Kevin Graham wrote:... Ronald Reagan gave millions amnesty because it would secure Republican votes.
Bush, too.
This is a 10-page document that describes their actions and legality in doing so. I don't expect anyone to read (I just skimmed it), but it was linked from politicfact which I trust.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Kevin Graham wrote:So you basically just lied about what they did, as EA just showed, but according to your logic Ronald Reagan gave millions amnesty because it would secure Republican votes.
I'm not following. As I understand it Reagan's amnesty is part of what pushed California further into the blue. Having a clause that prevents them from voting for some period of time, delaying the impact a few election cycles, hardly changes anything. Yes, both republicans and democrats are hypocrites on the issue. The republicans have many times tried to turn the hispanic community into republicans by pandering on this issue. All of them are hypocrites. They run on strong immigration positions, but then don't follow through because to do so would come at a political cost. It's one thing to talk, it's another thing to actually enforce the law and get your hands dirty with things like deportations.
This is a 10-page document that describes their actions and legality in doing so. I don't expect anyone to read (I just skimmed it), but it was linked from politicfact which I trust.
Water Dog wrote:Do we have the stomach to deal with it the way it needs to be dealt with?
Are you recommending we give the green light to US militia groups such as the Eagle Forum, the Racoon Club of Biloxi, Mississippi, and the Chik-Fil-A Sandwich Lovers Association?
Kevin Graham wrote:... Ronald Reagan gave millions amnesty because it would secure Republican votes.
Bush, too.
This is a 10-page document that describes their actions and legality in doing so. I don't expect anyone to read (I just skimmed it), but it was linked from politicfact which I trust.
I read it. I thought it was a good survey of how past president's exercised authority with respect to enforcing immigration laws. What it didn't really do was discuss the legality. It would be interesting to read an analysis of how the president's constitutional pardon power applies in the immigration context. Why couldn't the president grant a blanket pardon to all folks in the country illegally? Otherwise, there's always a tension over the extent to which the president has any discretion in enforcing the law (in contrast to acting contrary to law). i think that's a pretty longstanding clash between the legislative and executive branches.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
moksha wrote:Are you recommending we give the green light to US militia groups such as the Eagle Forum, the Racoon Club of Biloxi, Mississippi, and the Chik-Fil-A Sandwich Lovers Association?
Why do y'all say stuff like this? Again, geez, where is the honesty? If you're going to have a law, you have to enforce the damn thing. Or else what's the point? Arbitrary enforcement undermines the whole thing.
Ironically the significant increase in Latin population in the US has coincided with Latin voting remaining stagnant.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
canpakes wrote:Doc, it’s not surprising that immigration activists help with organizing groups to do just this. It’s also not surprising that if they have a political alliance it wouldn’t be to Republicans. But this doesn’t equate to ‘Democrats are organizing the Honduran caravan’. That description alludes to a much more involved and far-reaching alliance within this country’s political sphere to do this. Seeing as it may not be politically advantageous for Democrats in general to face this issue anyway, the conspiratorial qualities of that claim are lacking.
ROFL.
"Democrats aren't doing it."
"Uh, yeah they are, see, look, those are democrats."
"Well, well, it's not actually their fault, republicans made them do it, so it's actually not democrats doing it."
Democrats, like women (I repeat myself), are never at fault. For anything.
"it's not my fault I cheated on you. it's because you didn't tell me how beautiful I am. if you had constantly showered me with false praise that I'm not actually deserving of I wouldn't have done it, therefore, it's actually your fault."
You seem to prefer to use the comparative example outlined by EA. So we’ll run with that.
1. The Democrats organize immigrant caravans. 2. The Republicans organize Nazi and white nationalist rallies.
Heck, even at that, I can see which activity is preferable.
As for the rest of your post ... you appear to be having some ‘girl trouble’. I can’t help you with that. Good luck.
Res Ipsa wrote: I read it. I thought it was a good survey of how past president's exercised authority with respect to enforcing immigration laws. What it didn't really do was discuss the legality. It would be interesting to read an analysis of how the president's constitutional pardon power applies in the immigration context. Why couldn't the president grant a blanket pardon to all folks in the country illegally? Otherwise, there's always a tension over the extent to which the president has any discretion in enforcing the law (in contrast to acting contrary to law). i think that's a pretty longstanding clash between the legislative and executive branches.
One of the weird things is that the Constitution gives the federal government no explicit authority to regulate immigration. It's not an enumerated power. It just allows control over the naturalization process. This was as originally intended. Immigration was a free-for-all and was treated that way. If you're an originalist, which many conservatives purport to be, where's the federal authority to regulate immigration coming from?