Revised Deportation Policy Focuses On Violent Criminals, National Security Threats
Under new policies, deportation efforts will be concentrated on people who pose a threat to society. It's a sensible policy, so of course it's being denounced.
Yesterday the Obama Administration announced changes to deportation policies for illegal immigrants that actually make sense, which of course means that they’re being denounced vociferously by opponents of any concessions on immigration:
The Obama administration announced Thursday that it would suspend deportation proceedings against many illegal immigrants who pose no threat to national security or public safety.
The new policy is expected to help thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as young children, graduated from high school and want to go on to college or serve in the armed forces.
White House and immigration officials said they would exercise “prosecutorial discretion” to focus enforcement efforts on cases involving criminals and people who have flagrantly violated immigration laws.
Under the new policy, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, can provide relief, on a case-by-case basis, to young people who are in the country illegally but pose no threat to national security or to the public safety.
(…)
Under the new policy, the government will review 300,000 cases of people in deportation proceedings to identify those who might qualify for relief and those who should be expelled as soon as possible.
White House officials said the new policy could help illegal immigrants with family members in the United States. The White House is interpreting “family” to include partners of lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
Richard Socarides, a New York lawyer who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues, said, “The new policy will end, at least for now, the deportations of gay people legally married to their same-sex American citizen partners, and it may extend to other people in same-sex partnerships.”
J. Kevin Appleby, director of migration policy at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the initiative would keep immigrant families together. “It is consistent with the teaching of the church that human rights should be respected, regardless of an immigrant’s legal status,” he said.
Cecilia Muñoz, a White House official who helped develop the new policy, said officials would suspend deportation proceedings in low-priority cases that, for example, involve “military veterans and the spouses of active-duty military personnel.”
Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell, said the new policy could also benefit “illegal immigrants who were stopped for traffic violations and thrown into deportation proceedings, as well as people whose only violation of immigration law is that they stayed beyond the expiration of their visas or worked here illegally.” Ms. Napolitano said her agency and the Justice Department would do the case-by-case review of all people in deportation proceedings.
Critics of any kind of immigration reform are, quite obviously, not happy with the administration, which they are essentially, and incorrectly, calling it a form of amnesty:
The top House Republican on the Judiciary Committee said the move is part of a White House plan “to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.”
“The Obama administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The Obama administration should not pick and choose which laws to enforce. Administration officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”
In the blogosphere, Daniel Horowitz, Tina Korbe, and Rodney Graves all essentially accuse the Obama Administration of the same thing, refusing to obey the law and defying the will of Congress. I’ll let Horowitz speak for the group:
This unprecedented abdication on the part of the president begs the question – what sort of message does this convey to our youth regarding the inviolability of the rule of law?
What other laws will this president refuse to execute faithfully? Will he direct the EPA to enforce cap and trade, or instruct the DOI to block the issuance of drilling permits? Oh, he is already doing that.
And, most importantly, if the president is above the law, then why should any of us be compelled to adhere to laws that we regard as undesirable or unfair? If Obama can refuse to enforce his core constitutional duties, why can’t we disregard his individual insurance mandate – a law that is an anathema to the constitution?
(…)
Not only has this president refused to uphold our immigration laws; he has thwarted the states and law enforcement agencies from doing so. He has taken the unprecedented step of siding with foreign nations and suing two of our states for upholding the laws that he refuses to recognize. This is the most profound and dangerous form of extremism in our government today, as it undermines the very core of our political system.
What Horowitz and the other critics fail to recognize, though, is that the Administration is merely exercising the broad discretion that immigration law gives to the Executive Branch when it comes to enforcement decisions. As it stands now, the law gives Immigration Judges, and ultimately the head of the Department of Homeland Security for whom the work, significant discretion in deportation proceedings, especially when the person involved has lived in the United States continuously for a long period of time and has no criminal record. (A fairly good summary of the process can be found here.) Given the tremendous backlog in immigration deportation cases, a backlog that continues to grow year-by-year as Congress continues to refuse to provide sufficient funding to the Immigration Court system, it seems to me to make eminent sense to concentrate resources on cases that deal with people who have a criminal record, who have continually flouted immigration laws, or who may pose a threat to national secutrity.
As The Cato Institute’s Daniel Griswold points out, this is a decision that should be viewed favorably by the Tea Party crowd, if they were consistent in their small-government rhetoric:
Tea Partiers, of all people, should understand this concept: The federal government’s resources are limited and should be focused on its core duties of administering justice and protecting basic rights. In that light, the Obama administration made a sensible decision this week to concentrate on deporting illegal immigrants who threaten the health and safety of Americans.
At the latest count, there are still 11 million people living in the United States without government authorization. The government would be incapable of deporting them all, and even if it could, it would cause tens of billions of dollars in damage to the American economy, as Cato research has demonstrated. Even the 300,000 illegal immigrants currently being processed through the deportation pipeline are clogging the system and drawing resources away from more important business.
Viewed in the light of this evidence, the Administration’s policy change seems like a step in the right direction. It’s better to concentrate on the immigrants who would actually harm us rather than the guy who just wants to come here to make a better life for himself. In the end, though, it’s only a temporary band-aid. We need comprehensive immigration reform that includes increased border protection, a guest worker visa program, and, yes, a path to legal status for people who are currently here illegally, have made lives for themselves, and are contributing to their community. Given the current views on immigration inside the Republican Party typified by the reaction to this rather moderate policy change, though, it seems unlikely that we’ll be able to come up with an kind of consensus on that issue any time soon.
It’s rational, do-able and humane. So, as you say, poison to the GOP.
“Guest-worker” is just a euphemism for disposable underclass, isn’t it?
Also, it would lead to issues involving the citizenship of children of “guest workers”, and we have plenty of unemployment already, and declining wages, without a new underclass coming in and driving down wages.
If the administration is going to pick and choose, here are some other guidelines:
must be able to speak English
must have a job or be in the military or have a degree
no criminal record or illegal drug use
must be supporting self and family (no govt. assistance)
Yep–it’s a policy that makes sense, allows for the deportation of violent illegal aliens who pose an actual threat to the country, and enables Immigration Judges to move through their massive backload of cases. Of course Republicans oppose it.
The calculus is simple. Obama is for it, therefore it is bad. The end.
But Doug, that is so “un-american”.
PS: in case you missed it, this is a dig at all the people who think that just because they were born here, they are entitled to all the privileges of being an American without actually contributing to…. you know, America? (yeah I know, the Declaration says we have “inalienable rights” and they are enshrined in our Constitution, BUT….. They are alienable. Just try exercising freedom of speech in Syria. Go for it. I guarantee you will be “alienated”(is that a word?)
Nothing is more American then immigrating here.
This was part and parcel of the DREAM Act, which was defeated in Congress.
Which means, naturally, that Obama is free to enact it by fiat anyway.
My opposition to this policy is to echo what I’ve been told every time the issue of improving border security and cracking down on illegal immigration in general: “it should be part of a comprehensive immigration reform.” Oh, and the quaint notion that Congress makes laws, not the president.
J.
@Gustopher: Yes, the disposable underclass aspect of it was why the GOP was in favor of immigration reform while they were in power. The lack of ability to profit directly from further wage degradation is why they are opposed to it now.
It’s just the current phase of the dance.
So, according to Jay Tea we should focus our resources not on criminal illegals, but on guys like this:
Chacon is an illegal. But why go after a murderer when you can go after a hero and destroy this man’s family by deporting him?
You missed your calling, Jay: East Germany could have used you standing atop the Berlin wall with a rifle. Rules are rules, no matter how inhumane. Right?
@Jay Tea:
Jay, a small point. Congress makes the laws, the president enforces them. If the congress enacts really stupid laws, what is the president to do??? Veto them? Good luck with this gutless crop of Dems.
This is not a quaint notion. It is constitutional
@michael reynolds: The precise term escapes me, but there’s a term for a law passed by Congress that directly targets one individual (and no, I don’t mean Bill Of Attainder). In this case, I’d cheerfully support a “hero exception” and give Mr. Chacon citizenship.
And if that sets a precedent, all the better. Doing a service like this is the sort of thing we should encourage, and people like Mr. Chacon — who was going through the process and got frustrated with the incredibly cumbersome bureaucracy that we need to streamline — are the type we should welcome.
J.
@OzarkHillbilly: Just to make it clear, Ozark: that was sarcasm. Hence the italics.
J.
Immigration has been poorly handled by both parties, IMO. And, currently, both parties are playing tug of war with the Hispanic community, as it has become such a huge block of votes that both the GOP and the dems are vying for. However, in the middle of the partisan bickering you have illegal families caught in the middle, their lives put in limbo while politicians quibble over a system that is broken.
Therefore, I don’t have problems with some of Obama’s ideas, in weeding out the 300,000 illegal’s awaiting deportation. However, what I do find reprehensible is how transparent this new tactic is, as part and parcel of Obama’s desperation to get reelected.
For instance, the DREAM Act wasn’t brought up until the lame duck session, where it was packed in with tax cuts, DADT, and budgetary matters, giving little opportunity for an honest, worthwhile debate before it failed. And, now this leniency for illegals suddenly appears after the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda gave Obama a “C” this August for “overpromising and underdelivering” what he had campaigned on during the “08 campaign.
So, this latest rendition of the DREAM Act being tossed out to Hispanics is pandering, pure and simple political pandering to an important minority constituency, in order to maintain their confidence in him and hopefully vote for him in 2012. In the meantime, what we really need, which was mentioned earlier, is a comprehensive immigration reform package addressing the border, e-verify, and some kind of legitimate worker program. I also agree with racehorse in saying:
The last one, about being self-supporting with no government assistance, is a must, IMO.
A personal anecdote: my husband and I have been sponsoring a father and his adult son for the last 10 years in their legal quest for citizenship. The ineptness, though, of the system, in processing their applications, is mind-boggling. The government lost their papers once, rejected them on a technicality the 2nd time, and now we are awaiting the DOL in deciding their fate, on this 3rd round. It has been an unnecessary grueling process due to the multitude of flaws and delays inherent in dealing with cooperative, productive people who want to legally become citizens. This revised deportation policy is only the tip of the iceberg. And, in the long run, because this president has once again gone about making unilateral decisions, it will only create a rougher bipartisan road ahead for a credible CIR to get done.
@Jay Tea:
Very comforting to you, no doubt, to imagine an easy escape from the human misery you shrug at so blithely.
It’s just a pity you couldn’t have dragged Mr. Chacon across the border the day before he saved that girl’s life. Right? Because then he’d have just been another illegal and you could have destroyed his life without having to face the damage you propose to do to innocent people.
The announced policy is now that unless you are a criminal, the INS is going to leave you alone. Given that welcome mat, what’s to stop every foreign college student in this country from overstaying their student visa? What is to stop any foreign national that comes to the United States on vacation to just never go home?
Hell, at this point, why bother even having an immigration policy? Lets just let every Tom, Dick and Harry that can manage to sneak in or overstays their legal visit to join us in the American experience. All we have to do is wait for them to break the law and get caught before we can possibly send them home. Your public schools overcrowded? Too bad. Your wait in the Emergency Room seem to take forever? Too bad. Your state taxes go up due to the increase in Medicaid rolls? Suck it up. Your kids place at a college given to an illegal instead? Tell your kid to learn how to say “would you like fries with that”.
I am a huge believer in legal immigration. We have a very wealthy friend in Tiawan that has family in the United States and owns a number of businesses here. She’s been on an immigration waiting list for over ten years now. Try telling her that it’s fair that she continues to wait while those that skip the line can stay with no ramifications. Our immigration policy is completely f’d up.
There’s a large part of this issue which in the vitrol over this announcement is being overlooked.
When the federal government decides not to prosecute people who are in the country illegally it penalizes all those who would like to immigrate, those who are patiently waiting, many for years, who are paying the hundreds of dollars and jumping through an extraordinarily difficult and unforgiving process to get here.
Such moves also show successful immigrants that they shouldn’t have bothered with any of the burdens it took to legally gain entrance to America. That they should have just walked across the Mexican border.
Many people yell “racism” when such a policy is challenged, some in posts here and I quite agree. However I strongly believe it is racist to say that if you’re one of the illegal, not undocumented folks here, who are overwhelmingly Hispanic, then by nature of your race you can skip over all of the Africans, Asians and so forth because your race gets a pass.
As a legal immigrant to this country I just have to shake my head in disappointment and disgust that once again my new home is showing that there is two different rules of law which predominantly depend upon whether you could join La Raza or not.
Do we need a comprehensive solution to the immigration issue, including a path to legality for all of our illegal aliens, yes certainly, but by passing congress for simply re-election purpose with an executive order that mirrors the “DREAM Act” almost word for word surely isn’t the right way. And by taking no measures to seal the border to illegal immigration you’re only showing you don’t want to stop it.
And please don’t flog the very dead horse that all this is the GOPs fault. The president came to power with a Democrat controlled congress and didn’t get anything done. Now the executive order arrives within days of showing his standing with the Hispanic community is cratering.
That certainly can’t help gain any by in – but perhaps that’s the point.
True. When the GOP decides to grow up and move back to the real world maybe we’ll be able to fix that. But right now they need to gin up some phony excitement by beating up on one or more minorities. So we won’t get anything done.
Perhaps you’ve noticed this little thing called a filibuster?
And when Mr. Obama came into office he was rather occupied with other things like the giant black hole of a failing economy handed to him by the most recent Republican president. Sorry we couldn’t quite get to a major immigration overhaul because we were too busy mopping up your party’s mess.
Illegal immigration is a nuisance, it is not a crisis. Actual Republican disasters first — manufactured Republican race-baiting paranoias later.
Didn’t certain conservatives commentators use to yell out “deport the criminals first!”?
@Timothy Watson: Didn’t certain conservatives commentators use to yell out “deport the criminals first!”?
“First” implies more to follow. And last time I checked, our immigration laws were… um… laws, and there’s a term for people who break laws… what was it again? It’s right on the tip of my tongue…
J.
Liberals: I don’t agree with the law, therefore it is OK to illegally change it by executive fiat. But only if I your a Democrat executive. If you even have discussions about changing existing law this way – and you’re a Republican – then, naturally, you’re a criminal and evil incarnate.
Not the proper way to approach changing any standing law – since the executive branch is acting illegally by doing so – but just want once again to point out the rank hypocrisy that rules the liberal psyche. And yes, Mataconis, et. tu.
@avidus:
Today, it’s more like thousands of dollars…..
@A voice from another precinct:
The Republicans were not in favor of open borders and unlimited immigration. Only the Bush clan and the La Raza Republicans have been in favor of open borders and unlimited immigraiton. Most Republicans oppose the idea of open borders and unlimited immigraiton. Most Republicans are smart enough to realize that open borders and unlimited immigraiton will lead to their political, cultural, and economic extinction. Just look at California to see what happens when open borders and unlimited immigration occur.
It is the Democrats who have deicded to replace middle class whites with third world immigration in order to increase their political power (once again, look at California) and who want to put an end to the idea of middle class whites in the U.S.
@jan
There is no vying for the Hispanic voters. Democrats know that will get more than 75% of all Hispanic voters and more than 90% of recent mexican immigrant votes. That is why the Democrats want to replace middle class whites with poor third world immigraiton. The automaitic Democratic votes are too hard for Democrats to pass up no matter how many hardships it causes for everyone else. That is why the Congressional black Caucus even supports open borders and unlimited immigration even though it lead to increased unemployment for blacks. :
@michael reynolds:
The real world for all conservatives is that Hispanic are very liberal and support liberal politicians. Any Republican who support open borders and unlimited immigration is just supporting his own political extinction and the extinction of any conservative party in the U.S.
Look at the one-party-state of California to see what happen when Republicans support open borders and unlimited immigration. Look at why whites are moving out of California to see what the future of conservatives would be if they support open borders and unlimited immigration.
The smart Republicans know that they only way to limit the size, scope, and spending of the government is to limit immigration.
Let’s see. Everybody gets to pick 3 laws that they don’t have to abide by. Obama gets to skip over government codes that forbid ‘aiding and abetting’, ‘inducing’, and harboring; and I get to get to skip over the law that says that I have to pay income tax, drive with a license and not punch my neighbor every time he cuts off the top of my backyard bushes
@michael reynolds: I finally figured out the most concise way to respond to your citation of Mr. Chacon:
Mr. Chacon is an exceptional human being. But we don’t make laws for exceptional circumstances, but the majority of circumstances. Then, when necessary, we make exceptions for the exceptional cases.
J.
@Jay Tea:
Jay go back and reread your original post. No italics. I added the italics to emphasize a point. Your post had no sarcasm intended or implied. Try again. Maybe this time you can come up with a better story.
@Moderate Mom:
If they’re not here to commit crimes, why should I care? Why should I prefer one person to another just because they happen to be born on different sides of an invisible line?
Indeed, if I have to choose, I honestly prefer the immigrants. Someone who is wiling to leave behind everything they’ve known to come here has bought into our society. Meanwhile the anti-immigration types are people who want to sit around demanding their divine right of stagnation.
To all those screaming about how Obama is ignoring the law: Stop and write a letter to your Congress person and request them to raise your taxes with the proceeds going to immigration enforcement.
Not going to do that? I didn’t think so
How about this: Write your congress critter and ask them to allocate enuf money so that what you propose is possible.
Nahhhhhh, that would let Obama off the hook.
THIS way we get to b*ch about Obama not enforcing the law all the while he does what any sane person would in this situation: Attempt to allocate very limited resources in the most efficient manner possible.
So, here’s a story about someone I know.
He came to America while stowing away on a boat, a “wetback” in the literal sense. He was actually almost caught, but managed to shake the cop. He somehow – despite speaking no English – made it from Philadelphia to New England. From there, he worked as a dishwasher in a restaurant. Then a cook. He then went to Canada with his girlfriend (illegally in his case) and came back. He eventually bought a restaurant. He now owns two, employs 50 people, and one of his sons owns a business himself.
If my father had come over here today, instead of in the 70s, he’d have been deported. Instead, he was able to get his green card well into the 80s (I believe a decade after coming to America; he never worked legally in Canada), and is now a fully legal, naturalized American who holds dual American/Greek citizenship. (I hold dual American/Canadian citizenship myself).
The fact that the GOP insist on deporting men like this nowadays is a major reason why I cannot support them.
A lot of you need to take a breath. The administration is not CHANGING or MAKING any laws; all it’s doing is retailoring its deportation POLICY. Unlike straight criminal and statutory law, immigration law allows moderate latitude to immigration judges. The ones who are immediately effected by this are the 300k+ who’s cases will be reviewed. Calm down.
On another note, since Americans aren’t bearing enough children to sustain the future labor force and, therefore, provide tax dollars to SS/Medicare/Medicaid, then smart implementation of a smart immigration policy is necessary. Think outside your own little worlds, why don’t you.
@OzarkHillbilly: You’re correct, I didn’t put the italics in there. But come on — I didn’t lay it on as thick as I could have, but the sarcasm should have been apparent.
As for your second comment about demanding my taxes be raised to cover immigration enforcement: screw that. Enforcing laws is one of the legitimate roles of government. Telling me that if I want them to do their jobs I need to pay them more money is extortion. I don’t offer the cops more money to give a little extra attention to who vandalized my car, I’m not offering bribes to bureaucrats to do their jobs.
J. (Earlier version used a stronger form of “screw,” and got hung up in moderation.)
@superdestroyer:
No. Wrong.
Hispanics are cultural conservatives. Always have been. And they would be at very least splitting their vote if not for the fact that the GOP is a party that kowtows to bigots. People like you forced them out of the GOP. That’s why they have grown to become a reliable Democrat voting bloc, just like African-Americans and gays and Jews.
The efforts of the GOP to get and keep people like you are a game of diminishing returns. There are fewer and fewer of you relative to the population.
@Jay Tea:
Very good, Jay, it only took you 24 hours to come up with a rationale the Nazis batted around some 70 odd years ago. “Maybe we could just let the really smart Jews live.”
But wait! It’s even older than that. Frederick Douglass met much the same line of reasoning. “Well, sure, Douglass is intelligent but he’s an exception!”
It’s a very conservative way of thinking. Hate, hate, hate . . . oh wait, we kind of like Sammy Davis Jr. . . . Hate, hate, hate . . . Liberace is okay, he’s just flamboyant . . . Hate, hate, hate . . . Wait this Chacon guy is a hero!
@dennis:
That’ll be “whose.” I hate when I show my ignorance . . .
@michael reynolds: Yeah, michael. Returning people to their nation of origin and citizenship after a lengthy appeal process is JUST like turning six million people into air pollution because you don’t like them. Tell me again how you’re a professional writer, when you spout drivel like that.
And, Godwin much?
As far as your slavery metaphor — your side is a lot closer to the slavemasters than mine. It’s your allies that wants to keep the brown people working under the table, for substandard wages, without the protection of labor laws, and too afraid to report how they’re being exploited.
Tell me, michael — do you always get this hysterical over issues, or is it just me that makes you completely lose your fragile grip on reality?
J.
@michael reynolds: I’ve been down this road many many times with SD. It doesn’t matter how many polls you link proving that Hispanics are generally conservative he’ll just completely ignore you and continue to rant against basically all non whites..
@Jay Tea:
Wow Jay, I “demanded” your taxes be raised? How ever did I do that? Shame on me, thinking that you might actually be willing to pay for what you get. Silly me, I forgot, you are a Repblican.
@OzarkHillbilly: OK, ambiguous phrasing: your saying that I should demand my taxes be raised.
Assuming that there are actual costs saved by this backdoor DREAM Act, Ozark, then where is that money going? To use your lingo, I’ve been paying for that enforcement for years now. Now you wanna say that it’s gonna cost me more?
That whole “I should demand my taxes be raised” argument has to be one of the dumbest I’ve ever encountered.
OK, that’s hyperbole. That’s one of the dumbest arguments this side of everything WR has ever said I’ve ever encountered.
J.
@Jay Tea:
You’re one of the people always telling us how the minimum wage is destroying the economy. So which is it? Is the minimum wage crippling the economy, or is it the only thing protecting us from substandard wages?
@Stormy Dragon: “Level playing ground,” Stormy. Legal employees have to be paid $7.25 an hour, or more in certain states with their own minimum wage law. Illegal employees can be paid what the market will bear.
And that negotiations are seriously imbalanced, because the unscrupulous employer can always threaten to just turn the workers in to the government. “So, Jose, you wanna take these four bucks an hour, or do I make a phone call?”
I’ve always been in favor of a “comprehensive immigration reform” — eased restrictions on immigration and migrant workers, streamlined naturalization process, and almost draconian punishments for those who deliberately break the laws. Reward those who follow the rules and policies and show respect for us and our laws, punish those who try to “cut in line” ahead of the ones doing it right.
Doing it piecemeal, though? Going for the easing and amnesty, with promises of tougher enforcement later? Sorry, I don’t do that kind of trust. Been burned too many times in the past.
J.
@Jay Tea:
Oh, so you’re just jealous you can’t also be “working under the table, for substandard wages, without the protection of labor laws”.
@Jay Tea:
I’ve always been in favor of a “comprehensive lemon stand reform” — eased restrictions on lemonade and children, streamlined licensing process, and almost draconian punishments for those who deliberately break the laws. Reward those who follow the rules and policies and show respect for us and our laws, punish those who try to “cut in line” ahead of the ones doing it right.
@Jay Tea:
Here’s MIchael’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law:
Slavery, the Holocaust, and a hundred other exemplars I might cite if I had more confidence in your historical knowledge, have this in common: a refusal to treat people unlike oneself as humans.
You want to drag mothers away from their children. That’s what deportation comes down to in many, many cases. You propose to break up families, to traumatize American-born children, to force those children to choose between following their mother or father back into poverty, or staying as orphans in the country of their birth and citizenship.
You wouldn’t tolerate that for second if it was your white neighbors in New Hampshire. But because we’re talking about Mexicans you can dissociate. You can see them as less than human, less than you.
Now, why do you propose destroying families? Is it to end some terrible suffering? Is there some crisis and this is the only possible solution? No. There’s no crisis. And doing this solves nothing. In fact even you aren’t stupid enough to believe we’re going to deport 11 million illegals.
So you propose, Jay, that we randomly destroy families in order to demonstrate fealty to the law. Just for that reason. Just to show that we love the law.
And that is what puts you in the same moral bracket as slaveowners and Nazis. A willingness to suspend morality and be cruel, and destroy . . . so long as it’s the “other” that suffers.
@michael reynolds:
It’s also yet another demonstration of how full of it the Tea Party movement is. They’re only worried about powerful government when THEY’RE the person being inconvenienced. If the heavy hammer of the State is falling on someone else, they turn into a bunch of collectivist badgelickers.
@michael reynolds: Oh, take your “RAAAAACIST!!!!111!Eleventy” hysteria and shove it up your ass. I found your “Nazi” surprising, as you usually go for the “racist” first, but it’s nice to see your stupid is branching out.
But if you wanna go all ethnic here, lemme give you a bit of wisdom from MY Nordic heritage:
Once you pay the Dane-Geld, you never get rid of the Dane!
The arguments of these parents boils down to this: “Please save our family from this terrible predicament that we and we alone engineered!”
It’s emotional blackmail, and you seem just the kind of sucker they’re looking for.
I don’t do blackmail. I know, from history and personal experience, that complying with blackmail never works. And that’s what your argument is.
I, personally, had nothing to do with the predicament these folks find themselves in. Neither did the United States — unless you buy into the “attractive nuisance” theory that says the US, simply by being so awesome that we draw people here with the intent of catching them in our immigration policy. No, the sole responsibility for their predicament is their own, who either knew or should have known the consequences of violating our immigration laws.
So, how does that affect the kids? They didn’t choose to come here, so why punish them? OK, fine. They can stay. But then we’re “breaking up families,” so we better let the parents who chose to create this dilemma stay, too. Sure, what the hell, let’s let the price they pay for deliberately breaking our laws and jumping to the head of the line before legal immigrants be giving them exactly what they wanted. That’ll do wonders to discourage more parents from bringing their families here illegally.
I don’t quite understand why you wear your soft-headedness as a badge of honor, michael, but if that’s how you roll…
J.
@Jay Tea:
Gee, it seems like only moments ago you were calling me hysterical.
So it’s all pour encourager les autres. We have to break up families so that other families will understand that we are cruel enough to break up families.
And why beyond that?
No reason beyond that. We have to use the heavy hand of government to destroy families, including American citizens, so that we demonstrate our willingness to behave like savages.
Thank you for that self-revelation, Jay. I’ve always known you were a little fascist.
Next week, let’s go to New Hampshire and start arresting everyone who failed to register for the draft. Because it is the law, and yeah, they aren’t really hurting anyone, but we have to destroy some families to demonstrate our willingness to destroy families for the law.
Incidentally, did you register for the draft? Up to a quarter million fine and 5 years in the joint.
@michael reynolds:
I suggest you look up some analysis on Hispanics in the U.S. There is nothing socially Conservativeative about them and they are economically very liberal. http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-on-myth-of-hispanic-social.html
The message of taxing Gringos at a very high rate and giving the money to Hispanics is a much more powerful message than the individualism, future time orientation, and delay of gratification that should represent modern conservative thought.
What conservatives should realize is that is probably too late to fix the problems caused by previous open borders, La Raza Republicans and that the U.S. will soon be a one-party-state like the current state of California.
@matt:
Matt,
When almost 100% of non-Cuban Hispanic elected leaders are Democrats and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is very liberal must mean nothing to you. There is no poll that shows that any Hispanic politician even Cubans are the least bit fiscally conservative or motivated by any conserative issues. Hispanics do not attend church any more than whites, have a higher divorce rate than whites, drop out of school more than whites, committee crimes at a higher rate than whites, and have a lower future time orientation than the average whites.
If you want to quote any poll, I will look at it but see the post above that shows that Hispanics are just not conseravtive. Then look at the web site of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that is all about rent seeking and ethnic goodies.
@michael reynolds: Registered the day I turned 18, michael.
And I have to say I admire your consistency. I argue for either following the law or changing it, not just ignoring it, and I get a colossal FU. And the people who are following the law, trying to go through the immigration process, and they get the same FU from you — those dumb shits need to go to the back of the line, behind the line cutters — because the line cutters have families! We’ve gotta do it it for the children!
I like Dam Ba’s thought above — OK, we just pretend the immigration laws don’t really mean anything, because michael’s a soft-hearted and soft-headed git. What other laws can we just ignore because we don’t like them?
michael, your side had a chance to bring about the DREAM Act, when the Democrats held both Houses and the presidency — and even then you failed. I understand you can’t do anything about being a loser, but you don’t have to be a sore loser.
J.
Because those aren’t the only choices. There is what Obama just did: prioritize in a rational, humane way.
“The law says I gotta take you in, Anne Frank, if you don’t like it, change the law.”
You create a false dichotomy in order to reach an inhumane, big government, fascistic conclusion. One could chalk it up to lack of imagination except for the fact that this thread is about the Obama policy which just showed we don’t have to make that choice.
Do you jump in to say, “Hmm, good idea, Mr. President, I guess that makes sense?” Of course not. You jump in to argue that we need to send armed men into private homes to drag mothers away from their children so that we can show how important the law is.
That is the thinking of an ideologue. And you do not apply it equally, you apply it to “the other.” Which makes it the thinking of a fascist.
If this were cops busting down doors all across Manchester, New Hampshire demanding people show proof of draft registration and arresting the dads who couldn’t, you’d be screaming your head off. But it’s okay so long as it’s Mexicans.
michael, go see a therapist to resolve your white guilt issues. ‘Cuz you ain’t doing yourself any good trying to work them out here.
News flash: Nazi Germany fell over 60 years ago. I understand that you might be a bit behind the news in Cloud Cuckoo Land, but it’s over. Really.
And I take it by your non-answer that you don’t want any other laws to be covered by the “they make michael’s white guilt flare up, so we should pretend they don’t exist” rule?
Here’s a hint, michael: the legal immigrants that I stand up for and you want to piss off are, in most cases, the exact same race as the illegal line-jumpers you want to give priority to. So, can we conclude that you only like brown people when they are illegals, so you can keep them in their proper place? At least until you can help them get legal status, so then they can show The Great White Father (that’s you again) the proper gratitude?
J.
@Jay Tea:
Jay, arguing with you is like you bringing a knife to a gunfight. The whole point of my post is that we have not been paying for it for years (10 of them to be exact) That is kind of the definition of a deficit, is it not?
To rephrase, if you want tougher immigration enforcement, how about offering to pony up for it? And if you don’t want to pay more, well than why don’t you tell us exactly which things you would cut in order to pay for it, because…..
Wait for it….
Right now there ain’t enuf money! (and guess what, Congress allocates the money, not the President)
Back to your kennel, lickspittle. Ohhh, wait a minute, I think I have heard that somewhere before.
@Jay Tea:
Simple question genius: how does a Mexican crossing the Rio Grande affect — in any real way — a guy applying to immigrate legally?
Let’s cue the Jeopardy theme while Jay struggles for an answer.
Hmmm.
Answer: it has no real effect. They are two separate and discrete events.
So, summarizing, you want gun-carrying federal forces to enter private homes and drag mothers away from their American children so that . . . so that legal immigrants won’t feel cheated?
Try again. I’ll wait.
@michael reynolds: If you’re referring to the Elian Gonzalez case, that was done by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno — not exactly heroes of mine.
And what effect does it have? It tells the legal immigrants that they were saps, for playing by the rules — while those who flouted them get preferential treatment.
It should NEVER be more advantageous to break the law than follow it.
J.
@OzarkHillbilly: Still waiting Jay.
@OzarkHillbilly: Sorry, was busy laughing at michael’s hysteria and picking up my brown shirt (it goes well with the white hood) at the cleaner’s.
Ozark, I gave up on following your point. It sounds too much like the inanely stupid “chickenhawk” argument here, and about half a step up from the “if you care so much about the border, go there and defend it yourself” stupidity.
We got laws. There have been attempts to change them. Sometimes they’ve succeeded (1964, 1985), sometimes they’ve failed (2009). I think that the ones we have right now are flawed, but tolerable. I want them enforced. I dunno how you spun that into how I should then demand/request that my taxes be raised, and quite frankly don’t care — it’s stupid and specious and utterly irrelevant. We have ICE, we have Border Patrol, we have a court system. Obama apparently thinks “Executive Privilege” means he gets to choose which laws apply and when — he’s of a same mind on firearms and firearms smuggling laws (“Fast And Furious”) and the War Powers Resolution (Libyan
UnWarKinetic Military Action). I don’t like that, and intend on saying it when I feel like it.So, if that doesn’t answer your question, oh well. Feel free to hold your breath waiting. I have to get back to my copy of that classic novel, Comes A Pasty-Faced Austrian With A Stupid Mustache.
J.
@Jay Tea:
Elian Gonzalez? Why would I be talking about that?
Oh, I see: the patented Jay Tea subject change.
Let’s see, I’ve been exposed as a little jerk without much to say, so let’s talk about . . . Bill Clinton! Yeah, that’ll work!
As usual: you have nothing. A conversation that goes beyond talking points reduces you to flailing and incoherence. A rational person who so regularly makes an ass of himself and gets schooled by me, Anjin, mattb, john personna, Ben, Ozark, Stormy . . . well the list goes on and on . . . might think, Gee, I don’t really know much, maybe rather than mouthing off like the 13 year-old at the adult’s table, I should go away and come back when I learn something.
But of course: not you. With you it’s always double down on dumb.
@michael reynolds: OK, I see where I made a wee bit of an error…
So, summarizing, you want gun-carrying federal forces to enter private homes and drag mothers away from their American children so that . . . so that legal immigrants won’t feel cheated?
Here’s a little lesson for you, michael (no charge): if the child is an American citizen, most likely by benefit of having been born here, then the parents are allowed to stay. Look up the term “anchor baby.”
You see, I overestimated you. Subconsciously, I recognized your mistake and focused on the “gun-carrying federal forces to enter private home and drag away… children,” and immediately thought of the most famous example. Surely you remember the iconic photo?
Oh, and I’m flailing and incoherent? Chum, you’re the one who’s gone woggo, going back to name-calling.
In case you haven’t noticed, michael, the era of when liberals can win arguments by simply calling their opponents “racists” or “Nazis” is pretty much over. Whenever you end up sputtering out your tired accusations, I don’t feel the need to slink away in shame or lurch into defensiveness, I find it entertaining.
Thanks for the latest rounds of laughs. You helped me put the “win” in “Godwin.”
J.
Oh for chrissake. It’s not that difficult to understand and has been spelled out repeatedly: there are a lot of laws and a lot of law-breaking. There are neither enough resources to enforce all of them perfectly and equally nor would that be sensible or even desirable.
A simple example: there are laws against bank-robbery and laws against speeding. Now we try to catch most bank robbers but do not even attempt to catch everyone speeding. On speeding we “make do” with a persecution rate that de-incentives speeding. We might even re-allocate personnel from a speeding ticket to catch a bank robber. Gosh!
This has been going on for centuries without anyone getting their panties in a twist that the local police force is violating their oaths of office (to “uphold the law”). The fact that this is normal and necessary doesn’t suddenly change just because the topic is immigration. The administration does not “choose to apply” or to “ignore” laws. It does it’s bloody job – making decisions about excutive priorities when there are limited resources. And they are even sensible decisions this time.
And this is where the tax thing comes from: if you want all immigrants persecuted equally you will have to (at least) quintuple the immigration court system and seriously increase the size of the police force (pensions and all). This would also neccessitate significantly higher taxes. Just crying “I should not have to” will not change this simple fact.
@Ebenezer Arvigenius:
Not even that; our “enforcement” of speed limits is in most cases based on maximizing the revenue from speeding fines, which means efforts are generally limited to levels just below that needed for actual deterence.
@Ebenezer Arvigenius: All resources are limited, Ebenezer. And you’re right, it’s about priorities. My priorities do not include taking an illegal alien who’s been discovered after arrest for some other offense and letting them loose, often with a work visa.
That’s how it works, by the way — we’re not talking about michael’s fantasized jackbooted thugs breaking down doors and demanding “PAPERS, PLEASE!” of any and all brown people. We’re talking about people busted for something else and then having their immigration status discovered as part of the normal process.
Here’s an example of “prioritizing:” Massachusetts has rules requiring drivers to register and insure their vehicles, and get them regularly inspected. Getting caught driving an unregistered, uninsured, uninspected vehicle in the Bay State is a serious matter — unless you’re an illegal alien. The cops have learned, through experience, that that means a hell of a lot more paperwork for no real result, so they usually just give them a citation and send them on their way. Americans and legal immigrants? They usually have their car impounded and face serious penalties.
If you are caught in an unregistered/uninspected/uninsured vehicle there, claim to be an illegal alien. If it works, you’ll be better off. And if it doesn’t, you really haven’t lost much.
And note that the illegal alien here was breaking the law, by driving an unregistered/uninsured/uninspected vehicle. The defense is often “they needed to get to work, and they couldn’t legally register/insure/inspect the car.” Which means they’re also working illegally.
J.
@jan: Now Jan’s playing the Jay Tea game, but she’s actually improving on it. After all, Jay never got past “I approve of what Obama is doing, but the way he’s doing it proves that he’s a vile incompetent.” Jan’s moved on to “I approve of what Obama is doing and the way he’s doing it, but the reason he’s doing it proves that he’s a vile incompetent.”
For the Jan’s of the world, it’s not enough that their political leaders enact the policies they favor. They’ve also got to think the right thoughts while they do it — and only Jan can say what they’re actually thinking.”
I wonder what it’s like to live a life without the capacity to feel shame….
@Jay Tea: Hey Jay — Quick, name one labor law you support strengthening. Not a “kick the brown people out” law, but one that protects workers from unscrupulous employers. Name one union you support. Name one way in which you have ever tried to improve the lot of working people.
Right. That’s why no one takes you seriously. Because you scream about how liberals don’t want to protect workers while you’re cheering on the Scott Walkers and John Kasichs of the world as they attempt to remove all protections. Because you claim to care about workers while demanding that OSHA and other workplace regulations be repealed.
In short, because you will say anything if you think it helps your case, and it doesn’t matter if it contradicts everything you believe.
What a pity other Republicans are so much better at this than you are. If they were all as transparent, the only two parties in this country would be the Democrats and a real liberal party.
@Jay Tea: Here’s a little hint: If you act like a racist and talk like a racist, putting a couple of extra words in the word racist doesn’t convince people that you are not a racist. The fact that you’ve been called a racist so many times that it’s lost its sting to that tiny thing you call a conscience just means that you are an obviousl racist.
Saying you don’t care won’t change anyone’s mind.
@Jay Tea: The term “anchor baby” that you want us to look up is a racist phrase that means an American citizen whose skin color you don’t like, even though he or she is your equal under the constitution.
And, no, the fact that the child is a citizen absolutely does not allow the parent to stay in the country. Where did you learn this gibberish? Even the hooting gibbons on Fox won’t make this claim, since it is so patently absurd.
It is truly astonishing how little you actually know about anything. You lecture us on your wisdom about immigration, and you don’t have a single clue about the most basic elements of government policy — or the law.
You heard some racist phrase on talk radio and invented an entire mythology around it, and now argue based on your fantasy that the parents of a US citizen can’t be deported even if they’re here illegally, thus MR is making stuff up.
Why don’t you go away and learn something. Anything would be fine. Then you can come back and demonstrate your new knowledge. I promise we’ll all be impressed.
@WR: Dang, noticed after the editing sessions had lapsed — that’s a couple extra A’s in racist, not words.
@Jay Tea:
“Massachusetts has rules requiring drivers to register and insure their vehicles, and get them regularly inspected. Getting caught driving an unregistered, uninsured, uninspected vehicle in the Bay State is a serious matter — unless you’re an illegal alien”
Uh, how do they do that, the uninsured? Because in Mass, you cannot get plates without proof of insurance (or that’s how is was when I lived there).
@sam: You can’t get plates LEGALLY. Just how do they to it? I dunno, but at least once a week a Boston talk show host does a segment reading a list of people busted for at least two of the three offenses.
Here’s a recent court report where two such cases were heard on the same day:
http://www.newburyportnews.com/local/x1475591681/DISTRICT-COURT
J.
@WR: Ah, here comes brave WR, always on the battlefield so he can try to bayonet the wounded. Typically, he lets others do all the hard work, then tries to jump on the blandwagon and claim to be on the winning side.
Taking your comments of substance (which they almost have) at once:
A labor law I support? Expansion of “right to work” laws. No worker should be compelled to belong to a union. Also, limits on the political activities of unions with members’ dues without the worker’s consent. I would increase the power of the worker to refuse to submit to a collective.
Racist: feh. I categorically reject it. Feh again. I understand you don’t like plain, honest language, but I ain’t lapsing into PC euphemisms just to not bruise your tender sensibilities. And where’s the lecture about how the term “illegal alien” is hate speech? You missed that one.
“Anchor baby:” A term that some view as derogatory, but has the advantage of being concise and descriptive of a specific phenomenon. If you don’t like it, then don’t use it. And while such children don’t guarantee special treatment for the parents, they do greatly increase the parents’ chances should they be caught — witness michael’s cries of “breaking up families.”
I repeat my earlier challenge: if you don’t like the current immigration laws, work to get them changed. If you can get enough to agree with you, then congrats! You win! Until then, the laws are what they are.
The rest of your comments? Back to your kennel, lickspittle.
J.
@Jay Tea:
Let me guess. Jay Severin?
@Jay Tea:
Would you also favor limits on the political activities of corporations without a shareholder’s consent?
Just as no worker should be denied from forming/joining a union…
You’re still doging the issue. If you want them departed, you will have to allocate resources. If those resources could instead be allocated to deport a dangerous criminal instead of someone driving without insurance, you (as an administration) have screwed up as far as governing is concerned.
So, to recap:
a) The cry of “violation of oaths” is bogus as your own comment admits.
b) Resources are limited (as you admit).
So either you are ready to pony up for more resources or you think that college students and harmless gardeners should be deported instead of criminals or you admit that the administrations handling of the matter makes sense in this case. There are simply no other logical alternatives that I could see here.
@sam: Severin’s an asshole. Barely tolerated him, and he wore out that welcome. I was referring to Howie Carr. He’s also the go-to guy for Kennedy dirt that you won’t get anywhere else, and is the world-class expert on Whitey Bulger and the Boston mobs.
J.
@An Interested Party: Absolutely. But whether or not the union gets to represent the workers depends on a majority of those workers doing so… and in a secret ballot, not this un-democratic “card check” BS.
J.
@Ebenezer Arvigenius: Well, those college students are getting worthless degrees, as they can’t legally work in the US anyway. And those gardeners are taking jobs that could be filled by Americans or legal immigrants, and also likely working under the table for substandard pay, meaning they’re driving down wages across the board.
Slots in colleges are an even more finite resource. Why should an illegal alien get one over a legal alien, or an American? Especially one that can’t immediately go to work after graduation and start paying taxes?
J.
@sam: Oh, and just to jump the gun on anyone… yes, Howie punctuates each story he reads with a car horn playing “La Cucaracha.” And often adds, sarcastically, that “there is no word on his/her immigration status.”
J.
@Jay Tea:
That’s a big point in your favor, dude. (Poor Severin. Had delusions one time of being the next Limbaugh — other than the fact that Rush is a couple of orders of magnitude funnier and smarter…). Hadn’t thought of Howie. I can’t recall if he had a show when I was there, column, yeah. But even then you could see Howie knew his demographic…
But how about my Sunday, August 21, 2011 at 16:38 question in response to your remark on union members and the activities of unions?
Aaaaand another dodge. Is that, in your opinion, more relevat than deporting real criminals? If yes, why? If no, what are you complaining about?
@sam: I’m a little distracted, sam… things are getting very interesting over in Libya. Lemme go look back at that comment….
Oh, the corporate thing. Last time I checked, corporations can’t give money directly to candidates. And shareholders already have a way putting checks on the political activities of directors.
Unions, though… even in states where members can demand an exception from dues used for political purposes, that rarely happens. And unions, unlike corporations, are almost 100% aligned with one specific party. So if you’re, say, a Republican teacher, you end up subsidizing the Democratic party directly, with your money, whether you want to or not.
Hey, do shareholders pay dues to corporations? Are they required to be shareholders as a condition of employment? If so, then we got a real good parallel going on.
On somthing truly important, though, one of my liberal commenters at Wizbang – who’s usually a pain in the ass – said that with K-Daffy’s fall, we’ll soon see a horde of European carpetbaggers descending with briefcases of cash to lock in new oil deals with the rebels. Sad to say, I think he’s more right than not. And that’s a first for him.
J.
@Ebenezer Arvigenius: Hell, your bringing up the gardeners and college students was the dodge. You just don’t like that I had answers ready for them.
J.
Dream on mate.
@sam:
Sure you can plates without proof of insurance. Most of them are only held on with two screws.
@Jay Tea: “Right to work” law as pro-labor. That’s brilliant, and shows clearly your intellectual capablility. If they called slavery the “right to lifelong position” law, no doubt you’d claim that was pro-worker, too.
As for “anchor baby,” it’s reducing a citizen of the USA to the level of inanimate object because you don’t like their skin color. And now you admit that maybe a child who’s a citizen doesn’t allow an undocumented worker to stay here? Umm, that’s exactly the opposite of the idiot statement you made before. When you are wrong, just say you’re wrong. Don’t try to claim you mistook all the facts but were essentially right. You were wrong.
And now you’re wounded. Poor little Jay Tea — run out in public screaming racist shibboleths, and then get your litte feelings hurt when we don’t all rally around to say how wonderful you are for your hate and bigoty.
@Stormy Dragon: Plus, MA only requires a rear plate. Find a car with two plates, help yourself to the front one and presto.
J.
@WR: “Right to work” is bad for unions — to the benefit of individuals and their right to choose. Why are you so afraid of workers being able to choose whether or not to join a union?
I bet it’s because the unions are solid, reliable supporters of the Democrats, while those stupid workers simply don’t know what’s best for them and need to be told what to do and who to support. That about right? You can’t trust the workers to do the “right” thing?
J.
@Jay Tea: Actually right-to-work is a form of theft, taking advantage of the efforts of unions without paying for it. Just one more way people try to get something for nothing, and we see how well that’s working out.
@Jay Tea: No, it has to do with the assymetrical power between the individual worker and the corporation. Normally I’d blast you for being a moron for saying something this stupid, but it’s clear you, who have no idea what it means to work for a dollar, simply are clueless here. It’s not your fault you’re living off your parents, or off what they left you. It’s not your fault that you can only parrot what Rush and Sean tell you about the workplace, since you’ve never had to participate in it.
I’m actually beginning to feel sorry for you. You are so sure you know how the world works, and it’s like you’ve never actually had to leave your bedroom, where you can look up stats on warships on your computer all day long without actually ever seeing the ocean.
You simply have no idea how real people live. So you let Rush tell you that OSHA is a conspiracty to steal power for Democrats, and you’ll accept it, because you’ve never had a job where it’s set up to cripple anyone who will take it on for five dollars an hour — because there’s always someone desperate enough to take his place.
You simply understand nothing. And I guess that’s okay, except that you seem to think you’re some kind of savant.
Go get a job, Jay. Work a full week. Not wanking at the computer, but actually working. And not for some wingnut rich uncle who will give you a couple of bucks for repeating the company line.
Actually work. Go pluck chickens. Serve food. Clean up.
Then come back and tell us all how evil unions are.
You’re the Squire of Gothos here, a tiny little child pretending to be a man. Go grow up, get some experience, and then share it with us.
If you can pick lettuce for a month and still hate unions, I will respect you forever. But inheriting daddy’s money doesn’t make you a day laborer, and sucking up to rich people doesn’t tell you anything about anything.
@WR:
The problem is that the unions have themselves become big corporations. Getting squished between two brawling corporations rarely ends up helping the worker.
@WR: Typical plantation mentality. Once the union gets a toehold, it owns the workers’ asses — today’s, and tomorrow’s, until the end of time. Don’t want to join the union? Don’t bother applying for certain jobs.
I almost benefited greatly from one union. In the recent Verizon strike, union sabotage and vandalism got so bad, Verizon was offering a $50,000 reward for catching the vandals. I was going to stake out some Verizon sites, but the union caved before I could do it.
Notice that you gotta go back decades or more to cite the good things union do, while I gotta go back a week to find examples of the harm they do? That ain’t coincidence, moron. They’ve outlived their usefulness, by and far, and now are destructive forces.
I dunno how Rush and his views on OSHA came up. You obviously spend more time listening to him than I do. I burned out on him about 20 years ago. I only know he’s still on the air by listening to liberals whine about him, so he must be doing something right.
Oh, and not that it’s any of your business, but I’ve spent 13.5 years working for a Fortune 100 company, without benefit of union membership, and that last part has been a huge relief to me. Perhaps it’s you that needs to spend a little time getting acquainted with reality.
Back to your kennel, lickspittle.
J.
@Stormy Dragon: That might be true — if you’re living in 1967. This myth of the monolithic power of the unions continues (spread by corporate interests looking to destroy the labor movement) despite the fact that unions are a fragment of what they once were thanks to a 30 year scorched earth campaign against them.
@Jay Tea: That you consider almost thinking about trying to do something that might have brought you a reward if you were successful as “almost benefiting greatly” says more about you than all the words you’ve ever typed here.
“Boy, if I had actually left my house and started on my master plan, which I’m almost through thinking about how to conceptualize, I know I would have made it big!”
I’m sure that’s true of the rest of your life as well.
@Jay Tea: By the way, “plantation mentality” seems to be your answer for just about everything. I understand how you mean it when you claim blacks stick with Democrats because they’re too stupid to think for themselves, and thus vote for the party that despises them — it’s your typical racist blather that we all know and love. But how does it possibly relate here? If anything, plantation mentality would belong to those who fear a union because they’re sure that if they suck up to the boss sufficiently they’ll be rewarded.
Which, now that I mention it, seems to be your entire political philosophy.
@WR: No, you clod, the victims of “plantation mentality” are you and your ilk, who seem to think you own whole swaths of people for past “services rendered.”
I support the right of people to freely associate — or not. You are the ones who push mandatory associations on people, through closed shops, card check, racially gerrymandered Congressional districts, quotas, and the like. You see people as masses of a single identity, and demand that they live down to your stereotypes.
Too bad a lot of them don’t agree. Sucks to be you.
Get used to it… back in your kennel, lickspittle.
J.
At this point, I’m retiring from this discussion. It’s long outlived its value to me. And when WR attempts to pile on, you know it’s jumped the shark.
J.