been obstructed at every turn by a minority party, misusing parliamentary procedure to thwart the legitimate authority of the executive branch - purely for political gain. If the administration has the legal option to exercise that regulatory authority to thwart that obstructionism and actually govern, how is that not a legitimate use of checks and balances? If he exceeds his Constitutional powers, we do have that third branch to step in.

Enough already with this idiotic nonsense about Obama ruling by dictate.

sanepride said @ 6:55pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:3 Insightful]
...to which I will gratuitously add:

Isn't there just a little hypocrisy in the same people who stood silent or even applauded loudly when Congress happily ceded its authority to the Bush administration, which then went on to deceive the same Congress, run up massive deficits, wage and mismanage two wars, spy on its citizens, detain and torture people without due process, make plenty of recess appointments and enormously expand government and executive power - who now accuse the Obama administration of tyranny and abuse of power - for simply trying to address some of the real problems the Bush regime either created or left unresolved?

dietcoke said @ 8:18pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:-5 WTF]
Grow up,he was elected because he is black , that is the ONLY reason.

I am glad we have a person of color finally, just wish it was a person of color that was an american, hopefully next time.

Krutz said @ 8:22pm GMT on 30th Jul
You're so right. The only reason people I know voted for Obama was because that honkey we had in the White House for the previous 8 years sure fucked everything up. I don't think this nation will ever elect a cracker again, do you?

Ankylosaur said @ 8:39pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
Now when you say he isn't an American, do you mean you believe the insane conspiracy theory he was born in Kenya or do you mean you want a Native American president?

theolypse said @ 9:09pm GMT on 30th Jul
I think she means she's actually a sociology experiment. It seems too sincere to be trolling for fun, and too persistent in the face of universal scorn to be genuine.

clumsy_juggler said @ 9:14pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:-5]
You mean a citizen of the USA not American. If you are going to argue about definitions make sure to use correct terminology to state your case.

theolypse said @ 9:22pm GMT on 30th Jul
I'm not sure what badger meant, but you're not pretending that those terms are, in common use, meaningfully distinct, are you?

sanepride said @ 9:59pm GMT on 30th Jul
Wait - what?

He was elected because he is black?
You're saying that the majority of voters elected Obama as some sort of gesture of popular affirmative action?

balzac said @ 11:54pm GMT on 30th Jul
The same reason everyone voted for president Sharpton in 2004.

O WAIT.

Krutz said @ 12:06am GMT on 31st Jul
Hey, it worked for President Alan Keyes, right?

sanepride said @ 1:40am GMT on 31st Jul
Don't forget that trailblazer President Jesse Jackson.

f00m@nB@r said @ 2:46pm GMT on 1st Aug
Not to forget the small inroads made by VP Malcolm X.

willrogers said @ 7:55am GMT on 31st Jul
But what is more racist, saying Obama was only elected because he is black or that he isn't a US citizen?

Both are incredibly racist so it's kind of hard to tell which is worse.

ring riot said @ 7:43am GMT on 2nd Aug
Both fall from the same rotten tree of Ignorance.

ring riot said @ 7:42am GMT on 2nd Aug
That's one of my favorite memes from the Wrong Wing. Apparently Obama received more votes than any president in the history of the United States...because of "white guilt". lol You have to remember that in Opposite Land (where the wrong wingers dwell), it's white people who are the oppressed minority, 600,000 private sector jobs created since January (a full third of the amount of jobs Bush created in a full eight years) is a "jobless recovery", and pointing out racism being perpetrated by whites is not only "playing the race card", but "racist". You see, to the wrong wingers (whose approval right now is at 26% by the way), if you were to, say, come upon a bunch of white guys hanging a black man from a tree, and you were tell them to stop doing it - they'd say that you were "playing the race card" by criticizing them for doing it. As I'm sure you know, every time there's an election, Republicans start this bullshit up - the "Southern Strategy" - basically they do everything they can to make white people think that minorities are trying to "get them" - it's been particularly insane since a black man was elected president. They're not even hiding it anymore. Fox Nation has basically become Aryan Nation.

Todomanna said @ 12:06am GMT on 31st Jul [Score:-5]
Obama is black?!

profetscott said @ 8:55pm GMT on 30th Jul
I will go one step further. If you research immigration in the US, you will find that it is all covered under the executive branch. True, they have to adhere to the "law", but much of what they do is at the discretion of the president. Even more than that is when a person with or without a visa applies to enter the US(by standing in a line at the frontier or airport or whatever) . It is up to the discretion of the imm. agent whether or not the person is admitted and for how long. I imagine if you are not happy with the agents decision, you can bitch it to his boss, or wait in line till the shift changes or something, but I know of many persons that have gone to enter the US, visa from the US consolate in hand(at an expense) and been turned back because the agent at the gate did not like their looks or something. If congress doesn't like the way the executive branch is handling immigration matters, they have the check of cutting operating funds.

maryyugo said @ 1:55am GMT on 31st Jul
Good idea.

maryyugo said @ 1:56am GMT on 31st Jul
Pure hypocrisy. Bush grossly abused the executive and Obama if anything is worse. And he's a hypocrite as well.

sanepride said @ 4:01pm GMT on 31st Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
Explain exactly how Obama is worse. Or a hypocrite.

Are you even aware of the deliberate, orchestrated strategy from within the office of the VP to consolidate power within the executive branch during the Bush years? This is well documented and remains Cheney's most persistent mission and enduring legacy. Your view of history is as skewed and fogged as your perceptions of current events.

ring riot said @ 7:34am GMT on 2nd Aug
Mary doesn't follow things very closely. You can tell from her comments that she gets all of her news from the Wrong Wing's echo chamber for one simple reason: they're always wrong.

ring riot said @ 7:08am GMT on 2nd Aug
Uh...patently, unequivocally and objectively false. But I wouldn't expect you to say anything that isn't directly quoted from Oppositeland.

foobar said @ 6:20pm GMT on 30th Jul
Remember that Canada has accepted American refugees fleeing north on several occasions. You have a moral obligation to accept the same from your neighbours.

sanepride said @ 6:45pm GMT on 30th Jul
Apparently the moral obligation doesn't extend to brown-skinned Spanish-speakers.

maryyugo said @ 6:31am GMT on 31st Jul
Bullshit as usual. The moral obligation doesn't extend to ILLEGAL immigrants, that's all.

theolypse said @ 2:18pm GMT on 31st Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
The law is immoral, so the obligation does.

theolypse said @ 8:15pm GMT on 30th Jul
HahahahahahamoralityinAmericanpoliticsha

foobar said @ 8:24pm GMT on 30th Jul
:(

symmetrian said @ 7:07pm GMT on 30th Jul

Todomanna said @ 7:10pm GMT on 30th Jul
I'm still not gonna watch this video, I don't care how many times it's posted.

theolypse said @ 8:16pm GMT on 30th Jul
If I wouldn't look at 'im when he was screamin' and wailin', I dunno what makes 'im think I'll look now.

cool_drool said @ 7:13pm GMT on 30th Jul
I think all Americans should serve their country for a 2 - 4 year term after high school, with a deferment until after college if they chose to go there first.

If you don't serve, you don't get to vote. Starship Troopers! Yell Yea! Anyone who wants to come to America and get citizenship just needs to sign up, do their term, and presto! Insta-Cen.

Maybe 2 year terms get to vote for house reps (state and federal) and in local, up to but not including governor, and the 4 year peoples get to vote in house senate (state and local) and up to and including president / governor elections.

I'm getting a boner now.

blackpsypher said @ 7:32pm GMT on 30th Jul
Ya know who else has mandatory military service? SOCIALISTS!! It's a socialist...everyone quick, get him!!

sanepride said @ 7:38pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
Get him yourself. If everyone gets him - well that's socialist.

King of the Hill said @ 1:54am GMT on 31st Jul
And just like a socialist program... There won't be enough of him to go around. Just saying :P

willrogers said @ 7:04am GMT on 31st Jul
Yeah, except for things like Social Security which actually generates a profit and would be self-financing indefinitely if politicians didn't rob it to pay for other bullshit like military expenditures or tax cuts for the rich.

Most stuff would actually be paid for if the rich and corporations didn't weasel their way out of paying their fair share of taxes.

King of the Hill said @ 10:16pm GMT on 31st Jul
Except you miss the point of SS to begin with. It is a tax. It was from day one designed to raise revenue not for social security, but for government spending. They knew the surpluses it would generate.

ring riot said @ 7:20am GMT on 2nd Aug
Um. Yeah - and it WORKS - and guess who benefits? The COUNTRY as well as the PEOPLE who GET THE BENEFITS.

But I guess you'll be denying your Social Security benefits when you reach retirement age, right?

Oh, PLEASE say "it's going broke" - I can't wait to prove you wrong with actual facts and figures that I have waiting here...

Let me guess - you also want the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% in the nation to stay the way they are. Now - as that will ad a TRILLION DOLLARS to the deficit - you know - the deficit that by and large the tax cuts originally CREATED - why don't you tell us again that you're worried about the deficit? lol

cb361 said @ 8:01pm GMT on 30th Jul
National Service? Pah!

theolypse said @ 8:18pm GMT on 30th Jul
I think all persons should stop thinking in terms of nationality, and I will laugh in the face of anyone who tries to draft me by leaning on some imaginary sense of duty to a power structure I was, by pure chance, born into.

willrogers said @ 9:27pm GMT on 30th Jul
Exactly., but what makes it even worse is that they try to pretend that it is somehow different from other nations doing the same thing.

They act as if they have some kind of moral authority and are better than those they are fighting and that the people that are pressured or conscripted into service to fight for that enemy are somehow different or even evil for doing so.

I'm not a communist but I think Marx had a pretty good point about the rich and powerful using nationality and other allegiances (race, religion, etc.) to pit people against one another instead of working together against the rich and powerful who are usually the cause of most problems.

dietcoke said @ 8:20pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:-1 Boring]
SO you would deport physically handicapped people who cannot serve?
How pathetic can u be?
Or would u rather just kill any babies born with defects?

Krutz said @ 8:24pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:2 Underrated]
It's easier than denying them health care, and the GOP would finally get to revoke the ADA like they've been trying to do for years.

And you discount the potential for enlisting the disabled and mounting cyber-weapons on any missing limbs or using their brains in battle-chassis endoskeletons like the T-800. Show some initiative!

f00m@nB@r said @ 7:58pm GMT on 30th Jul
BTW, Helen Thomas's front-and-center former seat is up for grabs. Contenders are Fox News and NPR.

http://pol.moveon.org/nprvsfox/?rc=fb.2

ring riot said @ 7:22am GMT on 2nd Aug
The Associated Press got her seat.

Fox News = FAIL.

(of course, they got the Associated Press's old front row seat, so....)

sanepride said @ 8:02pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) gets just a little worked up over Republican procedure to block health care bill for 9/11 responders:

Ankylosaur said @ 8:46pm GMT on 30th Jul
That poor microphone. What did it ever do to anyone?

gunthar said @ 9:43pm GMT on 30th Jul
that is a hot blooded politician. maybe he should be the hot-headed character in a super hero show.

sanepride said @ 10:09pm GMT on 30th Jul
Interesting trivia:

Weiner and Jon Stewart were roomies after their college years.

swiggy said @ 2:51am GMT on 31st Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
I. FUCKING. LOVE. THIS. GUY.

metternich said @ 9:17pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
I liked you better when you posted porn.

maryyugo said @ 1:54am GMT on 31st Jul
This place is leaning so far to the left, it's threatening to capsize.

Krutz said @ 3:41am GMT on 31st Jul
To be the left of you isn't that difficult.

maryyugo said @ 4:01am GMT on 31st Jul
Depends on the subject, I guess. I'm not oriented left or right. I respond to specific issues in ways that make sense to me. About drugs for example, I am reasonably liberal and in favor of some legalization. About immigrants, I live in a state being dragged down into fiscal oblivion by them so I am not quite so friendly. On the other hand, I have no problem with any legal immigration under the current rules. I don't know what's left or right of that. It's more about the law being pretty fair and people grossly and abundantly violating it and Obama's government doing nothing at all to stop it. By the way, neither did Bush's.

Krutz said @ 5:55am GMT on 31st Jul
And yet you do odd things like adhere to the Newt Gingrich document that calls for referring to not-Republicans as the "Democrat Party." You actively appear to hate anyone who is poor (see the "hippies and vaccines" subject from another thread) and have odd ideas about how the environment is, at least for human survivability, indestructible no matter what we do to it.

maryyugo said @ 6:35am GMT on 31st Jul
I think Newt Ginrich is one of the most repulsive human beings in existence and I don't give two flying fucks what you call the democrats, democratic party, or whatever. I don't hate the poor unless they blame their poverty on me and expect me to provide an instant fix by giving them money outside of normal taxation and voluntary charity. I have no strange ideas about the environment. I just don't think the case for carbon dioxide as the main cause of global warming has been well made and I don't care for the ethics and methods of some of the people who were at the forefront of making that case. I'm sure you're welcome to continue misinterpreting my posts to you heart's content but maybe it'd be more fair if you'd read them carefully and if they're unclear you'd ask.

willrogers said @ 6:40am GMT on 31st Jul
That "climategate" bullshit is total propaganda by rightwingers and anyone with training in climatology and/or statistics would be able to tell you that all of the hype is from simple misunderstanding of technical jargon.

Just because someone uses the words "trick" and "hide" does not necessarily mean anything nefarious is going on. Words have meanings in context and they can change depending on the context.

sanepride said @ 5:35pm GMT on 31st Jul [Score:1 Interesting]
Interesting. I've been following some of Newt's recent statements regarding such issues as Obama's use of executive power, climate change policy, Iran, and the so-called ground zero mosque.
And I must say, despite the low esteem you have for the man, your views are nearly identical to his.

ring riot said @ 7:12am GMT on 2nd Aug
Nobody "misinterprets" your posts, mary. You're racism is passive-aggressive. Your ignorance of the issues you speak about is staggering. Taken together, it's a wonder you can make it out of the house without walking into a wall.

ring riot said @ 8:14am GMT on 2nd Aug
edit: your racism.

willrogers said @ 6:01am GMT on 31st Jul [Score:3 Insightful]
Reality has a liberal bias.

ring riot said @ 7:28am GMT on 2nd Aug
That's because many of us here are actually INTELLIGENT.

madpride said @ 4:49am GMT on 31st Jul

Krutz said @ 5:56am GMT on 31st Jul
Wow. That's got to be one of the stealthiest video players ever. Until I noticed the little arrow in the corner, I was wondering what was so special about this JPEG you'd posted.