• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Judge halts Obama's Executive Order on Immigration

PhDeac said:
What do you mean "tone deafness?"
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but he is completely oblivious to the concerns of the states on the matter. His policies result in border states getting flooded (and eventually other states too), which is a drain on their resources. Arizona tried to do something about it, and the administration-- in spite of much bellyaching and BS about racial profiling that they actively perpetuated-- hid behind the cloak of preemption when it went to court (and won on the merits of that argument). So now the admin is saying, essentially, that the Feds have all legal authority when it comes to immigration enforcement, but they're not going to enforce shit, leaving the states powerless to do anything but litigate the issue to death.

This is a very serious issue with long term consequences when it comes to the relationship between the states and the federal government, and it is not being treated with the seriousness it deserves because the President would rather do his petulant little kid act that he does so well.
 
I'm not sure how being "deaf" to one "tone" makes him "tone deaf." There are other tones out there he is considering.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
He's counting votes.
Click to expand...

you realize he's got no more votes to garner, right? seems to me he's listening to the Americans who overwhelmingly elected him, twice. I'd say that's listening to the tone of the majority even if you disagree.
 
deacphan said:
you realize he's got no more votes to garner, right? seems to me he's listening to the Americans who overwhelmingly elected him, twice. I'd say that's listening to the tone of the majority even if you disagree.
Click to expand...

6a00d8341c730253ef01b8d0c53b80970c-800wi
 
deacphan said:
you realize he's got no more votes to garner, right? seems to me he's listening to the Americans who overwhelmingly elected him, twice. I'd say that's listening to the tone of the majority even if you disagree.
Click to expand...

I'd love to write a book called The Audacity of Dopes about how the right has acted with regard to a President who won his two elections in such decisive fashion. They seem to demand a lot from him even though they didn't vote for him. I'd feature classics like:

"We didn't vote for him, but the fact that he won means racism is over, so suck it."

"We didn't vote for him, compromise is off the table, and we want him to fail, but he won't work with us."

"We didn't vote for him, but if he listens to the majority who supported him and he doesn't listen to us, he's tone deaf."
 
deacphan said:
you realize he's got no more votes to garner, right? seems to me he's listening to the Americans who overwhelmingly elected him, twice. I'd say that's listening to the tone of the majority even if you disagree.
Click to expand...

And do you honestly think that because he is a lame duck that he has no interest in securing a long term voting majority for his party? You do that by alienating a voting bloc against the opposing party and/or legalizing said bloc into voters or eventual voters.

And he wasn't elected because of his immigration policy.
 
PhDeac said:
I'd love to write a book called The Audacity of Dopes about how the right has acted with regard to a President who won his two elections in such decisive fashion. They seem to demand a lot from him even though they didn't vote for him. I'd feature classics like:

"We didn't vote for him, but the fact that he won means racism is over, so suck it."

"We didn't vote for him, compromise is off the table, and we want him to fail, but he won't work with us."

"We didn't vote for him, but if he listens to the majority who supported him and he doesn't listen to us, he's tone deaf."
Click to expand...

Yes, let's excuse poor behavior on one side by pointing out poor behavior on the other.
 
You completely misunderstood my post.
 
Most scholars agree that immigration is a net economic positive for America. That includes the extremely right-wing CATO institute. http://www.cato.org/research/immigration

I mention this because I am curious what "overwhelming burdens" immigration places on the states. Seems to me that much of that alleged "burden" is self imposed. If Joe Arpaio doesn't take it on himself to bust illegals because he doesn't think they belong here, Arizona (or wherever that idiot is located) doesn't have to house them in its jails.

Someone will probably say "but DRUG SMUGGLERS!!1!" to which my response is that is not an immigration problem, it's a problem with our insane war on drugs, without which there would be no market for illegal drugs, no criminal gangs to supply that market, and no prohibition-related violence.
 
Cato is libertarian, not "extremely right wing."

There is a difference between immigration and unfettered immigration. What we have no is more of the unfettered variety. When you do an amnesty every 10-15 years, you might as well not have any immigration system at all. It has nothing to do with Sheriff Joe and this isn't 1890 and Ellis Island.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah seriously. Its coincidental that this popped up when it did on here. Just came from a TA meeting with a 2L going over an outline for the admin final she has next week
Click to expand...

Its a pretty clever argument and appears to have caught the Admin w/ their pants down. Will be a fascinating thing if Admin just continues down the path and totally ignores this argument. Con law & Admin law class just got a helluva lot more interesting.
 
The idea that we currently have "unfettered immigration" is laughable.

Again, what horrible burdens are the states bearing?
 
Deacon923 said:
The idea that we currently have "unfettered immigration" is laughable.

Again, what horrible burdens are the states bearing?
Click to expand...

If you pass an amnesty every 10-15 years, the effect of that is having no immigration policy at all. You forgive all immigration sins and encourage more illegal immigration because everybody knows all will be forgiven in another 10-15 years. This has been our immigration policy since the first Reagan amnesty in '86, through Clinton's 245(i) amnesty from 94-01, and up to now.

Read the decision about the states bearing burdens. It tends to focus on only one, because it only has to recognize a single burden, but has some examples in there of how the federal government's decisions in immigration matters result in federal mandates at the state level. Something as simple as issuing driver's licenses, for example. I'll leave it to you to exercise common sense and figure out how, even potentially, the influx of a bunch of third world immigrants might be burdensome to state and local governments.
 
it is true that Cato is libertarian and shares my view on the drug war. that's why i have their site bookmarked and read their stuff pretty frequently. they are also very anti-Obama and historically tied to the Koch brothers, and I have found that their work during the last few years has tended to skew toward right wing partisan point scoring and away from some of the other libertarian groups, like Reason.

But I digress from my original quest, which was to discover the overwhelming burdens being placed on the states by immigration. So far I have learned that they must issue drivers' licenses (the horror). I have also learned that we currently have an unfettered immigration policy, but have been invited just use my common sense to consider what might happen if there was an influx of third world citizens. If we have an unfettered immigration policy, why is it that we don't already have an influx of third world citizens?

So, notwithstanding my newfound knowledge regarding the burden of issuing drivers licenses to immigrants, I am still searching for any burden on the states that is not overcome by the very substantial economic benefit brought by immigrants, or that could in any way be described as "overwhelming".
 
Regardless of your view on amnesty, you don't think there is a burden put on police departments, fire departments, schools, hospitals, etc. by immigration?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top