An Amazing Video (King and the Dreamers Edition)
Legality and justice are not always in synch.
This interchange underscores a core part of the current debate that truly amazes and saddens me: that one can look at a person who has spent their life from age 5 to at least 22 in the US< living as an American (the woman in question is a college graduate) and pretend like it really would be a good and just idea to send such a person from the country that is undeniably their home to a country that clearly is not.
Home is not just about where one was born—often far from it in fact.
The complexity and real human costs of reducing a lifetime to a simplistic pronouncement about immigration law is nauseating.
I understand, on an intellectual level, the appeal of the alleged justice of the simple formulation that the law must be followed or that illegal behavior should never be rewarded. However, since laws are malleable and subject to reconsideration the notion of eternal fealty to a given law simply because it is a law is asinine.
And the issue goes beyond simplistic legality to one of actual justice: we as a country have to consider how just it would be to essentially take away all the constituent elements of a person’s life and deposit them in a foreign land (to them, even if not so to the law) because of someone else’s actions.
Consider how much of one’s life and identity is wrapped up in the daily familiarity of one’s surroundings: one’s favorite restaurant or café, and all of the little things that make up one’s day. Consider how much we identity with place (whether it be local customs, vocabulary, or sports teams). Anyone who has ever moved, especially to a very different place than one’s starting spot (say from rural Alabama to Los Angeles) or, even more potently, lived abroad, knows exactly what I am talking about.
And, of course, there is the even more profound fact that all of the people in one’s life live, oddly enough, in the same place one does as well (for the most part). The fact that one might have some cousins in the old country does not make up for what one might be forced to leave behind.
All of the above has to be understood in the context, again, of a child being brought to the US as a very young child and then doing what children do: grow up. And no child thinks about things like borders or immigration law. They just know what they know in the live that surrounds them. This should matter, especially if the child in question grows up to be a responsible, law-abiding adult.
When you consider King is appealing to the Republican base you can’t be that surprised.
How many people below the age of 18 live in a country that has a lower per capita income than Mexico? How many of that group would Erika Andiola keep out of the U.S. If the standard of living in the U.S. is reduced to the same level as Mexico or Central American, will Ms. Andiola head back to where the cousins live or will she stick it out in the U.S.? How much more taxes should American citizens have to pay so that Ms. Andiola can live in the U.S.?
Americans should really be scared of the people who want to control immigration to the U.S. by reducing the quality of life to the equivalent of Mexico or Central American. Also, Americans should be wary of people who want open borders and unlimited immigration because it is a fashionable thing to support.
@superdestroyer:
.
Good morning, sd.
That is a stupid thing to say, even for you. You have ZERO empirical evidence that anyone wants to reduce the quality of life in the U.S. Stop uttering nonsense and THINK.
@superdestroyer:
Ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, Ring ring, ring ring, ring ring, ring ring….
I don’t think anyone is home Real World.
@dennis:
If the U.S. has open borders and unlimited immigration, then the only thing that will limited immigration to the U.S. is that their is no economic incentives for the immigrants to come to the U.S. Many people has pointed out that net immigration the last few years has been zero because the economy has been so bad and there is no economic incentives to draw people to the U.S.
However, if the U.S. begins to offer free healthcare to illegal aliens, free college tuition, and other entitlements, then the illegal aliens will continue to come to the U.S. for the free stuff. Also, I enjoy pointing out that progressives support for open borders and unlimited immigration runs counter to thier panic about the environment. If progressives have to choose between lower the greenhouse gas emissions of the U.S. or allowing in more people like Ms. Andiola, it seems that progressives want more automatic Democratic Party voters rather than a smaller environmental footprint. Of course, this one policy decisions tells everyone what they really need to know about progressives.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Once again, if Ms. Andiola is allowed to stay in the U.S. and put on a fast track to citizenship, then does she support increased border enforcement and limiting illegal immigration in the future or does she support open borders and the free movement of people between her native country and the U.S. Unless Ms. Andiola and every other support of comprehensive immigration reform answer that question, there is no point is really discussing immigration reform.
Most people have no idea what this is like, how terrifying it can become, especially in a foreign country where the “rules” of society are completely different.
Steve, you might want to reconsider that in light of SD’s posts. He considers King’s statements to be trenchant analysis and indeed the gospel truth and your criticisms of King’s position to be a traitorious betrayal of your race and class.
You should understand that most of the Republican base agrees with King and SD. This doesn’t mean that King is correct: far from it. But it does explain why it is in King’s political self interest to make such statements (which I think you already know…)
@superdestroyer:
Why do you keep spouting lies?
Can you really be so lacking in self-awareness?
Let me help you. You are lying to yourself in order to rationalize your abject bigotry.
If your prejudices require you to lie to yourself…then they clearly are not grounded in reality. In other words…you are delusional.
Wander off and think about that for a while.
Then get back to us.
@superdestroyer: Exactly what influential politician is supporting full and open immigration, open borders and free healthcare and tuition to undocumented immigrants? Please link to just one. (And I don’t mean some left wing blogger; I mean someone with the power to actually influence policy.)
@superdestroyer:
I totally agree with you about all these Irish scum coming over and ruining this country. I’m sorry, I seem to be in the wrong century. You can understand, I’m sure, as you use the same arguments as they did in the late 1800s. Perhaps you’re in the wrong century too?
@mantis: I have an ethnic last name that is pronounced nothing like it is back in the old country. My father and his siblings changed the way they said it because they wanted to sound more American when there was such bigotry against people like them. Thank goodness we finally did something about those Italians!
@C. Clavin:
Who would Ms. Andiola keep out of the U.S.? If moving here is a great deal for herself and her family, then it would be a great deal for the 100 million plus people who live in the third world who also want to come to the U.S. Why can progressives answer the simpliest of question and tell everyone who they would keep out of the U.S.? Because if everyone who makes it across the border is allowed to stay, then the de facto policy of the U.S. is open borders and unlimited immigration. If everyone is a sad story if allowed to stay, then the policy of the U.S. is the free movement of people across the border.
You can scream racism all you want but at least have the courage to say who should be kept out of the U.S.
@mantis:
You do realize that the policy of the U.S. from around 1910 to 1965 was very limited immigration. I think the Irish, the Italians, etc benefited massively from restricted immigration for over 50 years. Do you really think that FDR’s New Deal would have worked as well if the U.S. had had a policy of open borders and unlimited immigration during the Great Depression.
I am amaze that progressives knowledge of U.S. immigration policy jumps from Ellis Island to 1965 while skipping most of the 20th century.
I personally enjoyed Rand Paul doing his Monty Python parody while choking on his hamburger:
http://www.songlyrics.com/monty-python/brave-sir-robin-ran-away-lyrics/
@superdestroyer:
That’s exactly what Immigration reform is all about…a process to decide who stays and who goes. In absolutely no case does any immigration bill call for open borders and unlimited immigration…that’s a lie you insist on repeating ad nauseum.
Your answer to immigration…and Steve King’s…is to deport everyone who doesn’t look and speak exactly like you. A delusional idea for delusional people like you and King. Your ancestors got to America…fvck eveyone else, right?
@dmhlt: As any number of bloggers have pointed out, how does Rand Paul think he’s ready to face down Vladimir Putin when he can’t handle a polite young lady?
@superdestroyer: “You can scream racism all you want but at least have the courage to say who should be kept out of the U.S.”
Okay. If it’s up to me, the people who should be kept out of the US are the ones like you.
Now can we move on?
@wr:
No. I guess you cannot bring yourself to say that the U.S. should have open borders and the free movement of people when you really support it. Unless someone is willing to say who they would keep out, the assumption should be that they would allow everyone in and keep no one out.
@superdestroyer:
I am amaze that progressives knowledge of U.S. immigration policy jumps from Ellis Island to 1965 while skipping most of the 20th century.
Considering you think people advocate for “a policy of open borders and unlimited immigration,” it isn’t surprising that the rest of the idiotic things you believe are constantly amazing you. I imagine you walking around, blinking, stupefied and running into walls, so addled is your brain by ridiculous notions.
@superdestroyer:
Unless someone is willing to say who they would keep out
How about we just send you away?
What part of “comprehensive” don’t he comprehend?
@superdestroyer: Why shouldn’t we throw people like you out? Ms. Andiola will probably be far more productive and contribute far more to the economy of the US than you have or ever will.
If we have to pick one of the two of you, I know which one of you I’m going to throw out of the lifeboat.
@superdestroyer:
Why are you asking me? Do you think I can read minds?
That question has been asked, and answered, hundreds of thousands of times. But that is not good enough for you because that does not include “every other support(er) of comprehensive immigration reform”.
The Real World is still calling. Will you please pick up that dam phone?!?!?!?
Out of curiosity, have any of the prominent opponents of the Dream Act been asked if they similarly oppose statutes of limitations for other crimes? That’s basically what the Dream Act is.
@ernieyeball: @grumpy realist: @Janis Gore: @mantis: @wr: @C. Clavin: @beth: Party at your house’s tonight…and tomorrow…and for as long as we want to stay. I’m sure you will have no problem with me propping my feet up on your table, ordering pay per view on your TV, and using your credit card to order pizza and wings. We will treat your home as if it’s ours, demand you pay for all of our basic needs to include food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment, college tuition (these are all fundamental rights), and if I decide to have an income while I am there, I may chose to pay you to defer the costs or I may not…it’s my decision. And hey, if I bring my minor child with me to the party, they should never be asked to leave because it wasn’t their fault…technically, you should be forced to adopt them and then they will receive all of the same rights and privileges as your own family members.
@Jack: You want to be my stepson? I don’t think so.
I can swear like a sailor and put your shit on the street faster than greased lightning. You won’t know what hit you.
Ask ’em. I had two.
You — don’t — know — Jack.
Shit.
@Janis Gore: That is exactly my point. We as a country are trying to throw these people out and getting rebuffed for it.
Welcome to the conservative movement.
@Jack:
Like SooperDooper you are reduced to ridiculousness in order to rationalize your abject bigotry.
But to the point behind your incredibly stupid analogy…I certainly wouldn’t stop you from doing what you describe just because you look or speak differently than I do.
But according my conservative friends on fb ” Watch Two DREAMers Who Confront Rep. Steve King Get A Timely Lesson on Immigration Law.” To them this video just shows a man standing up for lawfulness and justice in the face of the brown mob invading our homeland. To them these people are to be punished. This is the sins of the father argument, that when discussed in a context like reparations they are vehemently against. These people are nothing but scofflaws that need to be sent back, despite this being their home. How dare they try and serve in the military to protect the only country they’ve ever known. WE NEED TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THESE LAWLESS MONSTERS. Because if we don’t as sd points out they are just all going to be leeches on the US economy, never wanting to make a living and never doing so. They’ll just suck off the federal teet until good upstanding WHITE middle class America is broken.
@Jack:
We as a country are doing no such thing.
And the extremist wing of your party is being rebuffed because the extremist wing of your party is delusional.
@C. Clavin: This has nothing to do with those who look or speak differently. I am married to a woman who describes herself as Mexican. She is fourth generation American from Texas but has a Mexican heritage. Don’t even suggest that I am racist to brown people because of their color or how they speak.
If taxpayers were not on the hook for a myriad of social services I could care less who enters this country. But as soon as you put me on the hook to pay for millions of illegals, I get a say.
@C. Clavin: We as a country have immigration laws already in place, voted on by both parties and signed into law by our president. We as a country are demanding that this administration and our politicians abide by the laws as written and not enact new laws without a vote.
I don’t get to speed down the highway at 90 mph and once caught, demand that the laws be changed to retroactively make my speeding no longer a crime .
I’m a little curious. Bush had eight years to “secure the borders.” What happened?
@OzarkHillbilly:
No progressive ever answers the question of who should be kept out because the answer they want to say is no one should be kept out but they know that such an answer would be political suicide. That is why progressive answer is question or comment about immigration with an insult. Progressives want to end any discussion on immigration and just move to open borders and the free movement of people across borders.
@Dave D:
Once again, do you really think the way to convince an audience of middle class whites that comprehensive immigration reform is a good idea is to insult and denegrate them and call them racist. Is that the best argument that the progressives have. I guess progressives do not want to admit that the government screwed up border and immigration enforcement for decades, that the government lied during the last round of amnesty,and that progressives have zero intent of ever enforcing immigration laws.
Progressives question why some Republicans can believe that progressives have a vendetta against whites, yet all I have read about immigration is that whites are racist and we should give the illegal aliens whatever they want.
@Jack:
A nation is not a household. The federal budget is not a personal credit card. The simplistic notions of governance held by conservatives only reveal they are not fit to govern, not that they have any interest in doing so anyway. Grow up.
@anjin-san:
No progressive should ever mention either of the President Bush’s to bolster their arguments. GW Bush was an idiot and a massive failure and anything that GW Bush supports should always be opposed.
@anjin-san: Ahhh, the obligatory, but Bush did/didn’t do it,. I didn’t agree with everything little Bushy did either. Obama ran on being the anti-Bush, on being better than Bush. He raised the bar on himself and should be held to that higher standard. What Bush didn’t do was decide for himself that current immigration law wasn’t quite getting it done, so he was going to enact executive orders that allowed him and the executive agencies deal with immigrants how he sees fit, the voters be damned.
@mantis: So, in effect what you are saying is, 33% of the population should just shut up because conservatives are ignorant racists who cannot make decisions and should in effect be given a guardian ad litem to make all their decisions for them. Of course, the guardian would be a liberal.
You grow up. You reviled Romney for his 47% remark, yet you are doing the exact same thing to an extreme.
@superdestroyer:
Once again, do you really think the way to convince an audience of middle class whites that comprehensive immigration reform is a good idea is to insult and denegrate them and call them racist.
Nobody is calling middle class whites racist. We’re calling you a racist, and accurately so. Hell, I imagine most arguing with you here are themselves middle class and white.
I guess progressives do not want to admit that the government screwed up border and immigration enforcement for decades, that the government lied during the last round of amnesty,and that progressives have zero intent of ever enforcing immigration laws.
If we were to deport every immigrant not legally residing here and make the border impenetrable, it would bankrupt and destroy our economy with no benefit whatsoever, all to appease racist idiots like you. Your kind only wants to destroy the United States. No thanks.
@mantis: Link???? Or are you simply slinging more mantis B.S.?
@Jack:
So, in effect what you are saying is…
No, I’m saying you and those who agree with you are simple-minded idiots and adults should be responsible for governance. If you can’t tell the difference between a personal dwelling and a nation of hundreds of millions of people, your opinions on governance are of little value to anyone.
Many conservatives are not so simple-minded. But the GOP stopped listening to them a while ago.
@Jack:
Why don’t you stop to think a bit about the enforcement costs of rounding up every immigrant and deporting them with due process, the cost of actually securing the thousands of miles of borders so that no one could cross, and the lost tax revenue and economic productivity from losing millions of workers.
Or you could think about it like a credit card and continue being stupid.
@mantis: My home has borders (walls), my property has defined borders (fences). People who climb my fences or break through my walls are criminals. There is no difference. You simply want to support the argument that there is a difference because otherwise you will lose.
A country is defined, as a minimum, by its culture, it’s language, and its borders. Without those, there is no country. That is exactly the point of your efforts.
There is no utopia on earth.
@superdestroyer:
C’mon, now, sd. You can’t really believe that the U.S. is going to all-of-a-sudden adopt an open-border, unlimited immigration policy. If you do, (and I’m serious about this) you need to stop watching Fox News. And listening to the other grievance peddlers who are scaring you guys up into irrational thinking.
Now, for the “free healthcare to illegal immigrants” thing. If we would adopt a national single-payer system, your fears would be relieved. I’m all for raising taxes (and am willing to pay them) for a single-payer system. It’s a national tragedy and a moral failing that we don’t have one.
But here’s a link.
@Jack:
So evidently, based solely on your comments, you fear and hate your wife.
Typical marriage I suppose.
You don’t get a say about immigration anymore than I get a say about invading and occupying Iraq and the trillions in corporate welfare that entailed..
@Jack:
My home has borders (walls), my property has defined borders (fences). People who climb my fences or break through my walls are criminals. There is no difference.
If you feel compelled to confirm your simple-mindedness, far be it from me to stop you. All you do, however, is show people they should never take anything you say seriously.
@mantis:
And yet those on the left propose rounding up guns. All 330 million of them in civilian hands.
Obama asked for $3.7 Billion to support illegals through the remainder of this fiscal year. Yet jamming every one who is currently at a detention facility onto a commercial aircraft and sending them to their home country will cost less that one half of 1% of that 3.7 billion.
http://clashdaily.com/2014/07/obama-wants-spend-4bil-illegals-can-send-home-via-orbitz-way-less/
Securing the border is by definition a shovel ready project that would increase jobs and add to the economy. Illegals don’t pay taxes, so there is no loss in tax revenue. Quite the opposite. I’m sure you’ve seen the stories about people using TINs and claiming 15 dependents on taxes so they could collect thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes. And you call conservatives stupid? You dullard.
@mantis:
The scary part, mantis, is practically the whole frickin’ Republican Party is like this. Critical thinking is not an option they are exercising.
@Jack:
Again with the fvcking nonsense. You are either dumb as rocks…or a liar. You decide for yourself.
@Jack:
It’s “houses,” dude; “houses.” No apostrophe. You can’t even put together a correct grammatical English sentence. You have no business pontificating about immigration policy. C’mon, now; step it up.
@dennis:
If the U.S. is not willing to deport anyone other than felons and is willing to give residence to everyone with a sob story, then the U.S. is a de facto open border country. Who would you keep out of the U.S.
Also, as Milton Friedman has said, you can have open borders or you can have a social welfare state. However, you cannot have both. It would bankrupt the country if the U.S. has de facto open borders while having single payer health care system. Of course, it would not truly be single payer since the rich would utilize boutique healthcare while the middle class would be struggling to find space in the government funded hospitals.
And another:
And that doesn’t even take into account the legal cost of seizing thousands of acres of privately owned land along the border through eminent domain to build fences that won’t even succeed in keeping all people from crossing. Plus the fact that most illegal immigrants did not cross the border illegally, but have overstayed legal visits. So what you idiots are basically saying is you want to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions just to drain trillions out of the economy and severely damage the nation. And you won’t even stop illegal immigration in doing so. Nice plan.
@Jack: And where in your fence do you have the customs stations? Where in your fence do you id each and every person who goes through your gate? What about the people who enter your yard on travel visas and stay? Oh you have none of those things, probably because your simplistic analogy is bad. These are complex issues that cannot be simplified to the US is just like my yard and I can build a fence to keep those punk kids off it.
@Jack:
And yet those on the left propose rounding up guns. All 330 million of them in civilian hands.
Name one, you liar.
@Jack:
Illegals don’t pay taxes, so there is no loss in tax revenue.
Liar or complete idiot. Which is it?
@mantis:
So since immigration control and border security is expensive, you are willing to forego it and just pay the price of providing infrastructure and social welfare to 100 million third world immigrants. I guess your idea of immigration control is a lousy economy and high unemployment so that the economic pull on immigrants to the U.S. will be low.
I would hope that progressives would want a thriving domestic economic that produces real wage growth and that the higher wages would go to Americans. But I guess progressives hatred of middle class whites is too much to overcome to expect them to support such an idea.
@C. Clavin:
I don’t get a say? Since when? Did someone outlaw voting and the 1st amendment while I wasn’t looking?
I don’t fear or loath anyone. Why are liberals so emotional about everything. There is no emotion needed to understand that we must protect our borders. To do otherwise is to allow every member of a foreign country to up and decide to come to this country. In doing so, there would be no US anymore.
This country is not alone when it comes to immigration and illegal immigration. Mexico prosecutes illegals.
“Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=all
Yet Mexico wants us to simple roll over and accept all of their illegal immigrants? Hypocrite much?
@dennis: Bite me Dennis. If you want to be the grammar Nazi…feel free, but leave me out of it.
You want to correct my grammar and imply that means what I say is immaterial. Why not play the race card while you’re at it–that’s the typical liberal response to speech they don’t agree with.
@Dave D:
It’s called my front door. No one comes in unless I invite them in.
@superdestroyer: Not at all what I was saying. I’m saying your argument is a fallacy. You have time and time again gotten on your hobby horse about the decline of “white america.” You know what is bad for middle class America? A 4 Trillion estimated swing in GDP. So again I fail to see how using racist scaremongering about the brown menace hiding in the shadows eating up all of our government services and contributing nothing to the economy even begins to be a reasonable argument on immigration policy. If you don’t want to come and have an honest and rational discussion we don’t need to. Screaming about open borders, white decline and perpetual government handouts is not honest and does nothing to advance your argument.
@mantis: Diane Feinstein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI
You liar!
@Jack: “And yet those on the left propose rounding up guns. All 330 million of them in civilian hands.”
Care to support this with even a shred of evidence?
@Jack:
She was only talking about assault weapons, moron.
@Jack: The CBP estimates more than a million people legally enter the US a day. I’m sure your house has a similar number of visitors that make it so easy to track. Because again immigrants overstaying their legal welcome is a huge part of the problem. Also this thread is about deporting kids brought to this country through no fault of their own and know no other homeland. Again comparing the country to your yard is too simplistic to make for a good analogy.
@mantis: In 2013, the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation released a study concluding that at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.
Robert Rector, MA, and Jason Richwine, PhD, in their May 6, 2013 Heritage Foundation report, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer,” available at http://www.heritage.org, stated
“Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be ‘congestion’ effects that lead to a decline in service quality.
In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers.”
Yes, some pay payroll and point of purchase taxes, but few actually pay, as in pay in more than they get back to Federal taxes.
@Jack: “It’s called my front door.”
You don’t seem to realize it (government) does not belong to just you. You think government is “your house.” It is not. Your solutions are at once naive and costly, and one of the reasons conservatives will be kept off the electoral college map for the foreseeable future, one of many other intractable “conservative ideas.”
@mantis: In her own words, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them (every gun) Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in. I would have done it. I could not do that, the votes weren’t here.”
This was a response to the fact that the Clinton Assault Weapons ban was too lenient.
She wanted an outright ban on all civilian owned firearms.
@Dave D: These kids only grew up here, were schooled here, and became a part of the American society over several years because they and their parents were not returned when they were younger. They failed to return for deportation or other due process hearings. The manipulated the system and avoided detection to stay here for the express purpose of saying, “well I’ve been here for x number of years, you can’t kick me out now”.
Now, based upon the current border mess, people don’t even want to do that.
@Dave D: And we have a border patrol of about 21,500 agents to act as door guards.
@James in Silverdale, WA:
We’ll talk about that statement after the Nov election and see exactly how naïve you are.
@Jack:
The Heritage Foundation also said that the Bush Tax cuts wouldn’t increase the deficit.
They did…a lot.
There is no reason to believe anything the Heritage Foundation says.
@Jack: There’s a good argument for laches to be made here, by the way. The US government didn’t round these kids up in the beginning, they lived here for years and have made their own lives. You can’t really just rip these people out of this country simply because the US was dilatory on its own side.
Or as the man said above, do you not believe in statutes of limitation?
According to you, your old grade-school pal could bring a charge of stolen property against you now for that piece of gum you swiped from him back when you were 5.
@Jack:
You are almost correct about that quote on assault weapons:
However that entire “(every gun)” thing you added wasn’t part of the original quote. Nice slipping your own interpretation into the comment (and completely ignoring it’s actual context).
BTW, when you responsibly add your summation/interpretation, you use [brackets].
Care to provide an actual link to evidence on that entire “all” claim? Because after a bit of internet searching, the only thing I could come up with is your posterior.
@Jack:
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them (every gun) Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in. I would have done it. I could not do that, the votes weren’t here.”
That part in parentheses is something you added, because you’re a lying sack of shit. She was talking about the 1994 ban just on sales of assault weapons, and would have liked it to be an outright ban on assault weapons, as in not just on sales but possession, but the votes weren’t there. You morons have to constantly lie about the positions of others because you know your own beliefs are so abhorrent to decent people you must distract attention from them. You are scum.
@Matt Bernius:
Plus…it’s one Senator in an interview from 20 years ago who is clearly resorting to hyperbole. There is no proposed legislation and never has been any proposed legislation to do what Jack so falsely claims.
Well, right about now I’d say Ms. F was pretty damned smart, Jack.
Where’s my app for the NRA, big boy?
@C. Clavin: Obama said we could keep our doctor. There is no reason to believe anything Obama says.
@Jack:
Yes, and he apologized for it. When are Republicans are going to apologize for, and stop repeating, your numerous zombie lies about immigratrion reform, Obamacare, Gun safety laws, etc?
@Jack:
I kept my doctor.
One of the problems that the current immigration crises presents is that these are mainly children and young people who are not of an age to work and help support themselves. This puts a hardship on many states, especially towns and counties that are already strapped for money. Add a dozen more kids to school that is already crowded and it creates problems. Most schools around here can’t afford an esl teacher. Supplies are running short and the schools here already have kids out selling candy and barbecue tickets just to buy copy paper and board markers. They ran short of paper towels last year and parents had to pitch in (this while the school board gave the superintendent a big raise). Buses are already loaded and legally can’t hold more. Books for esl students are out of the question; they don’t have enough books for the student already there.Social services are already overwhelmed. Schools should not be used as some sort of holding stations.
County boards and town councils are not about to raise taxes and risk getting voted out, so more money won’t happen. Especially when the school boards give a lot of the money to the bloated administration.
So what we have are a lot of elected leaders and others who say they favor letting these people stay (“not in my backyard”) but then they head out the door when citizens ask for help. And it is the average, middle class working people who will end up paying the bill for this.
@Jack:
You got your propaganda confused. It’s supposed to be “Obama said we could keep our insurance”.
What has the world come to when the Obamacare trolls can’t even get their talking points right?
@Tyrell:
That problem is not caused by immigration…but by a Republican economic ideology that says it’s more important to give tax cuts to rich people than to fund education adequately.
Yup…they are paying the price for rich peoples tax cuts…and it’s a lot more widespread than immigration.
@stonetools: Yeah, Bill Maher isn’t biased in the least. No. Not him.
The problem in a nutshell…wingnuts are racists and liberals are well meaning incompetents.
Lets face it, GOP animus to immigration reform is based on racism pure and simple, so they have absolutely nothing to add to the debate other than racist generalizations.
The Dems are a farce. No question Obama’s DACA decision has fueled this crises as any intelligent immigrant would realize that if court dates are 3 years down the line, that gives them 3 years to work and ingratiate themselves into the system such that it is more difficult to deport them down the road.
And also liberals, no question that wages for lower middle class workers are depressed by the abundant cheap labor allowed in by both Dems and GOPers (hence the answer to the question above as to why Bush didn’t seal the borders). Or to paraphrase the Jack Benny quandry:
“Hey GOP, sealed borders or more money in your pockets”……”I’m thinking, I’m thinking”
Its obvious that we must both seal the border tightly AND give amnesty to those here through the system outlined in prior bills – viz via a registration system and culling of those who are criminals etc.
The Dems won’t go for the border security and the wingnuts are just idiots on the subject, ergo complete dysfunction, illogical policies and another demonstration of the US’s rapidly diminishing image of a dynamic society.
@David M: One example:
• President’s weekly address, June 6, 2009: “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.”
• Town hall in Green Bay, Wis., June 11, 2009: “No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”
• Remarks at the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009: “I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage — they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
• Presidential press conference, June 23, 2009. “If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor.”
• Rose Garden remarks, July 15, 2009. “If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too.”
• Remarks at a rally for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, July 16, 2009: “if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan — you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”
• Presidential weekly address, July 18, 2009: “Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be – and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story.”
• Town hall in Raleigh, N.C., July 29, 2009: “I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I’ve proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody. Nobody is talking about you forcing … to change your plans.”
• Presidential weekly address, Aug. 8, 2009: “Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”
• Town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009: “Under the reform we’re proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”
• Town hall in Belgrade, Mont., Aug. 14, 2009: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. This is not some government takeover. If you like your doctor, you can keep seeing your doctor. This is important.”
• Presidential weekly address, Aug. 15, 2009: “No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it.”
• Town hall in Grand Junction, Colo., Aug. 15, 2009: “I just want to be completely clear about this. I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren’t listening — if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor.”
• Remarks to Organizing for America, Aug. 20, 2009: “No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under the reform proposals that we’ve put forward. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep it.”
• Presidential weekly address, Aug. 22, 2009: “Under the reform we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period.”
• Remarks on health care reform, March 3, 2010: “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.”
• Presidential weekly address, March 6, 2010: “What won’t change when this bill is signed is this: If you like the insurance plan you have now, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because nothing should get in the way of the relationship between a family and their doctor.”
• Remarks in Glenside, Pa., March 8, 2010: “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
• Remarks in St. Charles, Mo., March 10, 2010: ” If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
• Remarks in St. Louis, Mo., March 10, 2010: “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I’m the father of two young girls –- I don’t want anybody interfering between my family and their doctor.”
• Remarks in Strongsville, Ohio, March 15, 2010: “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I don’t want to interfere with people’s relationships between them and their doctors.”
• Remarks in Fairfax, Va., March 19, 2010: “If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.”
Obama’s comments between the law’s signing and the release of the HHS regulations
• Remarks in Portland, Maine, April 1, 2010: The critics will “see that if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”
After the release of the HHS regulations
• Kathleen Sebelius blog post, June 14, 2010: “The bottom line is that under the Affordable Care Act, if you like your doctor and plan, you can keep them.”
• First presidential debate in Denver, Oct. 3, 2012: “If you’ve got health insurance, it doesn’t mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can’t jerk you around.”
@the Q:
But what is border security? Triple fences with razor wire, moats and laser beam headed sharks? Border guards every five feet on the border? How do we measure its success? If one illegal gets in, has it failed? The problem isn’t that Democrats won’t go for border security; it’s that Republicans can’t seem to figure out what they mean when they use the term.
@Jack:
I’m not sure if I’m supposed to laugh or just be embarrassed for you. Either way, just a massive trolling fail on your part.
@Jack:
Again…I kept my Doctor.
So what’s your point? That we need to let Doctors immigrate? Or that you are a lot dumber than the third world kids that you are afraid of?
@C. Clavin: I think all the semen you’ve swallowed has messed up your brain.
@Jack:
Yup…Republicans are always worried about other peoples sex lives.
You can go back to beating your Mexican wife now.
@David M: I know people who were perfectly happy with their health plan, and their health plans went out because of government requirements. One member of Congress who had voted for the AHA found out that the doctor who had been treating his cancer was not on the AHA list, so he lost his doctor.
So these things happen, maybe not on a huge scale. The president promised to fix these glitches and problems.
How did we get from immigration to health care problems?
@superdestroyer: You, my little friend, may assume anything you’d like about me. Sorry, though, that it won’t get me so bothered that I’ll start playing your little “say exactly what I want when I want it!” games — honestly, there is little in the world I care about less than what you choose to “assume” about me.
@Tyrell: Well, Tyrell, maybe if you stopped voting for polititicans who destroy public services like schools so they can shovel money at their rich campaign contributors, we wouldn’t have these problems.
@Jack:
And just the other day you were complaining about unfairly being called a homophobic bigot….good times.
@Jack: The other day you called the President a queen and now you’re suggesting that homosexual sex is somehow damaging. Why do you think being gay is something bad and the worst insult you can throw at people? Here’s a hint – it just makes you look silly and bigoted.
O.O WOW, this thread went off the rails.
Look, at the end of the day, the mainstream liberal position on immigration in a nutshell is this:
Neither the US nor any other developed country can afford to open its borders to all comers, and granting amnesty to existing illegal immigrants almost certainly does increase the number of people who will try to illegally emigrate here in the future. However, limited/conditional amnesties when practicality calls for it (e.g. the Dream Act) and individualized determinations of refugee status when appropriate, coupled with continued enforcement along the border, is not equivalent to opening the borders. A mixed policy like that, particularly if combined with expanded temporary-worker programs, can easily keep the inflow of people to a sustainable number and provide net economic benefits to both the immigrants and the US if done right.
Is there anyone in this thread who honestly believes that’s an unworkable/unsustainable policy?
@beth:
I hesitate to protest…because it really doesn’t matter…but for the record…I’m not gay.
@Jack: Now Jack’s talk about Obama’ s statements re doctors are OT, except for the false meme that Republicans are spreading that they can’t trust Obama. However, as Maher pointed out, Obama aploogised and stopped saying it. Republicans, OTOH, are still repeating a whole list of lies about Obamacare:
There are more Republican lies about imnmigration, economy, etc., but this post is already long. The point is they continue to repeat their lies, without apology or challenge from the media.
@Jack: Ahhh, here we go. Although he held out longer than most.
@stonetools:
Read the comments of Republicans on this site…by and large…if they don’t lie they have nothing to say.
I really wish King didn’t represent any part of my state.
Beth, border security hardly means we get overwhelmed by tens of thousands of refugees and face a humanitarian crises.
Your comment is the liberal myopia of which I highlighted.
When Reagan had his amnesty it was for 3 million. This amnesty will be for almost 10 million. And if we have Dem border security, what will stop us from having an amnesty for 30 million 20 years hence?
@the Q: But what does it mean? No one ever gives an answer to that. How can you possibly propose a solution that includes border security when you can’t even define it? Is it like pornography? You just know it when you see it? How could you ever have a workable immigration policy without a workable definition of border security? Should we just keep building fences and guessing if it will please you? You’ve got to do better than that. The time for letting Republicans get by with a vague “border security” answer has long passed.
Besides, who is talking about letting in 10 million people? Please show me where a Democrat has proposed letting in that many. You’re starting to sound like SuperD.
@C. Clavin:
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
@wr: well, maybe. Local and county elected officials around here are all Democrat, who very seldom have any opponent, in the primaries or general election. The Republican party is just about non-existent around here and it has been that way since Reconstruction. The Southern wing of the Democratic party is king around here and most of the state. The same people are elected over and over. Things won’t change. Education, as in many states, gets big talk from politicians, but no action.
“Southern born, southern raised, southern pride!”
@wr:
It is not what I assume about you (the singular pronoun) but about you (the progressive pronoun) or progressives. Progressives obviously believe that the U.S. should adopt a policy of open borders and the free movement of people across borders. Every story on MSNBC is about how great immigrants are, how they will save social security, and how U.S. employer must have more cheap labor.
I also understand why progressive want such a policy. It is beneficial to Democrats winning elections in the short term, it helps the federal and state governments grow faster than they would otherwise, and progressive think that they are clever enough to take advantage of cheap labor while sticking other (read Repulbicans) with the cost of paying the costs of open borders.
Why is amazing is how the free movement of people across borders makes other policy goals of progressives harder such as real wage growth, lower greenhouse gas emissions, limiting sprawl, or even improving education. Yet, when it comes down between a better quality of life or more automatic Democratic Party voters, progressives always side with changing elections instead of changing the quality of life.
@R.Dave:
Do you really think that Democrats are competent enough to managed a program that requires such fine tuning. Or is it easier to believe that Democrats will believe ever hard luck story from illegal immigrants, let all of them stay, and eventually allow ever temporary worker to stay? If past lies about amnesty and immigration reform are any indication, nothing the governments says about controlling future immigration will be true and the de facto policy will be open borders and free movement of people.
For some strange reason conservatives seem to be obsessed with homosexuality. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, like Beth said.
@superdestroyer: Perhaps one of these days you might leave your basement and go meet some people. Meet some progressives. Talk to them about what they actually believe and try to understand them. It might open your eyes.
@superdestroyer:
Just as a clarification, “more immigration” and “open borders” do not mean the same thing. Neither can “Progressives” and “MSNBC” be used interchangeably. I could go on, but there isn’t much to be gained until you acknowledge those facts.
@Jack:
You said that, huh? I’m not liberal; but, I do love a well-put-together sentence.
Now, why would you say something like that? Because I’m Black? YOU have just played the race card. Your response is proof that White conservatives are the ones who have the race problem.
As to the validity of your comments: They are nothing but xenophobic vitriol that have no basis in fact. They are bizarre visions that you allow the Fox News/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh crew to foment in your head, and, like the good little unthinking robot you are, you regurgitate here for all our pleasure. Thanks for that.
Wow! This thread turned nasty fast.
What really got to me about the video apart from King’s simplistic and empathiless response to the two dreamers was the people in the background yelling ”go home!” Stay classy conservatives>
@superdestroyer:
sd, your “if, then” scenario is merely speculative. You’re not basing it on facts, but conjecture that the right keeps concocting in its collective head.
I think the question “Who would you keep out of the U.S.” is not a fair question for us to be asking each other. A fairer question is, “What practical immigration policies are we going to adopt as a nation and supposed global leader?” (I was gonna mention that missing question mark, but Jack got all butthurt the last time I played grammar Nazi, so …)
@Jack:
Wow. That, coupled with your “play the race card” comment you threw at me, gives us all we need to know about you. You ought to apologize for that, but I know you won’t. You are not worth engaging.
@dennis:
I’m not liberal; but, I do love a well-put-together sentence.
Win.
@ Jack
Gay sex seems to own a lot of real estate in your head.
@dennis:
But the way to decide an immigration policy is to decide who you are going to let in and who you are going to keep out. If you want a policy that lets everyone with a sob story in, then you are just supporting a slow motion version of open borders and the free movement of people. If you say that the U.S. should be limited to x number of legal immigration each year and they will or will not include economic immigrants, family members, or people from certain countries, then you have no choice but to set up a system that will deport people.
Saying that you want to have a finite number of immigrants but that you are unwilling to deport anyone is just throwing a tantrum and refusing to decide what the policy should be. What most Republicans see is the Democrats consistently supporting policies that will let virtually anyone who makes it across the border to stay in the U.S. Republicans believe that current government spending, let alone new entitlement programs cannot be sustain with such a policy. Progressives seem to believe that they can have open borders along with a much more robust social welfare state, decreased environmental impacts, and increased higher wages. Of course, progressives seem to channel their policy proposals so that they do not interfere with each other or face the issue that their policy proposals are mutually exclusive.
For a group that claims to be fact-based and rational, progressives seem to spend a tremendous effort not facing facts or being national about immigration.
Rep. King is absolutely right, all the “dreamers” should be sent to their home countries, they are not American and have absolutely no right to profit from their parent’s criminal acts. If the children suffer, blame the parents.
@wr:
I have a great many, and talked with 100’s, and used to be a Progressive, and now have nothing but HATE for them.
@C. Clavin:
The Federal government has no business funding education and all federal funding for education should be eliminated, and use that to cut taxes on top income earners.
@C. Clavin:
@superdestroyer “Your answer to immigration…and Steve King’s…is to deport everyone who doesn’t look and speak exactly like you.”
That is a flat out LIE. Republican deportation polices have nothing to do with how anybody looks, it is anti-American leftwingers who judge ever issue by people’s skin color.
@Grewgills:
Yeah, I was going to comment on that as well, but I ran out of time.
@superdestroyer:
I agree with your first sentence, sd. And Title 8 USC lays out the requirements for immigration to the U.S., from temporary work permits to refugees seeking asylum. There are strict definitions therein, and neither Congress nor the President have violated the legal conditions contained in the INA (Immigration & Nationality Act). At no place in the INA does it address open borders or unfettered movement of people over the U.S. border.
Umm, sd, you should really look up U.S. deportation stats …
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this whole argument over DACA? Those who were brought here as young children and who have assimilated into American culture and life? This is purely speculative, but I’m sure the “DREAMers” don’t account for the total number of illegal aliens in the U.S. Again, see those U.S. deportation stats.
I’ll bet you typed this with a straight face, while grinning in the mirror, congratulating yourself on how right you are, while totally disregarding 2001-2006 Republican spending.
Rand Paul was heard singing to himself today
@dennis:
“while totally disregarding 2001-2006 Republican spending. ”
You mean when US deficits went DOWN, with the last Republican budget deficit only $168B.
@Grewgills:
That is exactly what I would be yelling.
@Greg:
http://www.factandmyth.com/deficit-and-debt/obama-vs-bush-deficit-debt-revenue-spending
Please. Nice try.
@ Greg
Ummm. We had a surplus when Bush took office. He quickly remedied that.
You don’t really have a clue, do you?
@anjin-san:
Hey, anjin, notice how Greg gets on and instinctively down-thumbs everything that disagrees with his tribe? He must be 12-years-old …
@ Greg
Or you could be honest, and yell “I am an idiot”…
@Greg: Hi Greg — Nice to meet you. Hope you have a good time here and make many new friends. I’m afraid I won’t be among them, and will do my best never to respond to — or read, if I can help it — another word you write. But there are lots of other people who might like to chat with you. Ta!
@Greg:
America is the only home they’ve ever known. They are home. If you were there yelling that, you too would be an ass.
@Greg:
That’s gold, Jerry! Gold!
I’m both horrified and amused. I’m not sure I’ve ever run across a better example of Poe’s Law.
In the past the parents would come in, find some kind of work (not handouts), get settled, and then their children would come in. Now it is the children coming in, and no telling when their parents will show up.
@Tyrell: The context of this conversation, however, is not the recent influx of children from Central America, but rather persons who have been raised in the US and have lived as Americans for decades.
@Grewgills:
Indeed.
“that one can look at a person who has spent their life from age 5 to at least 22 in the US< living as an American (the woman in question is a college graduate) and pretend like it really would be a good and just idea to send such a person from the country that is undeniably their home to a country that clearly is not."
Well, the United States is NOT her home country, as she entered it ILLEGALLY. She used things funded for by the tax payers of this country. She went to our schools, used medical care, probably received food stamps, housing assistance, went to ASU on a reduced rate because of her immigration status, and probably the same with her little buddy who is a lawyer, which I would like to know how he passed a bar exam while not being a citizen, and she thinks she should be rewarded for it?
She is participating in an ongoing criminal act, and as such should be punished, NOT rewarded.
"the appeal of the alleged justice of the simple formulation that the law must be followed or that illegal behavior should never be rewarded. "
What about justice for the US tax payer who foots the bill for all these people? Who if they were rewarded with citizenship and given a right to vote, all we would do is end up holding the bag for even more of their BS of take from everyone else and give to someone else who hasn't EARNED either the things they are receiving or the right to be in this country.
Where is the justice given to the people who follow the law, and pay taxes, and do things by the books? All that tells me is the law is subject to interpretation and I have no reason to follow any laws now either.
"no child thinks about things like borders or immigration law. They just know what they know in the live that surrounds them. This should matter, especially if the child in question grows up to be a responsible, law-abiding adult."
Really? She is a law-abiding adult? She knows she is in the country illegally, yet she walks around like she isn't. She confronts a Senator like she has a right to. I'm sure she drives, and probably doesn't have a license, or insurance, or if she does the license was illegally obtained.
So, don't preach about how law abiding she is. She has been breaking the law for 17 years, and continues to do so with her being in this country ILLEGALLY. The American tax payer doesn't get rewarded for breaking the law, in fact the law is applied more severely to us, even for minor infractions than it is to illegals.
@ThePatrioteer: “The American tax payer doesn’t get rewarded for breaking the law, in fact the law is applied more severely to us, even for minor infractions than it is to illegals.”
It is truly terrible to see the way Mexicans are allowed to walk around and even get taxpayer funded diplomas while good patriotic white Americans are thrown in jail just for starting a meth lab in their kitchen. Clearly this is political correctness run amok, and Obama must be impeached immediately.
@anjin-san:
Here are the facts:
Deficits
2007 $168 billion – Republican
2008 $407 billion -Dimocrat
2009 $1+TRILLION -Dimocrat
2010 $1+TRILLION -Dimocrat
2011 $1+TRILLION -Dimocrat
@dennis:
US deficits:
2003 374 Repub/Dim
2004 413 Repub
2005 319 Repub
2006 248 Repub
2007 162 Repub
2008 455 Dim
2009 1416 Dim
2010 1294 Dim
2011 1299 Dim
@David M:
James Madison on Federal funding of education:
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
@wr:
I will not ever in any way associate with any anti-American leftwinger.
@Steven L. Taylor:
And those people should not be allowed to profit by their parents crimes, just as if parents had committed fraud or robbery and used the stolen money to raise their children in a much better environment, good schools, good college, and once discovered those children should not be allowed to continue to benefit from the money their parents have stolen. In like manner illegal immigrants should not be allowed to continue to benefit from their parents crimes.
@Grewgills:
America is NOT their home, they are here illegally, and wrongfully benefiting from their parents crimes.
@dennis:
I thumbs down everything that contradicts with the Founding Principles of this country:
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
1. that all men are created equal,
2. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
3. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
Those on the Left are directly opposed to all three:
1. They do not believe all are created equal.
2. They believe that government can grant and take rights
3. They believe government exists to benefit some to the detriment of others.
@ThePatrioteer:
Exactly!
@Greg:
Dude…you are awesome.
You don’t even realize that you are arguing that others are far less equal than you.
The lack of self-awareness is awe inspiring.
You make Jenos look like a member of Mensa…no small task.
@C. Clavin:
Utterly ridiculous. I have not made the claim that I should be allowed to benefit from my parents criminal acts and others shouldn’t. Nobody, US citizen or illegal immigrant, should be allowed to benefit from their parents crimes.
@C. Clavin:
I have rarely met someone who is so utterly clueless about which they are discussing.
@dennis:
Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/us/us-deportations-drop-43-percent-in-last-five-years.html?ref=juliapreston&_r=0
High deportation figures are misleading
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html#page=1
@C. Clavin:
Let’s not be the bigger fools, and let this one go. It’s quite obvious Greg is an un-self aware obstinate boob. We’re the bigger fools if we continue to engage his idiotic arguments.
@dennis:
Translation: You can’t refute them.
@dennis:
You people don’t seem to even know what self-aware even means.
@dennis:
Can’t argue with you there, but what is it about immigration that sends the right wing into an incoherent rage? Is it just today’s outrage and they are following orders?
@David M:
The right wing has no problems at all with immigration, it is failing to follow US laws that incites us.
@dennis: Greg’s a troll, or a Poe, or both.
@Greg:
So you are in favor of prosecuting Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld for war crimes?
@Greg:
You don’t even know what you are arguing, dude.
You are so filled with hate and rage you don’t even know what you are saying.
@David M: “Can’t argue with you there, but what is it about immigration that sends the right wing into an incoherent rage?”
Probably the same thing that sends them into an incoherent rage about guns, birth control, women choosing who to have sex with, minorities getting to vote and, well, just about everything except Ronald Reagan.
@wr:
Actually…the facts about Ronald Reagan, as opposed to their mythology, would probably send them into a rage as well.
@C. Clavin:
You’d think that, C, cuz you’re sensible and reasonable; however, when I bring up Reagan’s record of tax hikes, deficit spending, running away from Lebanon, and my all-time favorite peeve, preparing for Reykjavic summit with Gorbachev by reading Clancy’s “Red Storm Rising,” they always make excuses for him.
Personally, I liked Reagan. I voted for him twice (my first vote @ 18). But, yeah, I’m not blind to his presidential shortcomings like — ahem — some are.
@C. Clavin:
There is no evidence they committed any war crimes.
@C. Clavin:
I know very well what I am arguing, and have demolished the clueless like you 100’s of times.
But if you think I don’t know, then why have you not even bothered to try to set me straight?
@dennis:
No excuses need to be made.
@wr:
None of which sends us into ” incoherent rage”.
The fact that you think it does show you have no concept of what you are talking about.
The bottom line is that those on the Left will ramble on about everything and anything but will not debate the issue at hand.
WR and C Calvin prove this point, ramble on about things unrelated to this issue, and engage in argumentum ad hominem.
That I hold the same opinion as the man who actually wrote the US Constitution, and am called crazy for it by those on the Left shows just how anti-American they have become.
@Greg:
Buh-hahahahahahahaaaa….dude you are awesome sauce.
@C. Clavin:
You are utterly clueless. Madison was against Fed gov’t involvement in education, just as I am.
@Greg:
He was also a slaveholder….which you also appear to agree with.
What’s your point?
@C. Clavin:
Typical leftwinger. What does that have to do with the Constitution and his political philosophy?
@Greg:
About as much as his objection to the Fed gov’t involvement in education. Actually considering the enshrinement of aspects of the “peculiar institution” into the Constitution (a document that doesn’t discuss education at all), we could argue that his slaveholding actually has more to do with both the Constitution and his political philosophy than his objection to federal involvement in education.
Either way, I think the point is that saying that “a Founder agrees” with you therefore your position is somehow truer than other points of views a problematic mode of argumentation.
For example, does Madison count more than the other founders? And while Madison drafted the text of the Constitution, there were a lot of other people involved in the entire drafting process. And when we look at the broader founders, there is more than enough evidence that other founding fathers — Adams in particular — not only supported public education, but clearly saw the need for a governmental role in it.
Here’s Adams exact words:
@Greg:
What Matt said…you ridiculous person, you.
@C. Clavin: It always amazes me when people seem to think the founding fathers agreed 100%, all of the time. When you read any history of this country at all, it really is astounding how many of the same issues being debated today were hotly contested way back when.
@Matt Bernius:
Actually what I said was I agree with the author of the Constitution. Nor did I mention other Founders/Framers, I explicitly only mentioned the author of the US Constitution.
@beth:
I made no such claim, nor even hinted at it.
@Matt Bernius:
Adams didn’t write the US Constitution and what it authorizes or intends.
@beth:
I’m currently reading Nathaniel Philbrick’s Bunker Hill…and frankly it’s amazing they got anything done…absent several strokes of luck we’re still loyal subjects. More than anything it renders the simple-mindedness of today’s Tea Bagger ideology in sharp relief.
@Greg:
What Matt wrote:
Frankly…I think Madison would be laughing at you too.
@C. Clavin:
One of the interesting things in that book is the description of the local militias, their necessity given the time and environment (natural and political) and their structural organization…all of which makes the 2nd Amendment very clear and perfectly logical…and the current bastardization of it by the Gun Lobby and the gun cult perfectly ridiculous.
@Matt Bernius:
His slave holding has nothing to do with what the Constitution does and does not authorize in regards to education or anything else.
At no point did I argue against public education, of which I am strongly in favor, but of FEDERAL government involvement in it.
And I provided a quote by Madison (who would know more about the Constitution than any other of his day) who uses Federal funding of education as an example of what the Constitution does NOT authorize, and expansion of such government powers would transmute and subvert the principle of LIMITED government established by the people of America and enshrined in the Constitution.
@Greg:
Correct, but Adams was involved with helping develop the constitution and it’s underlying principles. Additionally, Madison and the others who directly worked on the Constitution, clearly drew from the Constitution of Massachusetts (which Adams drafted) for the overall structure of the Federal Constitution and many of the concepts that are found within.
Seriously, pretending that Madison was the only person involved in the drafting of the Federal Constitution (or that Madison was deeply influenced by his fellow founders) is a vulgar and laughable understanding of US History.
@C. Clavin:
So you think Madison would disagree with his OWN position that the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to be involved with financing of public education?
Why don’t you explain such a ridiculous claim. It would be good for a laugh.
@Greg: As if Madison wrote the whole thing by himself with no input from anyone else and the Constitutional Convention was an irrelevant exercise.
Saying “Madison wrote the Constitution” is historically ignorant anyway. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania has a greater claim to authorship according to Madison himself, although it was really written by the “Committee of Style” consisting of Morris, Madison, Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, and Rufus King. But even they were just craftsmen of the literary style, and everything in the Constitution was shaped and approved by the Convention.
And of course even though Jefferson was in France and Adams in England at the time, they had considerable correspondence with members of the Convention and significant input into the process. Jefferson’s influence was very significant in the creation and adoption of the Bill of Rights.
TL;DR: You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
@Matt Bernius:
Another leftwing strawman argument. I never made the claim that he did.
What I said was that Madison used public financing of education as an example of what the Constitution does NOT authorize the Federal government to do.
Again, I am not talking about anything but what the Constitution AUTHORIZES, and Madison explicitly uses education as an example of what the Constitution does not authorize.
@Mikey:
Never made any such claim, straw man argument.
@Greg:
Madison would also point out that the Constitution permitted slave ownership.
And yet that changed over time. That’s the problem with Constitutional literalism — it ignores the 200+ years of legal and social history that happen after the ratification.
Further, the idea that Madison gets to decide what is or isn’t Constitutional is investing in a single man a level of power that is fundamentally anti-democratic. In fact, it’s the entire type of thing that most conservatives have been criticizing Obama for.
Madison wrote the words, and those words matter, but the moment the draft left his hands, he lost the ability to be the sole arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution (a concept that itself is built into the Constitution). You cannot “love” the document and at the same time claim that Madison is the key authority on identifying what is and isn’t Constitutional.
@Greg: The hell you didn’t. You called Madison “the man who actually wrote the US Constitution.” Full stop. Don’t try to tapdance away now.
@C. Clavin:
That his being a slaveholder is irrelevant to what the US Constitution authorizes or doesn’t.
You dismissed his use of public education as an example of what the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to be involved with based solely on his having owned slaves.
@Mikey:
Yes he did write it, and then took it in for debate and revision, just as Jefferson did with the Declaration of Independence.
To be clear, when interpreting the Constitution, we should go back to look at the writings of Madison and others. But they are only one data point. And, do not supersede the specific words of the Constitution itself.
Regardless of what Madison thought, it’s clear that the text of the Constitution has come to be interpreted as allowing Federal Involvement in Education.
It should also be noted that Federal Land Grants for education were taking place *before* the Constitution was signed.
@Matt Bernius:
You mean the Constitution changed over time to abolish slavery.
Please show me where the Constitution has been changed to allow Federal funding of public education?
@Matt Bernius:
Exactly, and there is no mention of funding public education in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment limits the Federal government to the enumerated powers in Section 8.
I would ask if you have ever read Article 1 Section 8, but have never met anybody on the left who has.
@Greg:
Please show me where the Constitution has changed to allow computers in the Post Office.
You’re so silly. Do you do kids birthday parties?
@Greg:
God, are you really using this ridiculous, vulgar literalist argument? Do we need to get into the entire list of things that we have in our modern world that the Founders would never have dreamed of but are also critical to the day-to-day security (broadly defined) and smooth functioning of our nation?
BTW, you also miss the all important “catch-all” clause that complete section 8 and provided the founders and subsequent governments with a whole lot of wiggle room:
Note that, less than a decade after ratification, starting with *Federalist* Hamilton, the Necessary and Proper Clause, was used to justify actions that were not explicitly spelled out within the Constitution. So history (not to mention Founding Fathers) is completely against your argument.
@Greg:
He didn’t even submit the original draft to the Convention–that was done by Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson.
There’s actually no definitive historical record that establishes Madison as “the man who actually wrote the US Constitution.” As I said above, if anyone could be said to have “written” it, it was Morris. And even he was responsible only for the literary form; the ideas and principles enshrined within the Constitution were the product of long debate and agreement (mostly) of the members of the Convention as a whole.
@Greg:
Instead of cherry picking just the parts that support your (flawed) argument you might also read:
Section 8, Clause 3…referred to as the Commerce Clause
section 8, clause 18…referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause
@Matt Bernius:
Completely irrelevant, what we have or don’t have has nothing to do with what the Constitution authorizes or doesn’t.
@Matt Bernius:
Yes, to make the laws that are necessary to carryout the enumerated powers, not expand the list of enumerated powers.
@C. Clavin:
Commerce clause does not authorize Federal GOVERNMENT funding of education, it authorizes government to write laws regulatting commerce.
Necessary and Proper Clause – to make the laws that are necessary to carryout the enumerated powers, not expand the list of enumerated powers.
@Matt Bernius:
And this
From somebody who just minutes before said this:
@Greg:
Completely relevant because the Federal reaction to these things forms the legal precedent for saying that the Constitution – and in particular the Necessary and Proper Clause — provides the government with the ability to deal with these issues (though they are not explicitly enumerated within the Constitution).
This has been the case since at least McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Marshall’s decision which notes among other things that:
Marshall noted:
This has become the foundation of the interpretation of the clause for nearly 200 years – created by an institution established by the Constitution, utilizing the powers granted it by the Constitution to interpret. Your argument needs to factor that in. As far as I can tell, you just stick your fingers in your ears and go “MADISON” rather than acknowledge that, like it or not, this is the standing interpretation of the Constitution and is not going to change.
@Greg:
Right, and again, the words of the constitution are:
The words of the Constitution and precedent also *establish* the power of Judicial Review.
Judicial review found that the Necessary and Power clause could be interpreted as granting the powers to fund Education.
That’s what I mean by not superseding the words of the Constitution. What you hate is that there is not a single vulgar literalist interpretation of the Constitution. Rather that interpretation has to take place in a complex legal ecosystem that is shaped by *all* the words of the Constitution, not to mention all of the laws and precedent that have flowed out of those original words.
@Matt Bernius:
Nope, the Necessary and Proper Clause give the government to write laws needed to carry out the enumerated powers.
You are attempting to use the clause to EXPAND the list of powers.
Exactly, the MEANS by which the powers are carried out.
You want to use it to ADD to the list of powers.
@Matt Bernius:
There again, you want to grant the government more powers, powers not included in the US Constitution.
@Greg:
I’m not. The Marshall court did in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and of course Marberry vs. Madison (1803). And history clearly demonstrates that *their* interpretation is the accepted one.
Again, you can bitch and whine and pretend that this isn’t the case as much as you like on Internet forums. But 200 years of history say you are wrong.
There’s nothing else to say.
I suggest moving to Colonial Williamsburg (so you can pretend that the last 200 years didn’t happen).
@Matt Bernius:
He did not claim that the Necessary and Proper clause gave the government permission to add to the powers listed in the Constitution but that it gave the government the authority as to the means to achieve a power listed in the Constitution.
Funding public education, or welfare, or health care, or retirement… is not a means to achieve any of the powers enumerated.
@Matt Bernius:
They those decision did not grant the government the power to add to the list of powers, they only authorized the MEANS to achieve an enumerated power.
Public funding of education is the power, not the means to achieve a power, and such power is not enumerated in the Constitution.
I know if there’s one thing I can’t see a need for it’s Pell Grants. Who do those common people think they are, trying to get an education and better themselves. It’s going to be the ruin of our nation.
/snark
@David M:
At no time have I ever spoken out against public funding of education.
Not that I’m some constitutional lawyer or anything, but can’t Congress “fund” whatever it wants under clause 1 of section 8?
@Steve V:
Greg says no…Congress can only fund what he wants to fund and over 200 years of history is irrelevant.
@Steve V:
It can only fund that which is listed in Article 1 Section 8.
@C. Clavin:
Wrong again, Congress is only Constitutionally authorized to fund that which is listed in Article 1 Section 8.
@Greg:
Who says? James Madison? Is everyone who disagrees unreasonable? Keep in mind, the clause says Congress may levy taxes etc. “to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Again, I’m no constitutional scholar but it seems to me that if the drafters of the Constitution wanted to limit the spending power to something other than “the common defence and general welfare of the United States” they could’ve chosen better language. Btw, where is the Louisiana Purchase authorized in Section 8?
@Steve V:
Or Mail Delivery Trucks?
@steve,
Clause 1 of Section 8 enumerates the power to lay and collect taxes.
“pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” is the PURPOSE of the power, not the power itself.
@C. Clavin:
The POWER is “To establish Post Offices and post Roads;”
“make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to carryout the POWER enumerated above.
Quote to me the POWER from the Constitution to which funding public education is the means to achieve.
@Steve V:
If Congress can spend on ANYTHING it wants to “promote the general welfare” then the power of the government is limitless, and there would be no need for an enumerating of the powers.
The people of the states ratified the Constitution based on the explanations of the day provided in the Federalist Papers which clearly established that the powers to promote the general welfare are limited to ONLY those powers enumerated in Section 8.
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
–Thomas Jefferson
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. ”
– – James Madison
@Greg: You espouse the Madisonian view, but that view is not shared by the U. S. Supreme Court, which wrote in U. S. v. Butler (1936):
In other words, SCOTUS has long ago ruled that the Hamiltonian view applies, and Congress may fund things not specifically named in Article 1, Section 8.
This is the political ideology to which I adhere:
“The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.” – Thomas Jefferson
For government to aid one person it must harm another,
this contradicts all 3 founding principles,
– it is treating the person it is helping as superior to the person it is harming,
– it is trampling on the rights of the person it is harming
– it is expanding the role of government beyond its only purpose, to protect individual rights.
@Mikey:
You mean when the Supreme Court stopped obeying the Constitution under FDR’s bullying.
@Greg: Whether the Court was responding in some way to “FDR’s bullying” or not–and I should note that in the relevant section of Butler, they referred to the opinion of Justice Joseph Story, nominated to the Court by none other than James Madison himself–the fact is their opinion stands as settled law to this day.
You can rail on endlessly about what you think the Constitution says about this, but the body named as the ultimate arbiters of Constitutional interpretation by the Constitution itself disagrees with you.
@Greg:
So you think the contrary interpretation is “disobeying the constitution”? Don’t you think that’s just a little strong? I mean, I’m still wondering why Madison (or whoever really drafted Article I) didn’t just say what you say it means instead of the language they ultimately used. The language used is really broad.
And while I’m not going to go through the exercise now, I imagine someone out there has compiled a list of various programs created under a broad interpretation of the taxing and spending clause and that a great many people, possibly even yourself, think they are perfectly sensible and good programs.
I can see why conservatives are up in arms about the commerce clause, although I think they dismiss the other side of the argument too easily. But opposition to the settled interpretation of the general welfare clause just escapes me.
@Greg:
No, you’re only trying to eliminate all federal spending on public education, and specifically want to use that money to pay for a tax cut for the 1%. Why would anyone think you want to cut public funding of education.